Cabinet Reform Amendment (Failed)

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well, I guess this makes some sense... Would entrenching the cabinet offices firmly in the body of the constitution like this prevent the senate from making changes to each department's duties?

[TNF]

Because it increases the chances of this awful bill passing.

What utter hypocrisy.

What's hypocritical about making my intentions known? Would you rather me make something up?

Nay

[bore]

Aye

[bore]

By a vote of 4-1 Cris's amendment has passed

Aye: Bore, Cranberry, Cris, Windjammer

Nay: TNF

Not Voting: Polnut, Bacon King, Yankee, Lief, SWE

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye FTR I guess

Well, I guess this makes some sense... Would entrenching the cabinet offices firmly in the body of the constitution like this prevent the senate from making changes to each department's duties?

Yes it could potentially, Yankee V. Atlasia case in point. I would recommend adding terminology that allows for the amendment of the office's duties by legislative action.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lief 🗽]

This is why I'm ambivalent about this amendment. I'd prefer that the cabinet not be codified in the constitution so that it's more easy to remove, add, redefine, etc. offices as becomes necessary.

[Lumine]

Very well, I propose the following amendment based on Yankee's advice:

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]

[Lumine]

This is why I'm ambivalent about this amendment. I'd prefer that the cabinet not be codified in the constitution so that it's more easy to remove, add, redefine, etc. offices as becomes necessary.

That I perfectly understand, we never know when we might to make changes and so Yankee's amendment makes perfect sense to me, but wouldn't it be better for the sake of clarity and legality that the Cabinet becomes a formal part of the Constitution? Given the crucial role that its member can have at times I do think it's for the best if their jobs are not so "up in the air", we might say.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I offer the amendment on behalf of the President.

[TNF]

I object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

WHY?

[bore]

A vote is now open on Yankee's proposed amendment, please vote aye nay or abstain.

[Senator Cris]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Lief 🗽]

Abstain

[windjammer]

Aye

[bore]

Aye

[TNF]

Nay

[Cranberry]

AYE

[bore]

This has enough votes to pass, senators have 24 hours to change their votes

[SWE]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Is this amendment finished?

[Lumine]

Is this amendment finished?

Unless there are more concerns put forward by the Senate, I think it should be ready.

[windjammer]

I have a last concern:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Simply,
I don't believe that the senate would be able to remove a controversial GM by a 2/3 majority. Currently, the left/right divide is 8/2. As I guess I will be defeated and maybe someone else, with the right likely regaining at least a seat for the next at large elections: in the long term, the statu quo will be 5 leftwingers/5 "rightwingers".
If the GM starts being controversial (that won't be the case for Kal obviously) and for example decides to raise unemployment rate by 4 points (yes it happened in the past), I don't think there will be enough leftwingers or rightwingers to cross party line if a 2/3 majority is needed.
That(s why I believe a 3/5 majority is more appropriate.

[bore]

By a vote of 6-1-1 Yankee's amendment has been adopted

Aye: Bore, Windjammer, Yankee, Cris, SWE, Cranberry

Nay: TNF

Abstain: Lief

Not Voting: Polnut, BK


Senators have 36 hour to object to windjammer's amendment