Senate Hearing on the Federal Activity Bill

[King]

I would like to call a Senate Committee Hearing on the Federal Activity Bill. After a week of listening to various testimonies by fellow Senators and anybody else that would like to weigh in, the Senate will decide and vote on a resolution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This Bill suffers in the extreme from unconstitutionality.

The Constitution specifies but a single method for removing members of the Executive and Judicial Branches, impeachment, thus making Parts I and III unconstitutional.

The Constitution alos specifies a method for the removal of Senators.  Part II could be viewed as an implementation of that method, but I am not certain that it would pass constitutional muster either.

Part IV (with the exception of Clause 1 which is a restatement of a constitutional provision) runs afoul of the Constitution as well as it is within the President's exclusive purview as to whether a Cabinet member should be dismissed from service.

As the GM is a quasi-official position with no Constitutional standing, I see nothing that would render Part V unconstitutional, however I find the idea of removing by law a person from a position to which he has not been chosen by law is highly irregular, if the dismissal be done by law, I would prefer that the appointment be done by law as well..

Part VI is not unconstitutional, but would be difficult to enforce.  In addition, it is unlikely that we would add additional branches of the government.

That said, let me offer the following bill to remedy the defects I have observed, and present it as a starting point for the Senate's discussions.  A stronger bill than the one I propose would likely require amending the Constitution to be valid, save one that shortened the time periods given below.

Revised Federal Activity Act

§ 1. The Federal Activity Act is hereby repealed, save that all persons removed from office under said Act remain removed from office.

§ 2. Failure on the part of the President to post in the preceding seven days shall be considered prima facie evidence of an inability to perform his or her duties as President, as per Article II Section 3 Clause 3 Paragraph 3 of the Constitution.

§ 3. Failure on the part of the President or Vice President to post in the preceding fourteen days without previous notice of an inability to perform his or her duties, shall be considered prima facie evidence of a high crime making him or her subject to impeachment as per Article II Section 2 Clause 7 of the Constitution.

§ 4. Failure on the part of a Senator to post in the preceeding seven days without previous notice or failure to post in the preceding fourteen days, even with notice, shall be construed prima facie evidence of misconduct making him or her subject to expulsion from the Senate as per Article I Section 4 of the Constitution.

§ 5. Failure on the part of a Supreme Court Justice to post in the preceeding seven days without previous notice  or failure to post in the preceding fourteen days, even with notice, shall be construed as grounds for removal  from the Supreme Court as per Article III Section 1 of the Constitution.

§ 6. Failure on the part of a Cabinet member to post in the preceeding seven days without previous notice shall require the President to comment upon the absence within seven days of said failure being brought to his notice by any member of the Senate.
Said commentary shall indicate whether the President desires the Cabinet member to remain in office and give his or reasons for the member's dismissal or retrention.  If the President should fail to comment it shall be taken as a desire for the Cabinet member's dismissal.

[Niles Caulder]

Well, once again, I think it's worth mentioning that the law we have in place is far more forgiving than the Consitutional provisions themselves.  An expelled Senator cannot hold high office again---ever, as per the Constitution.

So I think the AG's revisions are fine, but point out they're much harsher for missing legislators than what's currently in place.

Naturally, I don't draft legislation that I think is unconstitutional, but I'm not attached to preserving it if favor of the AG's efficient wording.

I agree the GM is a dubious position to subject to government doings, but I think it's appropriate for the government to have a voice in checking the occupant of the role who represents the federal bureacracy, and whose absence would be as detrimental as any of the others.

[Niles Caulder]

Taking a step back, I want to point out "what's 'out of control?'"

By late August, I started doing this job and had only one cabinet member involved in fantasy government.  Of the other three, I received one email from one of them between now and then...but was otherwise ignored like I was some dimwit beneath being responded to.

However true that may be, I'm here for the folks who want to participate--and the rest need to make room for the ones do.  Some people in this forum have the class to do that.  Others regretably don't respect the community that much.

All this law does is acknowledge that their job is not being done, and someone needs to do it.

Senator Texasgurl observed that Senator SteveNick's absence wasn't impeding the business of the senate.  In this case, it's a matter of District 5's right to be represented.  A section of the nation that voted conservative [edit: would have been] left twisting in the wind while it voice is absent from the legislature.  [I also need to note that in this case, the voting duration of the third consecutive missed vote for Sen. SteveNick wouldn't have occurred until the 10th...but only two consecutive votes were missed, and this is hardly uncommon for a legislative body.]

