HR 1214: Dual Officeholding Amendment (Failed)

[Associate Justice PiT]

Since RC is no longer in the house I would like to assume sponsorship.

Representatives have 24 hours to object.

     I already said that, and nobody objected.

[NeverAgain]

I don't see the need for this at all. What is the fear here?

I ask my question again to the supporters and the sponsors.

[Sestak]

I don't see the need for this at all. What is the fear here?

I ask my question again to the supporters and the sponsors.

If my amendment is added, this will serve an important purpose: it will close the loophole regarding being appointed to an elected position, and, more importantly, will allow for the suspension of all dial officeholding rules if necessary by Congress.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Since RC is no longer in the house I would like to assume sponsorship.

Representatives have 24 hours to object.

     I already said that, and nobody objected.

I overlooked your post. You still need to call it you know.

Don't leave dangling motions.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

So Sponsor has 24 hours to make their case right Yankee

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

So Sponsor has 24 hours to make their case right Yankee

Preemptively lights match

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Don't leave dangling motions.

Wish I didn't have dangling somethings.

[Sirius_]

So Sponsor has 24 hours to make their case right Yankee

Is it actually the case that when a bill gets a new sponsor that a new advocacy must be posted?

[Sestak]

1. Are you actually the sponsor yet?
2. Is my amendment friendly?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     To make it official, Representative Ninja0428 is now the sponsor.

[Sirius_]

2. Is my amendment friendly?

I plan on making my own amendment which covers everything we discussed and is in the general style of the rest of the constitution as Truman said.

[Mr. Reactionary]

*Cough*table*cough*

[Sirius_]

I amend this bill to the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

What does "clearly allowed" mean? Does the mere absence of any constitutional prohibition qualify as allowance, or is it necessary for the constitution to specifically prescribe a legislative role to the head of government and/or allow for dual officeholding?

[Sirius_]

What does "clearly allowed" mean? Does the mere absence of any constitutional prohibition qualify as allowance, or is it necessary for the constitution to specifically prescribe a legislative role to the head of government and/or allow for dual officeholding?

It is meant to mean the 2nd one you listed, specifically right now in the case of Fremont but also if either other region creates a similar system. Do you have a suggestion for a better wording?

[Sestak]

What does "clearly allowed" mean? Does the mere absence of any constitutional prohibition qualify as allowance, or is it necessary for the constitution to specifically prescribe a legislative role to the head of government and/or allow for dual officeholding?

My interpretation should be that it doesn't necessarily have to say that the head of government has a legislative role, but must at least state something like "The [head of government] may also serve simultaneously as a member of [the regional legislature]".

Maybe "explicitly permitted" would be better phrasing?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ninja did you update the explanation or did nothing change that necessitates such?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]



Are you planning to officially offer this at some point. Because you have to actually state "amendment offered/proposed" otherwise I just treat it as constantly morphing text being discussed that is yet to be officially filed.

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Status: Origin
Sponsor feedback: Friendly

    Representatives have 24 hours to object to the amendment.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Ninja did you update the explanation or did nothing change that necessitates such?

     This is true, so actually disregard my previous post. Amendment H12:07 requires an update to the explanation before it can be accepted, per House Rules.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

What does "clearly allowed" mean? Does the mere absence of any constitutional prohibition qualify as allowance, or is it necessary for the constitution to specifically prescribe a legislative role to the head of government and/or allow for dual officeholding?

My interpretation should be that it doesn't necessarily have to say that the head of government has a legislative role, but must at least state something like "The [head of government] may also serve simultaneously as a member of [the regional legislature]".

Maybe "explicitly permitted" would be better phrasing?

What does that imply for Fremont's parliamentary system? The first minister is not "also" a member of the legislature, but rather is a legislator in his capacity as first minister. It would not make sense for the Fremontian constitution to state "the first minister may also serve simultaneously as a member of parliament," because being a member of parliament is inherent to the position of first minister.

Considering the apparent aim of this clause is to free the regions to allow dual officeholding within their governments if they so choose, why even include this prohibition in the amendment?

[Sestak]

What does "clearly allowed" mean? Does the mere absence of any constitutional prohibition qualify as allowance, or is it necessary for the constitution to specifically prescribe a legislative role to the head of government and/or allow for dual officeholding?

My interpretation should be that it doesn't necessarily have to say that the head of government has a legislative role, but must at least state something like "The [head of government] may also serve simultaneously as a member of [the regional legislature]".

Maybe "explicitly permitted" would be better phrasing?

What does that imply for Fremont's parliamentary system? The first minister is not "also" a member of the legislature, but rather is a legislator in his capacity as first minister. It would not make sense for the Fremontian constitution to state "the first minister may also serve simultaneously as a member of parliament," because being a member of parliament is inherent to the position of first minister.

Considering the apparent aim of this clause is to free the regions to allow dual officeholding within their governments if they so choose, why even include this prohibition in the amendment?

Setting the FM to be a member of the legislature must also by definition permit the FM to be a legislator.

I'd also agree that it's not necessary to include this prohibition here. Also, more controversially, I think the regions should be allowed to decide whether or not regional officeholders can serve as Senators; as they are chosen by the region.

[Sirius_]

Ninja did you update the explanation or did nothing change that necessitates such?

I wrote an explanation, no matter what was there before, I intend for what I wrote in the amended version to be the official amendment explanation.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ninja did you update the explanation or did nothing change that necessitates such?

I wrote an explanation, no matter what was there before, I intend for what I wrote in the amended version to be the official amendment explanation.

I think the confusion comes from the change in structure. It does still have a grandfather clause in the text correct, "unless the offices are already held at the time of this amendment's ratification."

Since this was merged into a paragraph form, it looked like it was being removed and hence both PiT's and my own confusion about it last night/this morning.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Anyways I am opposed to this regardless and would be fine with moving to a final vote whenever