SR 2018-275: Constitutional Amendment to limit dual office holding (Failed)

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Citizen Referred Legislation: AZ
Sponsor: Needed

[Sirius_]

I'll take this one.

[Mr. Reactionary]

SOLD ... unless someone objects in 23 1/2 hrs.

In the mean time we can hammer out a summary real quick. I believe there is a law that says Amendments require brief summaries. I feel something like:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

covers all of our bases in 2 sentences. How does everybody else feel?

[Sirius_]

Seems right, that can be attached once I assume the sponsorship.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Seems right, that can be attached once I assume the sponsorship.

We can layer the objection period for that with the sponsorship objection period.

If you object to the above summary being added to the amendment pls object within 24 hours.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Ninja is the sponsor and the amendment is adopted.

[Sirius_]

I believe that this is important to eliminate conflicts of interest as the GM/DGM could do things that help themselves specifically if they hold another office.

[F. Joe Haydn]

I support this Resolution. Dual office holding discourages participation in the game by new members, as those who hold multiple offices are often veterans of the game. It also leaves less offices open to be filled by new players. Furthermore, there are definitely conflicts of interest that could arise from dual office holding, especially when one of the dual offices held is the GM or Deputy GM position.

[Adam Griffin]

Well, this brings up a good point about an existing clause (or rather, a question I have):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is "such executive departments" defining here? In the full passage, it makes me think that it's a contradiction; i.e. Justices (and GMs) can't run for other offices but people in those offices can become Justice (and GMs). 

[Mr. Reactionary]

So just a quick straw poll, who plans to vote aye?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well, this brings up a good point about an existing clause (or rather, a question I have):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is "such executive departments" defining here? In the full passage, it makes me think that it's a contradiction; i.e. Justices (and GMs) can't run for other offices but people in those offices can become Justice (and GMs). 

Justice is not an executive department. Justice is a constitutional office created by Article V. GM is a constitutional office created in Article VI.

Executive departments are created by the President through executive order and thus their authority is derived as delegated responsibilities from the President himself, and to which people are thus appointed with advise and consent -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Theoretically speaking, I could issue EOs abolishing SoIA, AG, SoS etc and just do all that myself.  The same cannot be done with GM and Justice because they are constitutionally derived offices, whose powers and existence are explicitly stipulated in the document, the only way to eliminate them would be the constitutional amendment process.

[Mr. Reactionary]

So unless there are any objections i move we proceed to a final vote.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Is this necessary at all?

[Mr. Reactionary]

The concern seems to be a future GM or Deputy GM providing the analysis for a bill they wrote in their capacity as elected official. Remember this doesn't ban dual office holding generally, just dual office holding for GM and Deputy GM.

[Mr. Reactionary]

A final vote is now open lasting 72 hours or until 12 hours after this has enough votes to pass or fail.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Aye

[Sirius_]

Aye

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

Aye

[Adam Griffin]

Nay

[Canis]

Nay

[Mr. Reactionary]

Proposed Amendment has failed to get 2/3rds of the vote and is therefore rejected.