Dept. of Treasury/Labor

[Nym90]

If the Labor Dept. is going to be replaced by the Treasury Dept., I feel this should be passed by a majority of the Senate at least. Although I am not usually a strict Consitutionalist I feel that it is going over the line to remove the Dept. of Labor and replace it with the Dept. of Treasury on a whim. This should require approval of the Senate.

[Gustaf]

Well...it wasn't really on a whim. And it hasn't been replaced, I view treasury as being responsible for all economic issues. Including Labour.

[Nym90]

Fair enough, but it probably ought to still be subject to Senate approval, the changing of the name of a cabinet position even if that's all it is....and the responsibilities aren't exactly the same, so essentially it is a replacement of one department by another. That would seem to me to be something the Senate ought to at least approve....technically it should require a Constitutional Amendment, but I wouldn't personally go so far as to push for that.

[JohnFKennedy]

technically it should require a Constitutional Amendment, but I wouldn't personally go so far as to push for that.

No it shoudn't, there is nothing in the Constitution about which offices there should be so there is no mention of the Department of Labour meaning a Constitutional Amendment would not be needed to remove it. The only mention of the Secretary of Labour is in fact in the line of succession.

The Senate does have to approve the creation of a new department at the forum:

Article I, Section 5, Clause 3. The Senate also must approve the creation of any new Department at the Forum with a majority vote.

As I see it, no constitutional amendment is necessary. However, if Gustaf is creating a department it must be met with Senatorial approval. However, if he is just adding the role of Secretary of the Treasury onto the role of Secretary of Labour, it doesn't need to be met with Senatorial approval.

[KEmperor]

Since Ben was approved by the Senate, I would consider that approval of the new department.

[Demrepdan]

technically it should require a Constitutional Amendment, but I wouldn't personally go so far as to push for that.

No it shoudn't, there is nothing in the Constitution about which offices there should be so there is no mention of the Department of Labour meaning a Constitutional Amendment would not be needed to remove it. The only mention of the Secretary of Labour is in fact in the line of succession.

The Senate does have to approve the creation of a new department at the forum:

Article I, Section 5, Clause 3. The Senate also must approve the creation of any new Department at the Forum with a majority vote.

As I see it, no constitutional amendment is necessary. However, if Gustaf is creating a department it must be met with Senatorial approval. However, if he is just adding the role of Secretary of the Treasury onto the role of Secretary of Labour, it doesn't need to be met with Senatorial approval.

There is mention of the Sec. of Labor in the line of succession though. Which means it IS mentioned as a Constiutional office. You can't just replace it, or else the clause stating the correct order for succession is wrong.

Since I was just recently elected to the Senate, I, and I advice my collegues to do the same, will attempt to write an amendment that restates the NEW line of succession, since the Gustaf administration took it upon themselves to re-write the law with exeuctive "privelage".

President Gustaf should take note, however, that he is in violation of two clauses in the constitution. The clause stating the proper line of succession, as well as the Fifth Amendment which states that EACH position at this forum MUST serve a purpose.

Secretary of Treasury serves less of a purpose than Secretary of Labor. The real intent for the Secretary of Labor was to help members of the forum be placed into areas where they can use their skills to best serve the forum. Secretary of Treasury handles the fiscal responsiblities of the forum, which the forum has NONE, since we have no money matters.

Again, if Gustaf wishes to replace the Sec. of Labor with the Sec. of Treas. (the treas sec, according to Gustaf, having the same responsiblites as the Sec of Labor) Then I will draw up and amendment.

Or, they can simply not have a Sec. of Treas.

I await response from the President on what he wishes to do.

[JohnFKennedy]

technically it should require a Constitutional Amendment, but I wouldn't personally go so far as to push for that.

No it shoudn't, there is nothing in the Constitution about which offices there should be so there is no mention of the Department of Labour meaning a Constitutional Amendment would not be needed to remove it. The only mention of the Secretary of Labour is in fact in the line of succession.

The Senate does have to approve the creation of a new department at the forum:

Article I, Section 5, Clause 3. The Senate also must approve the creation of any new Department at the Forum with a majority vote.

