Reintroducing the Cabinet Reform Amendment (Final vote)

[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]

[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...

[Cranberry]

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

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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]

[Cranberry]

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

We can call them Gurus if we want to... I don't really care either way, just thought I'd use one on top of my head for this amendment.

Thank you for the positive response, DemPGH and Barnes.

[Cranberry]

Great, thank you.

Is there anything else someone wants to offer?

[Cranberry]

I really don't care either way if it's Minister or Secretary.

[Cranberry]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Surely, I am not the only one who sees the problem with this? Particularly with regards to one particularly department, but the problem is present for all of them.

You have a point in regards to Federal Elections and Census Bureau, you are right, this needs to be an exception, I apologise for not thinking of this. But with the others? I quite like it that way - why not let the President himself decide what exactly constitutes his cabinet, what departments there are exactly?

[Cranberry]

I will provide an amendment here to address the concerns mentioned by Senator Yankee later that afternoon.

[Cranberry]

Alas, here we are:

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]

[Cranberry]

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.

[Cranberry]

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.

Thank you very much!

I'm okay with Senator Lief's amendment as well. Deputy secretaries truly aren't that important and it does no harm leaving them to the discretion of the respective secretaries, I would think.

[Cranberry]

Okay then, I would be finished here. Anything left to debate, otherwise I would be content with a final vote.

[Cranberry]

That's a good point Yankee, thanks, I'll support the amendment.

Yes, seems Section 3 includes another minister we forgot

[Cranberry]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Offering this separately just in case the other one runs into opposition.

I can imagine some fancy the idea of the executive abolishing the justice department.

Oh no Yankee, who would want that?

[Cranberry]

Good. I will motion for a final vote, since it seems no one has any further input here and debate has died.

[Cranberry]

Good. I will motion for a final vote, since it seems no one has any further input here and debate has died.

I need to be sure. Have you motioned  for a final vote. Or do you plan in the foreseable future to motion for a final vote?

I did motion for a final vote, yes, but I'll draw it back then due to Yankee's point.

[Cranberry]

Does the senate speaker not have the power to correct minor mistakes in the bill like the one Yankee has pointed out?

Well, I don't find a senate rule talking about that. Maybe Yankee could quote this part?

Can't you suspend the Senate rules?

[Cranberry]

Since the amendment will pass in eight hours I guess it doesn't matter anymore for now, though

[Cranberry]

Good, so now we are finished?

[Cranberry]

I motion for a final vote.

(Should be clear enough for you that way, Windjammer )

[Cranberry]

Aye