SENATE BILL: The Cabinet Expansion Act of March 2013 (Law'd)

[Marokai Backbeat]

NAY. The Senate has no right to meddle in the executive branch affairs in this manner.

The Senate has no right to create offices...?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

Let's not bloat the bureacracy if the president doesn't want to. Seems like a common-sense approach.

[Sbane]

Aye

[Sopranos Republican]

AYE

[Napoleon]

NAY. The Senate has no right to meddle in the executive branch affairs in this manner.

The Senate has no right to create offices...?

the Senate has the right to create the executive departments, and define their duties, not to manage their operation.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE


I would point out (and I would have yesterday), that this amendment actually reduces the intervention in the executive branch from that of the original bill. This way, the President gets to decide whether or not it is needed or not.

Also, I do beleive that the Senate has the ability to create offices within Departments. An office such as this should be considered "an officer of an Executive Department" (not to be confused with the "Principal Officer of the Executive Department, which would be the AG in this case). Under Article I, Section 5, Clause 28 (which applies in full since this Dept does not appear in the Constitution), the Senate has unlimited authority to structure these Departments.

As to whether or not we should, or it is necessary, is a different consideration. All this does is give it some degree of authority, as opposed to the temporary delegations of authority made through informal means that this has been effected up to now, while at the same time (provided my amendment is passed), give the President the option to refrain from using it if it is determined to be unnecessary at the time.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Amendment 54:51 by NC Yankee:

Aye (7): Αverroës Nix, Ben, HagridoftheDeep, Matt From VT, NC Yankee, sbane and Snowstalker
Nay (2): jdb and Napoleon
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): Clarence

With seven votes in the affirmative, the amendment is adopted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Is that all here?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators, this bill is now at Final Vote, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Aye

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Aye

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Aye

[Napoleon]

Aye

Im voting Aye to get this off the floor without wasting time. However, I do not support this bill and will investigate the constitutionality of it and bring a lawsuit if I find a way to do so.

[Sbane]

Aye

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye

Im voting Aye to get this off the floor without wasting time. However, I do not support this bill and will investigate the constitutionality of it and bring a lawsuit if I find a way to do so.

Under what rationale could this possibly be unconstitutional! Seriously! In other threads you at least have some sort of solid reason even if I think it's insane, but here you are being completely incoherent. You are arguing that the Senate has no authority to create cabinet offices and roles, that is completely bananas and has never ever ever been even CLOSE to true!!

Under this rationale even something as benign as the Cabinet Restructuring Act of 2009 (which this bill was exactly modeled after!) is unconstitutional. This:

the Senate has the right to create the executive departments, and define their duties, not to manage their operation.

makes no sense whatsoever despite me trying really really hard to understand what you could possibly be meaning. The only conceivable thing you could be arguing here is that the Senate can create offices and define their duties... but not tell them to execute their duties? Or not define how they can perform their duties? Or can't explicitly say that the President may or may not appoint them? I don't know what bizarro legal argument you're making here, but you are saying crazy words that not any of my Atlasian legal experience can make any sense of.

[DemPGH]

It seems to me that 1.5.28 - the clause that allows Congress and the President to create executive offices - is pretty unambiguous. It could be argued that this bill is not necessary, and that could be debated, but I really don't follow the unconstitutional argument behind this. I would rather formally create the office at the president's discretion than not create it, have the president just decide at some point to appoint / create a Deputy A.G., and then get sued over that. In other words, I think going through the formal motions here is precisely Constitutional. Now anyone can say they don't like it or think it's not necessary, but I don't follow from that that it's unconstitutional.

[Napoleon]

Aye

Im voting Aye to get this off the floor without wasting time. However, I do not support this bill and will investigate the constitutionality of it and bring a lawsuit if I find a way to do so.

Under what rationale could this possibly be unconstitutional! Seriously! In other threads you at least have some sort of solid reason even if I think it's insane, but here you are being completely incoherent. You are arguing that the Senate has no authority to create cabinet offices and roles, that is completely bananas and has never ever ever been even CLOSE to true!!

Under this rationale even something as benign as the Cabinet Restructuring Act of 2009 (which this bill was exactly modeled after!) is unconstitutional. This:

the Senate has the right to create the executive departments, and define their duties, not to manage their operation.

makes no sense whatsoever despite me trying really really hard to understand what you could possibly be meaning. The only conceivable thing you could be arguing here is that the Senate can create offices and define their duties... but not tell them to execute their duties? Or not define how they can perform their duties? Or can't explicitly say that the President may or may not appoint them? I don't know what bizarro legal argument you're making here, but you are saying crazy words that not any of my Atlasian legal experience can make any sense of.

Lol at the guy who thinks a Deputy Attorney General qualifies as an "executive department" calling someone else insane. Good work!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE



Based off the extensive research that I engaged in for my recent (and as yet undecided case), the Senate has rather unlimited authority through the necessary and proper clause to alter or abolish the Executive Departments (which would include the creation of "offices of the Department" which are lower level agencies and their leadership and "executive offices", which are officials and their agencies that are independent of any Department), as long as the Department or office in question derives its authority of creation from legislation passed under Senate's Article 1, Clause 5, Section 28 powers.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Final Passage of The Cabinet Expansion Act of March 2013:

Aye (7): Αverroës Nix, Ben, jdb, Napoleon, NC Yankee, Snowstalker and sbane
Nay (0):
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (3): Clarence, HagridoftheDeep and Matt from VT - Nice display of Federalist Competence and activity there guys.

The bill is passed and presented to the President for executive action.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

x Marokai Blue