The Executive Branch (President, Vice President, etc.)

[Adam Griffin]

Thank you for acknowledging that the Vice President is in the executive branch! I will be engaging with this thread quite a bit obviously in the coming days.

[Adam Griffin]

Since we apparently are not going to abolish the Vice Presidency or entertain the notion of the whole Prime Minister/VP and President concept I came up with (where the President can break ties in one chamber and the Prime Minister - or possibly VP - can break ties in another), then I don't see much of a purpose in separating these.

As-is and at least in one chamber, the President's chosen running mate (and therefore, an extension of the administration) will have the ability to break a vote in the administration's favor. I'm sure that otherwise, the VP role will continue to have a minimal day-to-day role in whatever the final text may be (based on these actions thus far), so I'll say:

Nay

[Adam Griffin]

I think we need to clarify just what exactly the Vice President's role will be in the tie-breaking situation. Before we know this, we can't really proceed with determining how ties will be broken in the other chamber (although technically, we could allow the VP to break the tie in both chambers). The VP could also have no tie-breaking ability, however, it wouldn't make much sense to have kept this position and not give it tie-breaking power somewhere (not to mention that we'd need to devise potentially two new ways to break ties: either one person in each chamber, or one for both chambers).

Possible options:

The VP breaks the tie in the Senate The VP breaks the tie in the House The VP breaks the tie in both chambers The VP breaks the tie in neither chamber

[Adam Griffin]

Then I would say that the next item should be the discussion as to whether or not the Vice President can hold an additional cabinet position (or elected position, for that matter), unless it's believed superior to discuss this as part of broader package on simultaneous officeholding later. I can see merits in explicitly outlining this in the executive branch of the document, as well as merely covering it as part of cabinet positions and dual officeholding.

[Adam Griffin]

Personally, I've never liked the idea of term limits for any office. If I recall correctly, term limits were not around in the original iteration of Atlasia (could totally be wrong about this). Nobody has ever served more than two elected terms as President. Let me be the first to tell you: there's a reason for that! Hell, bore was the first two-term Laborite (who was the 4th elected Laborite to the office); all of the others couldn't handle the chronic abuse - and I don't blame them, based on what I knew they were experiencing.

If someone - god forbid - can handle the office for more than two terms and the public at-large is willing to give them that opportunity, then I personally think that they deserve it. I just don't think anyone would ever be willing to do so. As it stands currently, people who served two consecutive terms can run again just a few months later if they so desire - we don't see that happening, which kind of proves my point. The only reason we have term limits is because a lot of people have a desire to make the game look like the RL US way too much.

I also think that 4-month terms are perfectly fine. If someone has to run for President every 2 months, then you might as well just slap a one-term limit on that - can you imagine having to campaign for this office every 2 months? I doubt anyone would do it. You might also lower turnout through such a concept - presidential elections would then become a lot "cheaper". I can't fathom any legitimate argument that seeks to make the term longer than 4 months.

[Adam Griffin]

Should we have a mere principle vote on this, or what? Compared to the current Constitution, we'd be voting to either omit a restriction in the new document versus keeping it, so that seems that a simple enough of a vote. Perhaps we'll need 2 votes alongside each other - one for the term length and one for the number of terms - to get it all done at once. Then we can craft the actual text for one or both items.

I offer the following for consideration as a principle vote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Adam Griffin]

I'll withdraw my original amendment and allow Clyde's to stand as its replacement.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Adam Griffin]

The President should have the ability to grant reprieves and pardon individuals of crimes past and present.

The President should have the ability to introduce legislation into the queue of the Senate.

The President should have the ability to appoint cabinet members, and to create cabinet-level offices as he/she sees fit.

The President should have the ability to appoint individuals to the Supreme Court, subject to Senate approval.

[Adam Griffin]

I just wish that more of us had a little bit of creativity and dreaming potential here. Notions such as "separation of powers" in a game is not a life or death situation. We are trying to create a new and fun environment, guys: everything doesn't have to be chained to the United States Constitution (and if it is, then *yawn*, it's just going to be more of the same). 

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Adam Griffin]

I'm surprised everything passed. Glad to see it!

[Adam Griffin]

I want to object as a matter of principle, but I won't for fear of slowing down the ConCon and recognizing that it would be unlikely that such a scenario would occur.

[Adam Griffin]

I have no objections in moving toward a final vote.

[Adam Griffin]

Aye