SENATE BILL: Active Vice Presidency Amendment (Tabled)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Napoleon, originally offered by Kalwejt.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators have 72 hours to object to Senator Napoleon's assumption of sponsorship.

[Napoleon]

I do plan to make some modifications to this, but please voice any concerns or ideas you may have.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Not sure about the rest, but Clauses 1 and 2 would require an amendment to the OSPR as well to be effectuated.

[Rowan]

I don't think this is the right way to go about things.

[Napoleon]

Not sure about the rest, but Clauses 1 and 2 would require an amendment to the OSPR as well to be effectuated.

I don't know if the first two clauses are necessary. If they aren't I'd prefer to get rid of them.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't see why you have to abolish his position as President of Senate to do this. Perhaps you could create the option for the President to stick the veep in one of the mentioned posts and it's not like the duties of being President of the Senate would weigh him down much, since he can delegate or pass most of the responsibilities to the PPT. Therefore 1 and 2 also seem unnecessary considering the overall purpose of the bill. Making it an option would also allow future Presidents and Vice President's to best utilize their available talent. If a particular Veep wants to preside over the Senate, he can do so, if not he can be given a cabinet post.


I am interested in seeing what modifications the Senator has in mind before making any decisions regarding the bill.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Not sure about the rest, but Clauses 1 and 2 would require an amendment to the OSPR as well to be effectuated.

I don't know if the first two clauses are necessary. If they aren't I'd prefer to get rid of them.

Price of typing long posts and then having to post it three times to get it to go through.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I would just like to point out, since I was discussing this issue a lot during the campaign recently, that I don't see how this really solves anything at all or gives the VP any new responsibilities. Quite the contrary, really; it makes the VP do even less.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How are the changes to this bill coming along?

[Peter]

The perfect way to sideline a VP: Offer him Moderator General, even when he isn't a Mod. That way he can never fulfil the duties of the office.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't think it makes sense to give the VP a cabinet position. A GM is a GM, a SoIA is a SoIA, a VP is a VP. Either you give him some work on his own, or you may as well abolish the office.

Edit : It might also be unconstitutional, since it could be considered as multiple officeholding.

[Napoleon]

The changes will be ready soon, the dual-office holding problem is covered with these changes too so don't worry about that.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The idea of making the Vice President a Cabinet officer is absurd.  Hopefully you've gotten rid of that in your new changes, Napoleon.

[Napoleon]

Saying it's absurd doesn't make it absurd. Do you make it a point to oppose everything I do or argue with anything I say for no real reason? If that isn't the case, you would do well to actually post why instead of, well, nothing.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

First of all, forcing the President to appoint the Vice President to a Cabinet position takes away the President's prerogative to select his Cabinet.  Additionally, it radically alters the way a President will choose his Vice President.  Furthermore, I don't see how this encourages activity.  You'd also create a scenario where voters might not want to elect a ticket if the Vice Presidential candidate is in line to be in a certain Cabinet position, and so that dynamic comes into play.

That is why it's absurd.  Although I didn't notice you attacking Antonio for making the same criticism.

[Napoleon]

Antonio gave constructive criticism not born out of a personal vendetta that involves personal attacks and following me around.

I don't see how this takes away choice from the President. He gets to choose his VP and he gets to choose which position to appoint him to. The GM would not be available for the VP. How could it not encourage activity? You can't delegate Cabinet powers to the PPT. The veep would actually have something to do within the executive other than sit and wait. It works just fine in New Jersey. If voters don't trust the President to put the VP in an acceptable positions, that would fall on the ticket, not my amendment. Maybe we will see more competitive elections because of it. Lord knows we need it. Polnut got around 64% I believe.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Follow you around?  Napoleon, I am a Cabinet official.  You are a Senator.  This bill is being debated by the Senate.  My criticism is hardly invalid; you just see a personal vendetta, even when one does not exist.

It takes away a President's choice because he now cannot give a job to someone because he is forced to give a job to the VP.  Also, Vice Presidents are plenty active; during my first term as SoEA, I worked closely with both PS and Marokai.  The Vice President can still be inactive, but now we'll have two positions inactive, and if the President appoints a new person to the Cabinet job, he has to fire someone else.  If you amended it to allow the President this option, I'd be totally behind it.  But mandating is not a good idea.

And finally, I don't see this as a vehicle for competitive elections; nor do I see your diagnosis of Polnut's landslide as indicative of anything larger than one landslide.  In any event, this is definitely not the solution to uncompetitive elections.

[Napoleon]

I am using your (admittedly flawed) definition of personal vendetta. It is interesting that 30 minutes ago making the VP able to be a Cabinet member was absurd and now it is something you could "totally get behind". Since I haven't yet introduced my amended version, perhaps you will save your criticism for a more appropriate time. The amendment as it stands currently would not even get my vote.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's not absurd. It's an interesting proposal. However, I do have some concerns. The main one is that all cabinet officials be subject to Senate confirmation. If the VP is assured a cabinet position, the Senate's role here is taken away, which is unhealthy for our system of checks and balances.

[Napoleon]

Shua, my changes address those concersns. Give me an hour and you all can review what I have changed.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I am using your (admittedly flawed) definition of personal vendetta. It is interesting that 30 minutes ago making the VP able to be a Cabinet member was absurd and now it is something you could "totally get behind". Since I haven't yet introduced my amended version, perhaps you will save your criticism for a more appropriate time. The amendment as it stands currently would not even get my vote.

Making it mandatory is absurd.  Giving the President the option is something I could get behind.

But hopefully all of your changes address my concerns, and I can focus on other things.

[Napoleon]

1. The Vice President may simultaneously serve as Attorney General, Secretary of Federal Elections, Registrar General, Secretary of Internal Affairs, or Secretary of External Affairs upon appointment by the President.
2. Upon appointment to one of the aforementioned Cabinet position, the Vice President will be subject to the same confirmation process as any other nominee would.
3. The Vice President shall retain the option to preside over the Senate and the power to break ties in the Senate.
4. In the event that the Vice President resigns, he or she shall retain his or her Cabinet position unless resignation from that position is announced.
5. In the event that the Vice President is forcibly removed from office, he or she shall forfeit his or her Cabinet position automatically.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I may just be tired, but can the President fire the VP from the Cabinet position while retaining him as VP?  And, does this need to be a constitutional amendment?

But otherwise, this actually looks pretty cool.

[Napoleon]

This is already a constitutional amendment but I couldn't find the parts of the constitution this effectively changes. If anyone knows, please post here or PM me. I don't think the President can fire the VP from his elected position so that shouldn't be an issue.

But thanks Ben