Congressional Discussion Thread

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I have a question on the Dual officeholding amendment. This is the text:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Would this apply only to federal offices (it says under this constitution i.e. federal) or cover also regional offices (in regional constitutions)?
I'm asking if regions will be allowed to have dual officeholding for example, assemblyperson and Lt. Governor, Governor and election administrator, assemblyperson and Speaker.
[/quote]
The amendment reads, "under this Constitution," so presumably it does not apply to those elected to an office or offices created by the regions. At least, that is how I interpret it.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Wasn't there a congress special session held on mibbit one time? I want to see how the votes were reported back on the boards. Maybe the log was posted. How can I find the bill(s) in question ? Were special rules adopted for this to be done. 

It was in December 2016, right after Christmas I think.


The best one to ask would be Peebs, who was the only sitting member of the House who was present at that time. Also Truman might have been present also.

3rd Congress Noticeboard (contains rest of the member list)
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=254309.0

I was indeed present; and yes, if I remember correctly, the Speaker at the time (NeverAgain) suspended the rules to allow debate and votes to happen in real time on Mibbit.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

It's also worth noting that the Dual Officeholding Amendment would bar regional officials from serving in the Cabinet if Lumine's interpretation is correct (which, for the record, I don't think it is – that the federal Constitution acknowledges the existence of regional offices does not constitute those offices being established federally).

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Trouble in Fremontian paradise,  General "I have suppressed the centralist element"?

The communists and the civil libertarians are confederating in opposition to regional rights. Fortunately, THE PEOPLE are on my side! I will respond with aggressive Jeffersonian measures.

The downfall of professing to be a regionalist is that it is kind of like professing to be a libertarian. Their is a presumption of absolutism involved and then you fall into a trap whenever there is some instance where absolute regions uber alles necessarily has to fall by the wayside. It is why I told you when you harped on being a "true regionalist" against "federalism" that true regionalism would degenerate quickly into secessionism when taken to its extreme ends.

Ultimately there are some areas where some form of compromise are unavoidable, but fortunately, I'm a man who doesn't have to explain the contradictions because unlike "regionalism", "federalism" doesn't create such a trap inducing complication. What it does do is ask the question not unlike that of WW2 era "Is this trip really worth it", "Is this centralism necessary here?" with the end goal of achieving a healthy balance.

I have no idea how any of this is relevant.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Trouble in Fremontian paradise,  General "I have suppressed the centralist element"?

The communists and the civil libertarians are confederating in opposition to regional rights. Fortunately, THE PEOPLE are on my side! I will respond with aggressive Jeffersonian measures.

The downfall of professing to be a regionalist is that it is kind of like professing to be a libertarian. Their is a presumption of absolutism involved and then you fall into a trap whenever there is some instance where absolute regions uber alles necessarily has to fall by the wayside. It is why I told you when you harped on being a "true regionalist" against "federalism" that true regionalism would degenerate quickly into secessionism when taken to its extreme ends.

Ultimately there are some areas where some form of compromise are unavoidable, but fortunately, I'm a man who doesn't have to explain the contradictions because unlike "regionalism", "federalism" doesn't create such a trap inducing complication. What it does do is ask the question not unlike that of WW2 era "Is this trip really worth it", "Is this centralism necessary here?" with the end goal of achieving a healthy balance.

I have no idea how any of this is relevant.

Its relevant because her argument against you is that you are using regionalism as an escape hatch from Freedom of Speech. You disagree with this obviously, but matter of when does regionalism stand and when it does not is very relevant for a prominent figure who just so recently made a huge point of professing himself to be a "true adherent of regionalism".

Well, yes, obviously. And if it really were a free speech issue, legislation authorizing the regions to regulate tobacco marketing would be inoperable, since legislation cannot override the constitution. I do not believe any of this is inconsistent with my public position on regionalism.

Do the true adherents of regionalism support regions deciding their abortion laws, and will they put their money where their mouth is?

I have supported regionalizing abortion since 2015, which is why I have not sued you, you might have noticed.