Senate Hearing on the Federal Activity Bill

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This Bill suffers in the extreme from unconstitutionality.

The Constitution specifies but a single method for removing members of the Executive and Judicial Branches, impeachment, thus making Parts I and III unconstitutional.

The Constitution alos specifies a method for the removal of Senators.  Part II could be viewed as an implementation of that method, but I am not certain that it would pass constitutional muster either.

Part IV (with the exception of Clause 1 which is a restatement of a constitutional provision) runs afoul of the Constitution as well as it is within the President's exclusive purview as to whether a Cabinet member should be dismissed from service.

As the GM is a quasi-official position with no Constitutional standing, I see nothing that would render Part V unconstitutional, however I find the idea of removing by law a person from a position to which he has not been chosen by law is highly irregular, if the dismissal be done by law, I would prefer that the appointment be done by law as well..

Part VI is not unconstitutional, but would be difficult to enforce.  In addition, it is unlikely that we would add additional branches of the government.

That said, let me offer the following bill to remedy the defects I have observed, and present it as a starting point for the Senate's discussions.  A stronger bill than the one I propose would likely require amending the Constitution to be valid, save one that shortened the time periods given below.

Revised Federal Activity Act

§ 1. The Federal Activity Act is hereby repealed, save that all persons removed from office under said Act remain removed from office.

§ 2. Failure on the part of the President to post in the preceding seven days shall be considered prima facie evidence of an inability to perform his or her duties as President, as per Article II Section 3 Clause 3 Paragraph 3 of the Constitution.

§ 3. Failure on the part of the President or Vice President to post in the preceding fourteen days without previous notice of an inability to perform his or her duties, shall be considered prima facie evidence of a high crime making him or her subject to impeachment as per Article II Section 2 Clause 7 of the Constitution.

§ 4. Failure on the part of a Senator to post in the preceeding seven days without previous notice or failure to post in the preceding fourteen days, even with notice, shall be construed prima facie evidence of misconduct making him or her subject to expulsion from the Senate as per Article I Section 4 of the Constitution.

§ 5. Failure on the part of a Supreme Court Justice to post in the preceeding seven days without previous notice  or failure to post in the preceding fourteen days, even with notice, shall be construed as grounds for removal  from the Supreme Court as per Article III Section 1 of the Constitution.

§ 6. Failure on the part of a Cabinet member to post in the preceeding seven days without previous notice shall require the President to comment upon the absence within seven days of said failure being brought to his notice by any member of the Senate.
Said commentary shall indicate whether the President desires the Cabinet member to remain in office and give his or reasons for the member's dismissal or retrention.  If the President should fail to comment it shall be taken as a desire for the Cabinet member's dismissal.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, once again, I think it's worth mentioning that the law we have in place is far more forgiving than the Consitutional provisions themselves.  An expelled Senator cannot hold high office again---ever, as per the Constitution.

So I think the AG's revisions are fine, but point out they're much harsher for missing legislators than what's currently in place.

Naturally, I don't draft legislation that I think is unconstitutional, but I'm not attached to preserving it if favor of the AG's efficient wording.

I agree the GM is a dubious position to subject to government doings, but I think it's appropriate for the government to have a voice in checking the occupant of the role who represents the federal bureacracy, and whose absence would be as detrimental as any of the others.

Actually, only impeachment bars a person from further office.  Being expelled from the Senate, dismissed from the cabinet or the Supreme Court, or being declared unable to serve do not bar a person from furher office.  Only Section 3 of my proposed bill mentions impeachment, and even then it doesn't mandate it as the government could choose to limp along with an Acting President until the next regular election.  Strictly speaking, impeachment would only be necessary in the event that both the President and the Vice-President fell silent as there is no constitutional method for having an Acting President other than the Vice-President.  Basically the propsed replacement provides guidance as to when the existing Constitutional provisions for removing from office should be activated when officials aren't present.  With the exception of cabinet officials who don't get their absence excused by the President, there is no automatic removal under this legislations for anyone.