HB 2016-1053 - The Presidential Succession Act of 2016 (DFW EAT THIS NOW!)

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: Peebs

24 hour debate, then let's vote. Sorry for my tardyness, these weeks have been a real bummer.

[Mike Thick]

I fully support this bill, and urge its immediate passage to avert a Constitutional crisis.

[Enduro]

Can someone tell me if there is something in the constitution that removes a president if he's inactive?

[Leinad]

Can someone tell me if there is something in the constitution that removes a president if he's inactive?

I think so, but now is not the time to amend this bill--we need to get this to my desk ASAP or we might not have a President for at least a few days.

[Blair]

I'd want the Secretary of State at the top; as Truman points out this bill is designed for monday and we've got a history of taking ages to elect a Speaker in the House. If the House can elect a Speaker within 3 days then this bill would be fine

[NeverAgain]

I'd want the Secretary of State at the top; as Truman points out this bill is designed for monday and we've got a history of taking ages to elect a Speaker in the House. If the House can elect a Speaker within 3 days then this bill would be fine

Wooooowww. Gotta deny me a shot at the White House.

Seriously though, I think we can elect a speaker in a very quick amount of time. Working out the details in a new administration can be a definite goal, but I want to pass this thing ASAP so we do not have a succession crisis on our hands

[Enduro]

I motion for an immediate vote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Right, there seem to be a few misconceptions floating about regarding what will happen if there is no president-elect waiting to assume office when the incumbent administration retires on Friday. To clarify:

1) Per the terms of the legislative reboot, the Republic of Atlasia adopted the U.S. Code in its entirety upon the ratification of the Fourth Constitution. This means that the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (as amended) is still in effect. In other words, failure to pass this bill before noon Friday will not trigger a constitutional crisis. While it would of course be preferable to have this legislation signed into law before the next president is set to take office, either way we will have a president on Friday. The executive branch will not simply cease to exist if this bill does not pass in time.

2) The term of the current Congress expires on Friday, November 4 at 12:00:00 PM (EST), when the 3rd Senate and House of Representatives officially take office. By law, the next Speaker and PPT of the Senate may not be elected before that time. To clarify, the next presidential term also begins at noon on Friday, meaning that it is literally impossible for the House to elect a new Speaker, or the Senate to elect a new PPT, in time for that person to assume the presidency under the terms of this bill. Unless both the president and the vice president resign office before the end of the present term, there will not be a Speaker or a PPT to become president when the vacancy occurs.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Why should Senators be ahead of house members in the line of succession? The head of the house is ahead of the Senate PPT.

[Blair]

if someone wants to get this bill done quickly you could suspend rules and move to a much shorter voting period

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Why should Senators be ahead of house members in the line of succession? The head of the house is ahead of the Senate PPT.

Fair point. It's also worth noting that representatives are elected by the population at-large, and thus represent the nation as a whole, unlike the regionally-elected Senate.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

yes just suspend the rules

[Leinad]

Why should Senators be ahead of house members in the line of succession? The head of the house is ahead of the Senate PPT.

This is actually my idea as I suggested it to Peebs, so I should probably defend it:

-Senators basically have a higher "seniority" than House members. The very word comes from the same Latin root as "senior." There are less Senators, they serve for longer terms, and looking at career trajectories seems to be the higher rung on the ladder (although I could see how one would prefer the House). Therefore a Senator, on average, is probably a slightly better bet for an effective President than a Representative, although it would obviously come down to many more complex factors that couldn't be quantified in a list like this.

-With all that said, I think both chambers should, overall, be equal. Given that the Speaker is ranked ahead of the PPT in order of succession, I feel it balances it out for Senators 2-6 to be ranked ahead of Representatives 2-9--and remember that we will probably never, ever, ever need to go this far down the line of succession anyway, even with the rampant inactivity there's little chance the entire cabinet is absent.

My suggestion would be to suspend the freaking rules and fast-track this to my desk, and then make a new bill so we can have congressional debate on how to fine tune this.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

I agree that we should suspend the rules.

[Enduro]

I agree that we should suspend the rules.

You want to second my motion?

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

I motion for an immediate vote.

Yes.

[NeverAgain]

As the motion as been seconded.

Okay, also. Let's fast track this to the President.

24 Hour Vote.

Please do this ASAP.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Aye

[NeverAgain]

Aye!

[NeverAgain]

While I fully support this bill, the means that Speaker NeverAgain is attempting to pass this bil in is blatantly unconstitutional (bypassing the Senate).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

?

[Kingpoleon]

Aye!

[Enduro]

Aye.

[Mike Thick]

Aye

[Goldwater]

AYE

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I object to suspending the house rules to fast track this legislation.