HR 1214: Dual Officeholding Amendment (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You know I think I want to rewrite this whole thing myself anyway.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

WHich will probably have to wait until I get home from work.

[Sestak]

I have a better idea.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would be very dubious about justices holding elected office.

I have long championed an independent judiciary, free of partisan, political and in general influences from the other branches. I have long discussed this in the context of the Dred Scott case where the President meddled with Supreme Court deliberations.

I fear justices would be inclined to rule based on what would get them votes for Congress.

[Sestak]

Whoops, the "unless they want to" part was meant for the first clause. Not the justices part.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I was in the process of making a post yesterday morning and then had to stop because I reach a point of exhaustion where I was typing words incoherently and had to stop.


Anyway, we discussed a few weeks ago the possibilities regarding how Senators are elected and one of them I recall mentioning was the possibilities of having Governor's serve as one of the two Senators.

Now this may or may not be a good idea, but it struck me that we do have reform pushes that seem to work at cross purposes here and we could easily find ourselves in a one step forward, one step back situation depending on where discussions lead and so forth.

This gets back to what Truman warned about, when he mentioned the degredation caused by the constitution becoming a hodge podge of conflicting reform efforts, being partially enacted and partially ejected.

I think we need to keep medium range possibilities in mind when debating this amendment as well.

And yes I still plan to offer an amendment, but this stretch of work days has proven a bit more intense then I figured it would.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

This bill is the devil and should be burned with fire.

Yeah, definitely not a fan of this.

Unamended, it is far too broad-ranging in scope and should most definitely not pass.

[Sestak]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyone want to sponsor this amendment?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is that suppose to do?


All that does is erase the current text. Is there a planned subsequent replacement text?

[Sestak]

What is that suppose to do?


All that does is erase the current text. Is there a planned subsequent replacement text?

Actually, it doesn't erase the entire text. Look again.

[RC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyone want to sponsor this amendment?

Can we get an actual serious amendment

[Sestak]

Someone please motion to table this.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Someone please motion to table this.

     You'll have the opportunity to do later this week.

[Pericles]

Nobody has actually justified their position. You should have a proper debate first about this. Especially since the Senate passed it unanimously. If it is such a bad bill it will be rejected in due course, and if not then the opposite outcome will occur.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Nobody has actually justified their position. You should have a proper debate first about this. Especially since the Senate passed it unanimously. If it is such a bad bill it will be rejected in due course, and if not then the opposite outcome will occur.

Both I and Yankee have offered lengthy explanations for why this should not be passed (yes, I am aware that I am not an elected representative).

[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.

[Sestak]

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

[Mr. Reactionary]

Or a Regional and Federal job simultaneously.

[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.

[Sestak]

I think it's perfectly reasonable for Mr. R to serve as Senator, SoS, and Southern AG, and Peebs to serve as Rep, SoFE, RG, and Southern Election Official.

Maybe instead just specify that being appointed to an elected position is still considered as holding an elected position? Then we can set limits of maximum

1 Elected Position
2 Federal Appointed Positions
2 (or 1) State Appointed Positions

Furthermore, we should state that Congress can suspend all dual office holding rules at any time in exigency with a motion backed by a simple majority in each house. In the event that inactivity becomes a serious enough problem, dual officeholding may be necessary to keep Atlasia running.

Also kill the grandfather clause. I won't vote for anything like this with one in it. Grandfather clauses are political pork and punt serious issues with a proposal down the road by offering temporary solutions.

[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.

[Pericles]

We need the grandfather clause to avoid unnecessary destabilization and allow a smooth transition to the new system.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes, for instance Peebs is also elections administrator for the South. This present amendment absent the grandfather clause would fire her from that role and necessitate a replacement be found. In fact she would litterally be removed from office before certifying the vote if the other two regions were to certify theirs first.

[Sirius_]

Perhaps this bill should be rewritten stating exactly which positions can't be held simultaneously.