Cabinet Flexibility Amendment-Midwest Vote

[hawkeye59]

Cabinet Flexibility Amendment

1) Article V, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Third Constitution shall be amended to read "No person may simultaneously hold two or more offices of the Republic of Atlasia at any level of the government. An exception shall be made for members of the President's cabinet, excluding the Game Moderator, who may serve in multiple cabinet posts, but not in addition to any other office. The Vice President may also be allowed to serve in a single cabinet post. Any person nominated to multiple offices, and any person already holding office nominated to another office as allowed above, shall still require Senate approval for each individual cabinet post. In the event that a Vice President who holds a cabinet post becomes Acting President, the Vice President shall designate an Acting Secretary to exercise the powers of that cabinet post while he or she serves as Acting President. The Senate shall, by appropriate legislation, have the power to place further limitations on the holding of multiple offices within the President's cabinet.

[Thomas D]

[Јas]

1.
2. Write-in: Is it not odd that people can cheerlead about the number of voters and at the same time support amendments indicating that there are insufficient persons to put together a sound cabinet?
3. Write-in: Oh, and I object to the implied placement of the GM into the cabinet by the amendment.

[Marokai Backbeat]

[bgwah]

1.
2. Write-in: Is it not odd that people can cheerlead about the number of voters and at the same time support amendments indicating that there are insufficient persons to put together a sound cabinet?
3. Write-in: Oh, and I object to the implied placement of the GM into the cabinet by the amendment.

Generally speaking, I've always opposed the creation of all these extra cabinet positions.  Some have long been critical of whether or not separating SoFA was necessary (I'm not personally one of them), and SoFE Teddy himself asked for an amendment along these lines. There has long been a desire to give the VP a more active role, something this amendment will allow. With homelycooking's nomination to RG I doubt we'll see anyone serve both SoFA positions simultaneously anytime soon, but who knows. The option is there, hence the word flexibility. So, I politely ask that you quit misrepresenting my positions in the voting booth. But maybe you're still mad you lost to Phil and I'm just wasting my time. I don't really know.

[dead0man]

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

[Fritz]

[Јas]

1.
2. Write-in: Is it not odd that people can cheerlead about the number of voters and at the same time support amendments indicating that there are insufficient persons to put together a sound cabinet?
3. Write-in: Oh, and I object to the implied placement of the GM into the cabinet by the amendment.

Generally speaking, I've always opposed the creation of all these extra cabinet positions.  Some have long been critical of whether or not separating SoFA was necessary (I'm not personally one of them), and SoFE Teddy himself asked for an amendment along these lines. There has long been a desire to give the VP a more active role, something this amendment will allow. With homelycooking's nomination to RG I doubt we'll see anyone serve both SoFA positions simultaneously anytime soon, but who knows. The option is there, hence the word flexibility. So, I politely ask that you quit misrepresenting my positions in the voting booth.

I was merely pointing out the pretty flagrant inconsistency between celebrating the number of Atlasians and at the same time bemoaning the lack of qualified people to take office. I don't have a strong opinion on the splitting up on the SoEA office, nor indeed on empowering the VP; my point is simply that if we are going to celebrate the high number of Atlasians voting, then I think it would be a failure for any administration to be unable to find a reasonable candidate for such offices as may exist without resorting to doubling up on office-holding.

But maybe you're still mad you lost to Phil and I'm just wasting my time. I don't really know.

You live in the past if you want to bgwah. If it comforts you to read that much angst into others over a pretty trivial affair from so long ago (I thought this was just a distracting game after all - is it not?), well then good for you. I can only imagine that it's a reflection of ongoing angst you must be suffering from your own very many election defeats for so long before that. I hope not. Time to move on, I should think.

[bgwah]

1.
2. Write-in: Is it not odd that people can cheerlead about the number of voters and at the same time support amendments indicating that there are insufficient persons to put together a sound cabinet?
3. Write-in: Oh, and I object to the implied placement of the GM into the cabinet by the amendment.

Generally speaking, I've always opposed the creation of all these extra cabinet positions.  Some have long been critical of whether or not separating SoFA was necessary (I'm not personally one of them), and SoFE Teddy himself asked for an amendment along these lines. There has long been a desire to give the VP a more active role, something this amendment will allow. With homelycooking's nomination to RG I doubt we'll see anyone serve both SoFA positions simultaneously anytime soon, but who knows. The option is there, hence the word flexibility. So, I politely ask that you quit misrepresenting my positions in the voting booth.

I was merely pointing out the pretty flagrant inconsistency between celebrating the number of Atlasians and at the same time bemoaning the lack of qualified people to take office. I don't have a strong opinion on the splitting up on the SoEA office, nor indeed on empowering the VP; my point is simply that if we are going to celebrate the high number of Atlasians voting, then I think it would be a failure for any administration to be unable to find a reasonable candidate for such offices as may exist without resorting to doubling up on office-holding.

But maybe you're still mad you lost to Phil and I'm just wasting my time. I don't really know.

You live in the past if you want to bgwah. If it comforts you to read that much angst into others over a pretty trivial affair from so long ago (I thought this was just a distracting game after all - is it not?), well then good for you. I can only imagine that it's a reflection of ongoing angst you must be suffering from your own very many election defeats for so long before that. I hope not. Time to move on, I should think.

I was almost never running to win back in the day. Of course I'm not mad about that.