Cabinet Officers and Structure Bill

[Gabu]

Taking a page from Peter Bell's book, if we do turn this into a constitutional amendment, it might be better to scrap the constitutional definitions of the departments and just have the constitution say "Congress may define executive departments and positions therein through appropriate legislation", given that the members of the Executive Branch other than the President and Vice President are not really fundamental to the governmental structure of the country (as evidenced by our desire to now give those departments an overhaul).

I suppose you would also have redefine where the line of succession is defined as well, if you did that, though.

[Gabu]

Isn't this taking a lot of power away from the Executive Branch.  I think this bill is verge-on violating seperation of powers.  I'm not sure that it is, but I think that it should at least be discussed.

I don't think that the Executive Branch defines the offices in that branch in real life.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Gabu]

Is this bill even Constitutional?  I was going to vote, but then I noticed that JFK said that this needs to be an amendment.

[Gabu]

Oh, whoops, I didn't see that Peter Bell had responded to this.

Anyways...

Abstain.

I like the general gist of this bill, so I don't want to vote against it, but I really don't like the melding of the Departments of State and Defense.

[Gabu]

Can we please get more votes on this?  We need either three votes for it to pass or four for it to fail.

[Gabu]

I hereby open formal debate time on this bill.

JFK, I think debate time is up for this bill, it is a week, yes?

It is indeed, I didn't get much time on the computer yesterday and so little on the forums heh.


I hereby open the voting on this bill, all Senators vote yea, nay or abstain.

I think voting on this bill ended last Thursday.  The vote takes place for one week, 1/20-1/27 and no senator motioned to extend voting. 

Yes, you're right.  Thanks for that.

Well... according to my count, with four senators in favor to two against, and with four abstaining, I hereby declare this bill to have passed.

I present it to the President for his signature.

[Gabu]

I hereby open formal debate time on this bill.

JFK, I think debate time is up for this bill, it is a week, yes?

It is indeed, I didn't get much time on the computer yesterday and so little on the forums heh.


I hereby open the voting on this bill, all Senators vote yea, nay or abstain.

I think voting on this bill ended last Thursday.  The vote takes place for one week, 1/20-1/27 and no senator motioned to extend voting. 

Yes, you're right.  Thanks for that.

Well... according to my count, with four senators in favor to two against, and with four abstaining, this bill passes.

Or, if we choose to ignore the votes occurring after January 27, the bill passes with two senators in favor to one against, with seven abstaining.  Either way, the bill passes.

I hereby deliver it to PBrunsel for his signature.

What did we decide with regards to abstentions.  Are they even votes?  If not, the bill doesn't get a quorum of the senate. I don't think the votes should count, because they just failed to show up, they didn't vote abstain. 

(EDIT: Okay, I think I have it correct this time. )

According to Clause four of the Senate Procedure Act, "all those Senators who do not vote will be considered to have abstained."  Abstentions essentially make the abstaining senator not exist for the purposes of counting the votes (e.g., if we have five senators in favor, four against, and one abstaining, that counts as a majority, since the abstaining senator isn't counted).  Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 says that only a majority of the Senate must vote.  If we allow the votes made after January 27, this bill passes.  If we don't, this bill fails due to senator apathy.

I'm currently torn over what to do.  Technically, the latter option should happen, but this bill obviously has the necessary support to pass, and all we'd need to do is reintroduce it to have it do so, so I think I'll let it pass.

[Gabu]

With PBrunsel's veto, I now open the floor to any senators who wish to call a vote to override the Presidential Veto.

(PS: Is there an official time limit for how long we have before a veto becomes official?  If not, there really should be... I'll make it a week.)

[Gabu]

This bill is unconstitutional.

Peter Bell replied to you when you said that the first time:

Thats not true King, in fact I wired the bill so that it wouldn't breach the present line of succession; I'm absolutely flabbergasted that the AG hasn't stepped in to give his opinion on constitutionality as it generally is the place of the AG to do such things.

Ask him.

[Gabu]

With PBrunsel's veto, I now open the floor to any senators who wish to call a vote to override the Presidential Veto.

(PS: Is there an official time limit for how long we have before a veto becomes official?  If not, there really should be... I'll make it a week.)

Can't you only call a veto overide without a 2/3rds majority?  If not ignoire me

No, if I have it correctly, if the president vetoes something, a separate vote is called to override the veto; the veto is overridden if a two-thirds majority votes yea on that separate vote.

I may not have it correctly, however, given that I've gotten practically everything else wrong today, so feel free to correct me if I don't.

[Gabu]

With PBrunsel's veto, I now open the floor to any senators who wish to call a vote to override the Presidential Veto.

(PS: Is there an official time limit for how long we have before a veto becomes official?  If not, there really should be... I'll make it a week.)

Can't you only call a veto overide without a 2/3rds majority?  If not ignoire me

No, if I have it correctly, if the president vetoes something, a separate vote is called to override the veto; the veto is overridden if a two-thirds majority votes yea on that separate vote.

I may not have it correctly, however, given that I've gotten practically everythign else wrong today, so feel free to correct me if I don't.

That is correct Senator.

OMG YES!!!

Er, I mean...

Very good.