Senate Hearing on the Federal Activity Bill

[Niles Caulder]

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.

[Niles Caulder]

Taking a step back, I want to point out "what's 'out of control?'"

By late August, I started doing this job and had only one cabinet member involved in fantasy government.  Of the other three, I received one email from one of them between now and then...but was otherwise ignored like I was some dimwit beneath being responded to.

However true that may be, I'm here for the folks who want to participate--and the rest need to make room for the ones do.  Some people in this forum have the class to do that.  Others regretably don't respect the community that much.

All this law does is acknowledge that their job is not being done, and someone needs to do it.

Senator Texasgurl observed that Senator SteveNick's absence wasn't impeding the business of the senate.  In this case, it's a matter of District 5's right to be represented.  A section of the nation that voted conservative [edit: would have been] left twisting in the wind while it voice is absent from the legislature.  [I also need to note that in this case, the voting duration of the third consecutive missed vote for Sen. SteveNick wouldn't have occurred until the 10th...but only two consecutive votes were missed, and this is hardly uncommon for a legislative body.]

Everyone needs to take a break now and then.  But if you're going to miss 'work' for stretches at a time, you call in.  Give your colleagues the courtesy of knowing what to expect, and for how long, so it can work around your personal needs, and they'll invariably do it.

With regard to the AG's draft, I suggest extending the terms from 7 days to 10 or more just to make it ridiculously generous, so we don't find ourselves revisiting this subject anytime soon.  Also, as far as I'm concerned, I don't necessarilly have to see a post to know the executive branch is doing it's job.  So long as they're corresponding with me, they're certainly doing their job, too.

[Niles Caulder]

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.

My mistake!  Objection withdrawn.  Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.

[edit: come to think of it, the appropriate phrase is "I stand corrected."  I wonder why that didn't occur to me at first?  hmmmmm....]