Reintroducing the Cabinet Reform Amendment (Final vote)

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article VIII, Section 2 of the Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
Sponsor: Windjammer

[Cranberry]

This is the version we agreed on at the end of last bill's debate? I guess that was the bill that failed because of too few people showing up to vote?

Anyway, because I like the current names more, here will be a swift amendment (self-explainatory, I would assume):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article VIII, Section 2 of the Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Windjammer
[/quote]

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Why do cabinet positions need to be entrenched in the constitution?

[Lief 🗽]

I still oppose this, for the reasons I did last time the Senate tried to pass this.

[Senator Cris]

I supported it the last time and I'm ready to support it again.

[windjammer]

Senators have 36 hours to object to Cranberry's amendment.

[windjammer]

I support this amendment. I'm a traditionnalist too.

[Talleyrand]

Why do cabinet positions need to be entrenched in the constitution?

I agree. This creates far less flexibility for the executive branch and just causes a headache when you're paralyzed in terms of changing anything about it because it is embedded into the constitution.

[Cranberry]

But it is already in the constitution, this just puts it all together in one place and restructures it so that it's easier to read... If your point is that it would make it more different to amend than I can't see this point, as it's already in the constitution, just at another place...

[Barnes]

Can I just make a suggestion?

Pass an amendment that repeals all mentions of the Cabinet in the Constituion and replace it with a section saying that executive departments can be created by law and their primary officeholder serves with the advice and consent of the senate. 

Also include a grandfather clause to make sure the entire cabinet isn't dismissed at the adoption of the amendment.

It's ludocrois to have to amend the Constituon every time we want to change the executive departments.

[Talleyrand]

Can I just make a suggestion?

Pass an amendment that repeals all mentions of the Cabinet in the Constituion and replace it with a section saying that executive departments can be created by law and their primary officeholder serves with the advice and consent of the senate. 

Also include a grandfather clause to make sure the entire cabinet isn't dismissed at the adoption of the amendment.

It's ludocrois to have to amend the Constituon every time we want to change the executive departments.

I would be up for this.

[Cranberry]

This would be something I supported as well, yes. Would you care to provide an amendment on what you had in mind?

[Blair]

Yeah we need to have it confirmed that the Senate has advise and consent powers, because that's probably the most important thing when looking at the Cabinet

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is the further emasculation of the Presidency and a further transfer of power to the Senate really necessary?

On a rather more minor note, I'd like to add that Principle Officer implies a civil service post rather than a political one. This is clearly not appropriate for Interior, State or Justice.

[Cranberry]

Oh yes, it is very much necessary that the Senate has a say in who will shape the game in a fundamental way, call that emasculation if you will.
I am the last to oppose a parliamentary system, and I have made that position of mine clear in my time here; and I do know that I am not the only Senator that feels that way.

What other appellation would you propose in stead of Principle Officer?

[Senator Cris]

I think that Barnes had something like this in mind.
This is not an amendment, it's only an imput to the debate (at least for now).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article VIII, Section 2 of the Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh yes, it is very much necessary that the Senate has a say in who will shape the game in a fundamental way, call that emasculation if you will.

But the Senate is already the most powerful elected institution in the game, and by some margin. And the Senate already has a say in the appointment of the cabinet: it even has the power (if it so chooses) to reject nominees on blatantly partisan grounds or even (and this has happened) due to personal grudges. Perhaps the administration should propose some oversight of that? Except that it would be total waste of time as it would never pass the Senate. You see the point?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Naturally.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cabinet Minister or Cabinet Member or something similar would be fine. Although a case may exist for hiving off Forum Affairs from the cabinet and turning it officially into the civil service posting that it already is in practice.

[Barnes]

I'm confused with Al's objections. The Senate already retains the power to confirm or reject nominees. This amendment would not alter that in any way to the detriment of the president. The Senate also already has the power to reorganize cabinet positions - all my proposal would do in practical terms would be to remove the laborious process of amending the Constituion every time one wants to change a cabinet position.

[Cranberry]

Oh yes, it is very much necessary that the Senate has a say in who will shape the game in a fundamental way, call that emasculation if you will.

But the Senate is already the most powerful elected institution in the game, and by some margin. And the Senate already has a say in the appointment of the cabinet: it even has the power (if it so chooses) to reject nominees on blatantly partisan grounds or even (and this has happened) due to personal grudges. Perhaps the administration should propose some oversight of that? Except that it would be total waste of time as it would never pass the Senate. You see the point?

I see your point yes, but I guess we must fundamentally disagree here. Yes, the Senate has all those powers - why should it not? Personal grudges are rare enough to fail a confirmation, and even if six people should hold them there either must be a valid reason for that or it is probably not the wisest for a member of the game that seems not to be so liked, to phrase this neutrally, to hold greater office, as it is natural that more members of the game might not be too fond of him. To illustrate this, might I present the example of Mr. Hifly this recent October - he would have eventually become President without Senate oversight of the process!
I guess so, this simply seems to be a point where we hold different opinions. Oh so well then.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cabinet Minister or Cabinet Member or something similar would be fine. Although a case may exist for hiving off Forum Affairs from the cabinet and turning it officially into the civil service posting that it already is in practice.
[/quote]

Cabinet Minister seems good to me, you're right that such would make more sense for political offices.

[bore]

The problem with the not-yet-an amendment as currently phrased is there is nothing to define Principal Officers, which could lead to countless lawsuits over what exactly is and isn't a principal office.

[Cranberry]

The problem with the not-yet-an amendment as currently phrased is there is nothing to define Principal Officers, which could lead to countless lawsuits over what exactly is and isn't a principal office.

Hence why I believe defining exactly a position, name it Minister or Secretary or whatever you like, would be the wise thing to do here. I guess if we include a clause that all those departments, created by legislative action, will have a Minister/Secretary/Great Guru leading them, appointed by the president with consent of the Senate, should suffice?

[Talleyrand]

The problem with the not-yet-an amendment as currently phrased is there is nothing to define Principal Officers, which could lead to countless lawsuits over what exactly is and isn't a principal office.

Hence why I believe defining exactly a position, name it Minister or Secretary or whatever you like, would be the wise thing to do here. I guess if we include a clause that all those departments, created by legislative action, will have a Minister/Secretary/Great Guru leading them, appointed by the president with consent of the Senate, should suffice?

I would be fine with that.

[Cranberry]

If I may then, I would present the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article VIII, Section 2 of the Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[windjammer]

Senators,
You have 36 hours to object.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Why use "ministers" when most of our cabinet heads are secretaries?