Fairness in Cabinet Obligations Amendment (Final vote)

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Windjammer

[windjammer]

Because the Registrar General's position is fairly uncontroversial.

[Talleyrand]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Proposing this amendment.

With Homely's dutiful service, this won't be applicable for a long time I think but I don't see why these two positions necessarily have to be exempt from the semi-presidentialism amendment.

[windjammer]

Senators have 36 hours to object.

[Cranberry]

I also see not really a conflict of interests between the two positions and the position of Senator, which for me would be the only reason to support an exemption for those two. Thus, I support both the original bill and the amendment.

[Lief 🗽]

Eh, I don't think a senator should be in charge of the office that runs his own re-election. I object to the amendment.

[Talleyrand]

Eh, I don't think a senator should be in charge of the office that runs his own re-election. I object to the amendment.

Keep in mind you could have that situation anyway if the SoFE ran for a federal office and didn't resign during the election period.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A little reminder of a black event in the history of our Republic.

[Talleyrand]

In that case I will withdraw the amendment...

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The amendment is sensible.

Motion for cloture to end debate and proceed to a final vote (or whatever the heck it's called).

[Cranberry]

Motion seconded

[Senator Cris]

Motion thirded.

It looks very sensible and it'll have my support.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can't motion for that senators, me I can .
I motion to waive the 72 hour requirement, senators have 24 hours to object.

[Cranberry]

Why should we weaken the requirements for either position unless those requirements are so stringent that it's impossible to find qualified candidates who meet them?

I would not see this as a weakening of requirements, rather getting rid of unnecessary restrictions.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This amendment is so partisan you just can't get more transparent.

[Cranberry]

This amendment is so partisan you just can't get more transparent.

It is obvious that this is/was tailored exclusively for Griffin, sure. But where's the problem? I don't know many people that'd do a better job than Griffin as RG...

[TNF]

I exempted the positions pertaining to the maintenance of elections infrastructure when I wrote the original amendment out of concern that allowing them to be utilized by a partisan elected official may have a negative impact. However, I think that doing so was ultimately a little haughty on my part and I am completely willing to modify the spirit of the amendment. So long as the person in question is an elected official, I have confidence that the people of this Republic will be able to monitor and check any attempt at power seizure by whomever may hold either of the positions in question.

[Talleyrand]

It's not like Griffin is going to be here to reap the benefits of this amendment anyway...

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Sorry for trying to push things through quickly, but I just think it makes sense.

The RG has no actual power... the person just offers a valuable service. If the senate (and by extension, the people) deems an individual fit to serve as RG based on that person's merits, then that's good enough for me. It doesn't matter what other elected activities he or she does.

Where it would matter is with the position of SoFE, but we've already cleared that up and agreed to keep the position as unbiased as possible. So I don't really see much reason to prolong this debate. Yes, the amendment was tailored to allow someone like Griffin to serve in two jobs at once, but since we're playing the part of lawmakers in a country with staying power, the changes we make here could arguably be in play for "generations to come." Someone else like Griffin may come along who can serve as both senator and RG quite effectively. Why not allow it?

[windjammer]

Well,
This is obviou that I introduced that after I realized that Griffin wasn't being able to be at the same RG and senator.
But just to be clear, I'm not S-T-U-P-I-D. While I introduced, I did know that the Griffin problem was still going to be here because you know, an amendment being adopted takes a lot of time.
I just genuinely believe that this office, ie RG, is definitely not controversial, probably much less controversial than an AG who would try to find any reason to start a trial against one of his senate colleagues.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

No one called you stupid...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I need to really think about this one.

[windjammer]

No one called you stupid...

I know. That's rhetoric . It's just that I didn't introduce that in order to help Griffin because I obviously knew it was going to be too late .

[bore]

Yeah, that Hagrid of all people voted to confirm Griffin suggests that there isn't exactly much potential in the position for partisan abuse

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well, my reasons for that weren't the most honourable... I don't have to deal with him on a daily basis as RG.