Reintroducing the Cabinet Reform Amendment (Final vote) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 19, 2024, 06:38:17 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Reintroducing the Cabinet Reform Amendment (Final vote) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Reintroducing the Cabinet Reform Amendment (Final vote)  (Read 4762 times)
Barnes
Roy Barnes 2010
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,556


« on: April 01, 2015, 10:04:55 AM »

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. Tongue

It's ludocrois to have to amend the Constituon every time we want to change the executive departments.
Logged
Barnes
Roy Barnes 2010
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,556


« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2015, 03:34:44 PM »

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.
Logged
Barnes
Roy Barnes 2010
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,556


« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2015, 12:15:14 PM »

I quite like what Cranberry has proposed.  It keeps the basic structure but introduces a nice flair where the individual president can create and abolish cabinet positions that they are focused on and would be of interest.

I certainly think that it's worth a shot.
Logged
Barnes
Roy Barnes 2010
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,556


« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2015, 08:35:41 PM »
« Edited: April 20, 2015, 08:38:49 PM by Barnes »

Just a tiny edit: Section 4.3 still contains the reference to "ministers."
Logged
Barnes
Roy Barnes 2010
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,556


« Reply #4 on: April 27, 2015, 11:08:10 AM »

I would be very glad if a native speaker could look on this again and see if there are any language issues, as obviously this is our constitution and I would very much prefer if we did not leave this just to my word-juggling/just-rarely-intelligible-English.

Your English is impeccable, Cranberry.  You shame me into studying my German with greater effort. Grin

There is just a little edit that should be made here:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Barnes
Roy Barnes 2010
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,556


« Reply #5 on: April 27, 2015, 05:51:53 PM »
« Edited: April 27, 2015, 06:03:00 PM by Barnes »

As a representative of the Cabinet, I'd like to share my support for Senator Lief's proposal as well. In the instance of someone performing egregiously badly at their duties as a deputy, the relevant secretary or the president can easily dismiss them.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.018 seconds with 10 queries.