SB 2018-153: Dual Officeholding Amendment (Passed) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 18, 2024, 07:37:05 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SB 2018-153: Dual Officeholding Amendment (Passed) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: SB 2018-153: Dual Officeholding Amendment (Passed)  (Read 3016 times)
Anna Komnene
Siren
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,653


« on: January 18, 2018, 07:52:00 AM »

I have mixed thoughts here. I agree with Senator cinyc that any amendment would need a grandfather clause. Generally, the ideal would be to have a unique person in each role in Atlasia, but I'm not sure that it necessarily needs to be required for roles like the cabinet. The Senate does still have the power to confirm all of the nominees even if failing to confirm is pretty rare, so theoretically there's already a check against things like this if people care deeply about it. Speaking of Senate confirmation on this issue, I wonder if that makes Senators in particular unfit to serve in both the cabinet and the Senate due to conflict of interest?
Logged
Anna Komnene
Siren
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,653


« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2018, 12:46:36 AM »

I'm introducing an amendment based on the concern I raised about Senate confirmations. I'd like to know what everyone thinks. I also added the part about the Speaker and the Senate PPT because I feel that a situation where one of those offices was allowed to serve in the cabinet would be just too much.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Anna Komnene
Siren
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,653


« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2018, 12:28:42 PM »

Alternatively if this can't get the votes another bill should require members of Congress be recused from votes relating to their duties in executive offices to avoid a conflict of interest with recusals being judged by an Independent Ethics Officer.

I'd support something like that.
Logged
Anna Komnene
Siren
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,653


« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2018, 05:52:41 PM »

I'm withdrawing my amendment.

Alternatively if this can't get the votes another bill should require members of Congress be recused from votes relating to their duties in executive offices to avoid a conflict of interest with recusals being judged by an Independent Ethics Officer.

I'd support something like that.

Do you want to help draft a bill with me to accomplish that?

Sure. Maybe we could put it into the Senate rules or something.
Logged
Anna Komnene
Siren
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,653


« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2018, 09:40:20 PM »

This is still on the floor. Does anyone want to amend it or debate it further? Or should we bring it to a vote?

Anyway, I don't really support this amendment. I think it's obvious why appointing people to several offices isn't a good thing. Some combinations are more egregious than others, but the Senate confirmation process is supposed to be a safeguard against any bad appointments. So it's hard to argue that someone who was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate shouldn't be holding that office.
Logged
Anna Komnene
Siren
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,653


« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2018, 03:08:17 PM »

I motion to table this legislation.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 10 queries.