SB 2018-316: Dual Officeholding Act (Tabled)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would encourage the Senators to read my lengthy post in the House, stating my concerns.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would encourage the Senators to read my lengthy post in the House, stating my concerns.

To save y'all extra clicks:

I would only support this bill with regards to the Attorney General position. For rather obvious reasons, the position of Attorney General could be one that is subject to bias from holding multiple other offices, which is something that we need to avoid. That is why I ultimately went with Dereich, since he did not hold any other position and also has real life law experience as well as in game legal experience. You could make a case for that with the SoFE as well, but we have had that discussion before and it backfired on the basis of people administering their own elections etc.

As for separation of powers, this is a football that gets tossed back and forth. If anything, this legislation is a severe violation of my constitutional rights as Chief executive to create and eliminate the departments at will, which also should mean that I have the right as President, presuming advise and consent is present from the Senate, to appoint who I deem appropriate for the functioning of these offices.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now for the offices themselves. I will point out that I have been in this game long enough to have voted to create the office of SoIA pre-reset (That vote was in late 2009). The ability to appoint members of the then Senate (now Congress) to those positions was not present until either 2011 or 2012. It was called "semi-Presidentialism" or "semi-Parliamentarianism".  This means it was the introduction of a slight deviation from the standard operating procedure of a Presidential system, for the precise reason reason of bringing activity to positions that were inactive.

Second of all, the ability of the SoIA and SoS to serve in Congress means that that said person, can directly represent the administration, offer the administration's agenda and serve as the sponsor for such bills. That is a good thing. I am all for bringing different and diverse people to the table, but over time as the administration progresses you see what works and what don't and adjust with the priority being functionality.

Just as an affirmative note, I took extra time and went beyond my deadline to try and find a suitable person for this position. It was not my goal to "appoint the same old people", when I started out. But I created an open process, for a reason so that it would 1) be transparent and 2) I wasn't just throwing someone in a position but could tell if they truly understood or were open to understanding what the position entailed, and what my expectations were (which I posted clearly in the thread). I did ask people, I asked others about different people even delayed my appointment date to see if someone recommended to me was still interested, and only went ahead with the appointment once it was clear who that option was.

It is difficult to balance multiple values and priorities. Bringing in new people, bringing in competent people and bringing in people through an open and transparent process. I ultimately decided that if this organ of government functioned, the benefits of it for the regions, for congress, for game as a whole would generate far more benefit to new people entering the game then if I prioritized one criteria over the others. You can place a person in this position because of connections or some kind of affirmative action strategy, but that has been done for 9 years almost and most of the time this position is inactivity. Repeating that strategy likely means that this position is probably going to be abolished soon.

I made the selection that I did because 1) Fhtagn actually cared enough to apply, if they cared enough to apply that means that she is likely to care enough to be active in the position. 2) Her application indicated both an understanding of the position and/or a willingness to learn. 3) Her position in Congress was viewed as an asset under our present semi-Parliamentary system, because of the ability to go directly to congress and push for legislation based on interactions with the GM, with the regions with both etc. This is the dynamic interaction that this position most definitely needs to prove its value. I have said this both in private and public, and I said the same thing in several rounds of appointments already. I was certainly not going to either leave the position vacant because the choice presented, was also a a member of congress.

I will also point out that I appointed Razze and I appointed Ninja when they expressed interest in being Archivist.  I made Sestak my legislative affairs director and as it was functioning, it was probably one of the most consequential positions and I created it with the stroke of a pen. I am perfectly fine with appointing new people, regardless of party if they have expressed interest and have showed a reasonable indication that they will be active in the position. I appointed someone older yes for Attorney General, because 1) Independent, 2) Legal experience 3) No conflicts. Above everything, one of the most difficult jobs as President is filling positions, any former President will tell you that, most of the time you get crickets in response to application requests.

Anyway, I will not sign this legislation in its present form.

There is actually an error I just noted in the text above, instead of "who that option was", was originally supposed to say "how that option wasn't", meaning they were not interested/available.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am kind of disappointed in that we won't proceed on the matter of AG independence, but that being said it is my firm belief that this bill is a gross violation of the Constitution and ironically while nominally trying to preserve a particular interpretation of separation of powers, such interpretation of such is theoretical while the active relevant separation of powers issue being violated is codified in the Constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The manner in which the enforcement of our laws is carried out is firmly rooted with the executive branch. That gives the President the authority to create, abolish, reorganize and destroy executive departments without any input from Congress.

Beyond that the President has the unlimited authority to appoint principle offers, who take office upon advise and consent of this chamber. Therefore absent constitutional amendment, the Congress cannot usurp what is enumerated as a power of the President and the Senate alone. Thus this bill is unconstitutional.


Beyond that as I stated previous during my term as President, it is my firm belief that selection of members of Congress is beneficial to the administration of the laws. For instance having a SoIA who is also a member of the People's House (the chamber that is most typically associated with the powers of the purse like in terms of origination of tax bills in real life and funding stuff etc etc), is a benefit. Likewise, having a SoS who is a Senator can be beneficial since the Senate has to ratify treaties.

I call this Semi-Parliamentarianism, as with a Parliament all members of the cabinet are by definition in the legislative branch. Here the presence of such members gives an advantage to policy making and helps to tie Congress into a loop with the Administration and increases engagement thus. On individual basis you can make a determination and decide not to do that, hence why the President has broad latitude. The President does not have to appoint a member of Congress, he has the option to do so.

Consider also the blanket difficulty that exists in finding people to fill positions, and then consider beyond that of course the reality that we have in this game with the many inactive people who do hold office. Why should we tie our hands and say for all of time that a President cannot appoint someone who in that instance might be the best possible choice. I hope that we would not make that mistake, be it by statute or amendment.

There is wisdom in the founders and as Conservatives and especially for myself I take that to heart. We have a great constitution in many ways because it preserves a level of practical flexibility in its structures and this is one of those instances.

The one area I would indeed be careful about is the Justice Department. I have long been in favor of judicial independence and for me the most fundamental principle of any democratic system and this comes straight to the heart of my Conservatism is that arbitrary law, government and enforcement of law is the evil that threatens most freedom and equality. It is present in every instance you can think of from slavery, to segregation, to lynchings, to Indian Removal. The violation of equal justice before the law is quickest path to authoritarianism, and to dictatorship either of the singular form (a dictator) or that of the majority (simple majority decides to eliminate you because of your color hat).

The independence of the Judiciary and of the Judicial branch is a fundamental safeguard to preserve and protect our freedoms, our rights and our constitution, as well as the stability and respect for the institutions upon which our system is built. It was in keeping with this understanding that I appointed our current attorney general because of his political independence and the fact that he was not holding any other positions, were just as critical as his in game and real life legal experience. Of course the main difficulty is that most of this pool are former Justices and thus as former Justices, it can be difficult to maintain activity since there is no position in the game that keeps them focused on until such an appointment comes.

Anyway, these are my thoughts on this bill.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Actually, screw it, move to table.

Is someone going to call for objections on this? I don't want to step on the VP's toes, as Deputy PPT, if he is administering this thread, but will act if necessary here.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE ftr

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, Al Gore eat your heart out. The tabling vote is invalid because the motion was not seconded by a Senator.