HR 1214: Dual Officeholding Amendment (Failed)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

This bill is the devil and should be burned with fire.

That can be arranged.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

1. One mistake which I failed to account for in the Senate was that the Amendment should also include leadership positions on legislative chambers (Speaker, PPT, etc), otherwise it would cause a major problem. I can draft an amendment for that if no one wishes to propose one.

I don't believe such positions are traditionally considered offices (at least they aren't in the US, where the Constitution explicitly forbids dual officeholding of any kind).

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

On this, I must concur with the president: the constitutional sanction of pluralism was introduced in response to the Crisis of 2015, when it became clear that a strict adherence to monistic officeholding was crippling the republic by forcing the game to 'drain one pool to fill another.' Had this provision not been in place, we would have lost Peebs' services either as Registrar General or as Secretary of Federal Elections from the start, not to mention several of the most capable to serve in the cabinet proper since its ratification. Prohibiting cabinet officers from serving in Congress or in regional governments would be a historic mistake; in that unhappy event, it would be preferable to simply abolish the cabinet altogether than to allow it to resume the horrid half-life it endured before the Fourth Constitution.

I challenge the supporters of this bill to submit an actual instance when this republic has been demonstrably weakened by the pluralist policy. Has the Southern Chamber of Delegates suffered from Mr. Reactionary's service with the State Department? Did Fremont endure the doldrums of inactivity whilst I was serving jointly as their prime minister and as Attorney General? Is Congress now in shackles because the deputy speaker resides at the Census Bureau? Regular elections and the dismissive power of the executive are more than sufficient safeguards against any theoretical "conflict of interest" that might occur—and while I cannot speak for the senator, I have more faith in our courts and in the honor and good judgement of our officeholders than to consider it necessary to amend the Constitution for fear that some avaricious cabinet officer will try and set themselves up as dictator.

We cannot conjure up activity by creating more vacant offices—that strategy has been employed ad nauseam in the past, with disastrous results. The president and Senator Cinyc are absolutely right to observe that forcing active and qualified citizens from office hurts the game, and to do so now—when we are so starved for active candidates that the second-largest party has no sitting representatives in the House—would be incredibly foolish.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Nobody has actually justified their position. You should have a proper debate first about this. Especially since the Senate passed it unanimously. If it is such a bad bill it will be rejected in due course, and if not then the opposite outcome will occur.

Both I and Yankee have offered lengthy explanations for why this should not be passed (yes, I am aware that I am not an elected representative).

[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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

What does "clearly allowed" mean? Does the mere absence of any constitutional prohibition qualify as allowance, or is it necessary for the constitution to specifically prescribe a legislative role to the head of government and/or allow for dual officeholding?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

What does "clearly allowed" mean? Does the mere absence of any constitutional prohibition qualify as allowance, or is it necessary for the constitution to specifically prescribe a legislative role to the head of government and/or allow for dual officeholding?

My interpretation should be that it doesn't necessarily have to say that the head of government has a legislative role, but must at least state something like "The [head of government] may also serve simultaneously as a member of [the regional legislature]".

Maybe "explicitly permitted" would be better phrasing?

What does that imply for Fremont's parliamentary system? The first minister is not "also" a member of the legislature, but rather is a legislator in his capacity as first minister. It would not make sense for the Fremontian constitution to state "the first minister may also serve simultaneously as a member of parliament," because being a member of parliament is inherent to the position of first minister.

Considering the apparent aim of this clause is to free the regions to allow dual officeholding within their governments if they so choose, why even include this prohibition in the amendment?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I don't understand how some of you were making such a huge fuss about the Privateering Amendment restricting us in the future but you don't think that this could restrict gameplay enormously in certain emergencies and very low activity times.

It can be suspended by Congress under the current version of the bill.

Why should Congress be the body that decides when it is appropriate for someone to hold more than one office, as opposed to the voters?