MA: Re-Establishment of a Lieutenant Governor Amendment (Ratified)

[Talleyrand]

Would anyone be interested in giving the LG powers similar to those delegated to the Vice President in the amended version of the "VP finally has a purpose amendment" at a national level?

And for ceremonial purposes, we could have the Lieutenant Governor open the Voting Booth instead, but that doesn't really matter.

[Talleyrand]

If we added the powers Senators Nix and Franzl have suggested allocating to the President at a federal level to the Lieutenant Governor, I think it would be a significantly stronger position than it is under the current bill, without infringing too much on the rights of the Governor (I'm sick of hearing how "weak" the Governor is under this bill; he's not) or the Lieutenant Governor.

[Talleyrand]

Considering the recent amount of activity in our region, plus the high turnout we're getting these days, I would strongly support that idea. However, I want to see what the Federalist members of this chamber think about such an idea since a similar bill was defeated at the ballot box a month ago.

[Talleyrand]

So perhaps it's time for a final vote on this then?

[Talleyrand]

I propose the following amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Talleyrand]

We eliminated having joint appointments for one of them, didn't we?

I was unaware that we had, but I could be wrong. Still, I think joint appointments for court and Senate should be OK.

[Talleyrand]

I concur with Senator X.

Superior Court nominations before the elimination of the Lieutenant Governor in 2009 were made jointly alongside the Governor. With two people involved in picking our chief justice official, we can increase the likelihood of a widely acceptable choice and in the process allocate some appropriate powers to this position instead of making it a token official.

I would support giving the LG power to open and close the voting booth, but that's more of a ceremonial duty. However, if you would be more likely to vote for this bill, with that provision, I'm all for adding it to what we currently have.

I would urge everyone to vote for this bill and give it a chance. As the Governor pointed out earlier, if we come across issues, we can always come back later and amend the responsibilities of this office.

We shouldn't strike this idea down simply to maintain the status quo; change drives Atlasia.

[Talleyrand]

Joint Assembly appointments were removed in order to facilitate joint Senate and Superior Court appointments, and also because there was some concern whether the line between the executive and legislative branches would be blurred in our region.

Anyway, I think we should go with the current bill and if there are obvious issues with the position, we can come back and change it. Let's not forget that Atlasia is based on change, and it's ever-evolving. We don't always need to maintain the status quo just because "things are okay this way and they've always been this way".

What other responsibilities do you have in mind, Tmth?

[Talleyrand]

I'm tentatively okay with the bill we have here, as it is possibly the only one which could survive at public vote at this point.

[Talleyrand]

AYE