The Potomac Agreement: A Co-Presidency (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 09:54:34 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  The Potomac Agreement: A Co-Presidency (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The Potomac Agreement: A Co-Presidency  (Read 2001 times)
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,283
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

« on: November 24, 2016, 03:36:43 PM »

Is this constitutional?
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,283
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2016, 04:23:28 PM »


From the Federal Election Act

Section 4: Tied Runoff Elections
If the Runoff Election procedure specified in section 4 results in a tie, then:
1. One of the tied candidates may concede their portion of the term. The rules for determining the winner shall proceed based on as if the number tied candidates is reduced by one.
2. The two candidates shall each serve for one half of a term.

That part of the law seems to be in conflict with the Constitution, which explicitly states that the President shall serve for four months, without mention of co-presidents.  I don't have much interest in challenging the law myself nor am I necessarily against this agreement, but this does seem borderline, if not outright, unconstitutional.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,283
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2016, 05:04:34 PM »

If none of the justices have a problem with the plan, I suppose it should proceed.  I think Kalwejt's idea is the most legal way of carrying this out.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,283
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2016, 06:48:47 AM »
« Edited: December 14, 2016, 07:11:01 AM by Senator Scott »

Not only VP candidates don't get to serve in that role for half a term because they were tied VP, Kingpoleon who gave up his chance to be VP was not approved for a Cabinet role in the confirmation hearing.  He can't even claim a consolation prize. Nice collaborating spirit.
This is not the case. NCYankee promised to keep me on for his part of the time. Judging by rpryor's barely subtle harsh criticism of me, I would guess that RPryor would not agree with such a decision.

This is not NCYankee's fault. This is the fault of a joke of a confirmation hearing where Scott claimed to have vague concerns after asking two or three questions. As for his vague concerns, I wish that he had been more specific. PiT and JCL asked no questions, despite the fact that their concerns obviously were great enough to vote against me. If a concern can't be clarified, that seriously concerns me as to what I have done wrong so that two Senators find ample reason to vote against me without asking a single question.

In short, the confirmation hearing period probably should have been extended by someone who wanted to ask more questions or be more specific, rather than vote against me without asking any questions.

I voted against your confirmation because I was not convinced, based on the way you answered those questions, that you had a full understanding of what the job of SoS entailed and I was unwilling to vote for someone who would have potentially used the office to force democracy abroad.  The way you answered those questions, if anything, was confusing in some resects and that was enough to cast serious doubts as to whether you were prepared to take the office.  It wasn't just me who had reservations, either; I had spoken with a few prominent individuals before the confirmation vote (who shall remain anonymous unless they would like to come forward) and they pretty much felt the same way.

JCL stated why he voted against and I would assume that PiT had some of the objections that were raised, as well (though I agree that it's not particularly helpful when legislators vote against something without explaining their opposition beforehand; most of the Senate, unfortunately, has not been pulling its weight this past month.)

But this has nothing to do with Yankee or the Potomac Agreement or even you personally.  This is why we have confirmation hearings: if most senators do not believe that a nominee has a clear understanding of the powers of the office or feel that decisions they would make could lead to problems at home or abroad, then the nominee will not be approved.  I take no pleasure in voting against people I've had the opportunity to work with in the past.
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 0.027 seconds with 12 queries.