HR 1214: Dual Officeholding Amendment (Failed)

[Lumine]

Needless to say I encourage the House to pass this Amendment so it can go to for a vote across the nation, particularly to hear the opinion of the people when it comes to multipleoffice holding.

Two points, though:

1. One mistake which I failed to account for in the Senate was that the Amendment should also include leadership positions on legislative chambers (Speaker, PPT, etc), otherwise it would cause a major problem. I can draft an amendment for that if no one wishes to propose one.

2. I would strongly encourage the House not to include regional officeholders in the cabinet. One of the main criticisms of multiple officholding has been indeed the separation between the regional and federal government and the problems that can concievably arise from having, say, a regional executive also in charge of a substantial office in the cabinet.

[Lumine]

Right, I'll propose an amendment myself in the hopes some Representative will sponsor it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lumine]

Or a Regional and Federal job simultaneously.

Exactly, I continue to believe the Cabinet and regional officeholders such as a regional executive should not be mixed.

With that amendment you still can't hold two cabinet positions at once, right?

That's actually a good point, thanks for catching that up! I wouldn't want to deny Peebs holding both RG and SoFE considering the great work she's doing.

I propose a different amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lumine]

Interesting points, let's see:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't want to make it about the persons themselves to avoid getting into a personal argument, but I don't think proper separation of powers is appropiately enforced by having too many offices across different branches of government (outside of what seems like necessary exceptions, like the cabinet). As a general rule I strongly believe it is much better to reduce offices than have people in multiple positions, although the last attempt to reduce offices did fail.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, "serve" as I understand serves a proper purpose there by avoiding the whole appointed v. elected issue. I suppose it depends on what people think the limit is (having 4 offices to me at least sounds a bit excessive).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's something I could actually support, as it does provide some necessary oversight. I wonder what the rest of the House thinks of it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I myself didn't find it necessary, but both the President and Reactionary noted his desire to remain in office as SOS while serving in other office. If the House believes it is necessary to remove the clause, I won't complain.