Everyone needs to take a break now and then.  But if you're going to miss 'work' for stretches at a time, you call in.  Give your colleagues the courtesy of knowing what to expect, and for how long, so it can work around your personal needs, and they'll invariably do it.

With regard to the AG's draft, I suggest extending the terms from 7 days to 10 or more just to make it ridiculously generous, so we don't find ourselves revisiting this subject anytime soon.  Also, as far as I'm concerned, I don't necessarilly have to see a post to know the executive branch is doing it's job.  So long as they're corresponding with me, they're certainly doing their job, too.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, once again, I think it's worth mentioning that the law we have in place is far more forgiving than the Consitutional provisions themselves.  An expelled Senator cannot hold high office again---ever, as per the Constitution.

So I think the AG's revisions are fine, but point out they're much harsher for missing legislators than what's currently in place.

Naturally, I don't draft legislation that I think is unconstitutional, but I'm not attached to preserving it if favor of the AG's efficient wording.

I agree the GM is a dubious position to subject to government doings, but I think it's appropriate for the government to have a voice in checking the occupant of the role who represents the federal bureacracy, and whose absence would be as detrimental as any of the others.

Actually, only impeachment bars a person from further office.  Being expelled from the Senate, dismissed from the cabinet or the Supreme Court, or being declared unable to serve do not bar a person from furher office.  Only Section 3 of my proposed bill mentions impeachment, and even then it doesn't mandate it as the government could choose to limp along with an Acting President until the next regular election.  Strictly speaking, impeachment would only be necessary in the event that both the President and the Vice-President fell silent as there is no constitutional method for having an Acting President other than the Vice-President.  Basically the propsed replacement provides guidance as to when the existing Constitutional provisions for removing from office should be activated when officials aren't present.  With the exception of cabinet officials who don't get their absence excused by the President, there is no automatic removal under this legislations for anyone.

[Niles Caulder]

Well, once again, I think it's worth mentioning that the law we have in place is far more forgiving than the Consitutional provisions themselves.  An expelled Senator cannot hold high office again---ever, as per the Constitution.

So I think the AG's revisions are fine, but point out they're much harsher for missing legislators than what's currently in place.

Naturally, I don't draft legislation that I think is unconstitutional, but I'm not attached to preserving it if favor of the AG's efficient wording.

I agree the GM is a dubious position to subject to government doings, but I think it's appropriate for the government to have a voice in checking the occupant of the role who represents the federal bureacracy, and whose absence would be as detrimental as any of the others.

Actually, only impeachment bars a person from further office.  Being expelled from the Senate, dismissed from the cabinet or the Supreme Court, or being declared unable to serve do not bar a person from furher office.  Only Section 3 of my proposed bill mentions impeachment, and even then it doesn't mandate it as the government could choose to limp along with an Acting President until the next regular election.  Strictly speaking, impeachment would only be necessary in the event that both the President and the Vice-President fell silent as there is no constitutional method for having an Acting President other than the Vice-President.  Basically the propsed replacement provides guidance as to when the existing Constitutional provisions for removing from office should be activated when officials aren't present.  With the exception of cabinet officials who don't get their absence excused by the President, there is no automatic removal under this legislations for anyone.

My mistake!  Objection withdrawn.  Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.

[edit: come to think of it, the appropriate phrase is "I stand corrected."  I wonder why that didn't occur to me at first?  hmmmmm....]

[King]

I think the whole problem was just a simple error on my part by putting 3 as the minimun missed Senate votes instead of 5. If I had correctly put 5, as it was originally, we wouldn't be discussing this at all.

[King]

I think the whole problem was just a simple error on my part by putting 3 as the minimun missed Senate votes instead of 5. If I had correctly put 5, as it was originally, we wouldn't be discussing this at all.

Also the Federal Activity Bill stated that if a Senator was going on vacation, which is the case of StevenNick, he should notify us. StevenNick never notified anybody. The Republicans had to go on their own with their convention, nobody got more than 4 votes on the PPT election...it really isn't the bill's fault. Its failure to recognize it.

[Nation]

It's not even the government's business as to whether StevenNick's absense resulted in party conflict -- that is party business, not senate business. I don't believe the length of StevenNick's absence qualifies as grounds for recall, but the bill should stand.