As I see it, no constitutional amendment is necessary. However, if Gustaf is creating a department it must be met with Senatorial approval. However, if he is just adding the role of Secretary of the Treasury onto the role of Secretary of Labour, it doesn't need to be met with Senatorial approval.

There is mention of the Sec. of Labor in the line of succession though. Which means it IS mentioned as a Constiutional office. You can't just replace it, or else the clause stating the correct order for succession is wrong.

Since I was just recently elected to the Senate, I, and I advice my collegues to do the same, will attempt to write an amendment that restates the NEW line of succession, since the Gustaf administration took it upon themselves to re-write the law with exeuctive "privelage".

President Gustaf should take note, however, that he is in violation of two clauses in the constitution. The clause stating the proper line of succession, as well as the Fifth Amendment which states that EACH position at this forum MUST serve a purpose.

Secretary of Treasury serves less of a purpose than Secretary of Labor. The real intent for the Secretary of Labor was to help members of the forum be placed into areas where they can use their skills to best serve the forum. Secretary of Treasury handles the fiscal responsiblities of the forum, which the forum has NONE, since we have no money matters.

Again, if Gustaf wishes to replace the Sec. of Labor with the Sec. of Treas. (the treas sec, according to Gustaf, having the same responsiblites as the Sec of Labor) Then I will draw up and amendment.

Or, they can simply not have a Sec. of Treas.

I await response from the President on what he wishes to do.

The Secretary of the Treasury DOES have a purpose, in case you haven't noticed we now have an active Game Moderator thinking up scenarios for us to face which means we may end up with Economic issues which a Secretary of the Treasury will be needed for.

They would have been useful during the China crisis as that was a problem that dealt with the Atlas Economy also.

I did actually say that the only mention of a Secretary of Labour was in the line of succession, I believe it is either last or second-to-last in the line though.

[Demrepdan]

The Secretary of the Treasury DOES have a purpose, in case you haven't noticed we now have an active Game Moderator thinking up scenarios for us to face which means we may end up with Economic issues which a Secretary of the Treasury will be needed for.

They would have been useful during the China crisis as that was a problem that dealt with the Atlas Economy also.

I did actually say that the only mention of a Secretary of Labour was in the line of succession, I believe it is either last or second-to-last in the line though.

The Secretary of Labor is last in line.

And I don't mean to say that their shouldn't be a Sec. of Treas. Don't misunderstand me.

But since their is no mention of the Sec. of Treas. in the constitution, and the Sec. of Labor IS mentioned in the line of succesion, the Sec. of Labor is an official constitutional office. Which means, the Gustaf adminstration has two choices; one, to eliminate the Sec. of Labor and replace him with Treas. Sec (which would require a constitutional amendment.) Or, to ask the Senate to make a new cabinet position, which would still require the President to appoint a Sec. of Labor.

I have no problem with an amendment, however, and would vote for it.

[Gustaf]

Allright, allright...I remember that my predecessor changed the cabinet positions around, just like that, so I thought I could do the same...I guess not. I thus urge the senate to approve the necessary amendment. Until then, for the best of the forum, I will leave the SecTreas in place, so that we can deal with any economic problems that occur.

[Fritz]

How about if we just call the position, the Secretary of the Treasury and Labor?

If we add Labor into the title, I think that gets around any constitutional difficulties.

[Demrepdan]

How about if we just call the position, the Secretary of the Treasury and Labor?

If we add Labor into the title, I think that gets around any constitutional difficulties.

Yeah....the Secretary of Defense is actually called the Secretary of Defense and Security. Even though many don't call him that.

So I suppose combining the two offices may work. It might help if the Senate approve this change, however.

[Nym90]

Well, the reason I was able to shift them around is because there was no Constitution yet. but I did so only with the consensus of the Forum. I wanted to have more positions, but there was a clear call to limit it to 5, and people generally agreed on the 5 that we had as the best choices. I didn't do anything without public approval. I had a Sec. of the Treasury (GWBFan) but the position was then eliminated.