HR 1214: Dual Officeholding Amendment (Failed)

[Sirius_]

Something like this maybe?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Sestak]

If we do that, then add Vice President, remove grandfather clause (no longer necessary), and add a Congressional power to suspend this like I mentioned on the last page. Then I'll be willing to support it.

[RFayette]

If we do that, then add Vice President, remove grandfather clause (no longer necessary), and add a Congressional power to suspend this like I mentioned on the last page. Then I'll be willing to support it.

Agreed.  The limitation of the offices covered by this restriction was a big sticking point for me; now that this is removed, I am comfortable supporting the legislation.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

Something like this maybe?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
Amended the amendment Ninja made for those requests. I think Sestak's idea about congress suspending the rules for a time in case of major inactivity is good.

[Sirius_]

If RC doesn't reply to the amendment by the start of the next session I plan on assuming sponsorship and making it official. Objections to that?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

If we must have this amendment, I ask Congress to kindly not meddle in the affairs of the regions by forbidding their chief executives from serving also as regional legislators; such would place Fremont's parliamentary system on tenuous ground, especially as nothing in the Constitution defines what is meant by "regional legislator." If the voters of a region want to elect their governor to the legislature, I do not see from where the Congress derives any legitimacy to tell them they may not.

The other changes are of only marginal harm, though I would encourage the House to amend the language of the proposal to be stylistically coherent with the rest of the document; something like

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Poirot]

Question from a citizen. When I first read this list

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I thought it meant a person holding one of the offices could not hold any other office in addition but it sounds too good to be true. So I think it means a person can't hold two offices in the list at the same time. If that is it, what are the differences from the current situtation.

[Sestak]

Question from a citizen. When I first read this list

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I thought it meant a person holding one of the offices could not hold any other office in addition but it sounds too good to be true. So I think it means a person can't hold two offices in the list at the same time. If that is it, what are the differences from the current situtation.

No appointing elected officials to interim terms in other elected positions.

For example, after Mr. Reactionary was elected to the Senate last month, he resigned his Delegate seat...only to be appointed back to it. This would no longer be permitted.

Also Congress now has powers to suspend ALL of these rules.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We have to start implementing this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The way I would recommend formating this is the following:

Something like this maybe?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Sirius_]

Since RC is no longer in the house I would like to assume sponsorship.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Mr. Speaker, is that good enough?

[Sirius_]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mr. Speaker, is that good enough?
[/quote]From what I understand my original amendment was never adopted so more would be needed than that.

[Sestak]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mr. Speaker, is that good enough?

From what I understand my original amendment was never adopted so more would be needed than that.
[/quote]

This includes your amendment with some modifications.

[Sirius_]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mr. Speaker, is that good enough?

From what I understand my original amendment was never adopted so more would be needed than that.

This includes your amendment with some modifications.
[/quote]Yeah, so the explanation would need to explain the reason for all of the changes, not just the VP and suspension clause.

[fhtagn]

It might be good to have it mention Governor/First Minister, since Fremont doesn't have an actual "Governor" position.

[Sirius_]

It might be good to have it mention Governor/First Minister, since Fremont doesn't have an actual "Governor" position.

There probably just needs to be a special provision about the FM since as Truman pointed out the FM blurs the line between governor and legislator.

[Leinad]

I guess we can wave away concerns about meddling with the regions with a "special provision," but what if Lincoln or the South decides they want to try some outside-the-box system?

Also:

I challenge the supporters of this bill to submit an actual instance when this republic has been demonstrably weakened by the pluralist policy

^I haven't seen anyone respond to this, unless I have missed something.

It just seems like change for change's sake, but if we really must pass this bill, it should be in Ninja's format of listing offices not held simultaneously, but with "regional legislator" not included and "Governor" replaced with "regional executive." (Fremont isn't even the only example of this--what if the South goes back to Emperor, does this not apply to them because it's technically not a "Governor?")

[NeverAgain]

I don't see the need for this at all. What is the fear here?

[Leinad]

I don't see the need for this at all. What is the fear here?

I think some people find anything that could be described as "R E F O R M" an end in itself, and see no reason for any actual need to be outlined. Whether they can't think of anything else, see it as the less controversial option, or simply get aroused by the notion is a case-by-case sort of thing, I guess.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Since RC is no longer in the house I would like to assume sponsorship.

     Representatives have 24 hours to object to Representative Ninja assuming sponsorship.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Since the question is raised, the explanation has to include all the changes that the underlying resolution will make to the Constitution if ratified by the Regions. It isn't to explain away amendments to the underlying text (which would mean nothing to a voter in the voting booth), think capital A Amendments instead of small case a amendments if that makes more sense


Basically if a voter goes into a voting booth, the explanation should explain every thing that their voting aye will cause to happen to the constitution.

The original bill to institute this "explanation" process (which I heavily altered myself) was introduced by Cinyc when he was Senator. It was a long standing complaint of his that he often would end up voting on amendments that were confusing and left many people casting uninformed votes. Since this is the constitution at stake, it is a pretty "big fing deal" to quote Joe Biden. It is also a matter of transparency.

[Sestak]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This actually is not subject to amendment. I guess it can be but the Presiding officer is still authorized to update this unilaterally along with everything else in the outer quote box. This was the case because when I first started forcing this Scott trademarked format, many people wouldn't include this portion and since there were no rules on the subject, it was often necessary to create one myself.

I was keen to ensure that the "Amendment Explanation" process, which only apply to constitutional amendments and these "objective statements" were separate entities for this reason.

The primary reason is because then entirety of the outer quote box is a matter of chamber administration.

The outer quote box designates the Chamber, the legislation type
Contains the mission statement
Contains the objective of ("be it amended/resolved) each enclosed quote box, and then of course at the bottom of the outer quote box, appears the linked vote total and certified result.

The format helps to preserve order, transparency, and make adding these to the wiki much easier especially after they bounce back and forth between chambers.

During the course of debate, amendments are directed towards the inner quote boxes, the body of the legislation.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I oppose the entirety of this amendment because of situations that could hypothetically arise, this should be enforced by the voters, not by law.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Since RC is no longer in the house I would like to assume sponsorship.

Representatives have 24 hours to object.