SB 2018-153: Dual Officeholding Amendment (Passed)

[Anna Komnene]

I motion to table this legislation.

[Pericles]

I can amend it to narrow down the objective to conflict of interest reform, though I'd also like to hear Lumine's contributions when he is seated.

[Lumine]

Right. There was a motion to table, but having no seconder and with its proposer (Siren) no longer being a Senator, said motion is disregarded.

It should surprise no one that I am of the opinion dual officeholding as a general principle is not a wise one, and I believe the Senate should debate and pass a measure that limits potential abuse in the future. On the other hand, it is clear the Amendment as written is too absolute and unworkable in practical terms, and so I'd like to offer a comprehensive amendment (combined with some corrections to grammar and formatting) to address some concerns presented:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Besides presenting a more clear formatting, the purpose of this amendment is to keep the spirit of containing dual or multiple officeholding due to the potential conflict of interest and potential for abuse, and at the same time acknowledging that there are some contexts, particularly when it comes to the Cabinet, that require an exception.

Therefore, dual officeholding would be banned with the following cases left aside:

-Being elected or appointed PPT/Deputy PPT or Speaker/Deputy Speaker. This one is rather obvious, these positions require that you hold another office as a Senator or Representative.

-Serving in the Cabinet if you are in Congress, or if you are the Vice-President. I think this keeps a better balance between national and regional politics (as it would be rather odd to be a prominent regional officeholder and at the same time serve in cabinet), while allowing the talent in Congress to form part of the cabinet. It also gives extra room for a Vice-President uninterested in Congressional affairs, as he could still be appointed to a major cabinet department by a President.

-Of course, the three Cabinet offices which can be combined with other offices. Remarkable Atlasians like Homelycooking and Peebs show that you can hold both RG and SOFE and be responsible in it, and since the Senate still has to confirm these officers, it seems perfectly reasonable. And National Archivist because the office, while demanding, is compatible to other duties. I'd imagine any Archivist who abuses his or her power would be fired right away.

[Lumine]

An amendment has been presented, 24 hours for objections and for feedback from the Sponsor.

[Pericles]

I'm fine with this amendment.

[Lumine]

Amendment judged friendly, 24 hours for objections.

[_]

With this new amendment added I will be willing to support the Bill as a whole.

[fhtagn]

Just out of curiosity, in the event that this passes, and if it becomes official, will existing cabinet members who do not meet these requirements be grandfathered in, and the new rule take place upon them leaving office? For example, Secretary of State Reactionary is neither in Congress nor the Vice President, but is a regional officeholder. It seems rather silly for him to have to give up one of his positions when he has not abused his power in either one, and is not in a position where there is a conflict of interest.

[Pericles]

Just out of curiosity, in the event that this passes, and if it becomes official, will existing cabinet members who do not meet these requirements be grandfathered in, and the new rule take place upon them leaving office? For example, Secretary of State Reactionary is neither in Congress nor the Vice President, but is a regional officeholder. It seems rather silly for him to have to give up one of his positions when he has not abused his power in either one, and is not in a position where there is a conflict of interest.

I'd support a grandfather test and think this should be added to the bill. Thanks for bringing up this issue, and reminding me about it.

[Lumine]

Just out of curiosity, in the event that this passes, and if it becomes official, will existing cabinet members who do not meet these requirements be grandfathered in, and the new rule take place upon them leaving office? For example, Secretary of State Reactionary is neither in Congress nor the Vice President, but is a regional officeholder. It seems rather silly for him to have to give up one of his positions when he has not abused his power in either one, and is not in a position where there is a conflict of interest.

Actually, I forgot about the grandfather clause! This certainly needs to be an orderly, fair process, so I'll rework the amendment immediately.

[Lumine]

My amendment is withdrawn. Instead I offer the following version, with an added provision:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This meaning that once ratified, it will take the start of a new Presidential term (regardless of who holds the office) for this Amendment to take effect. This gives a fair period for people to be well informed of the new rules regarding officeholding (as there will be a full election cycle before it taking effect), and ample time for any Atlasian who holds more than one office (and is not subject to the exceptions mentioned before) to make suitable arrangements. It also means immediate ratification doesn't put the nation in an awkward post.

[Lumine]

Sponsor, thoughts on the proposed amendment?

[Pericles]

Sponsor, thoughts on the proposed amendment?

Interesting, but my impression of a grandfather test was that it simply would not be applied to any current office-holders. I do appreciate though what you're saying too though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I definitely agree with Lumine's points. One disappointing aspect of my rather short term as President, was that I wanted to really put the Semi-Parliamentary aspect of then SoS Ted being a member of Congress by having him introduce the FRR. Of course the FRR was never completed by the end of my term so the opportunity was missed.

An active cabinet member can serve as the congressional advocate for a policy be it foreign or domestic and we have for good length of time had members serving as either SoS or SoIA, who were also members of the Congress.

[Lumine]

Sponsor, thoughts on the proposed amendment?

Interesting, but my impression of a grandfather test was that it simply would not be applied to any current office-holders. I do appreciate though what you're saying too though.

I personally am not opposed to it in principle, but it would depend on the context. It would simply mean those who currently keep a dual office can hold that particular combination (so the bill isn't retroactive) and just that particular combination?

[Pericles]

Sponsor, thoughts on the proposed amendment?

Interesting, but my impression of a grandfather test was that it simply would not be applied to any current office-holders. I do appreciate though what you're saying too though.

I personally am not opposed to it in principle, but it would depend on the context. It would simply mean those who currently keep a dual office can hold that particular combination (so the bill isn't retroactive) and just that particular combination?

Of course, they don't get to hold more combinations of offices but get to keep their current combination of offices. The idea just is that the bill isn't retroactive. It was raised as a concern during the campaign and in retrospect I agree with the President that it shouldn't be applied retroactively.

[Lumine]

Okay, would it work as follows?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Pericles]

Seems good to me, I support the amendment.

[_]

I approve the addition of the Grandfather clause, especially in the case of Secretary of State Reactionary, and how it would allow him to continue serving as SOS should the next Administration want to retain him.  I will fully support this bill with the amendment added.

[Lumine]

Amendment offered, and considered friendly. 24 hours for objections.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Also this should be amended to include an explanation in compliance with the law that passed the Senate. Even though it has not been signed into law yet, such could be different by the time that this amendment is sent to the regions.

[Lumine]

The amendment is adopted.

Current text:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lumine]

Also this should be amended to include an explanation in compliance with the law that passed the Senate. Even though it has not been signed into law yet, such could be different by the time that this amendment is sent to the regions.

I'm curious as to whether we can actually do that, considering it's still to pass the House and then be signed into law. Can we actually add an explanation even though such explanations are not formal part of the law yet?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Also this should be amended to include an explanation in compliance with the law that passed the Senate. Even though it has not been signed into law yet, such could be different by the time that this amendment is sent to the regions.

I'm curious as to whether we can actually do that, considering it's still to pass the House and then be signed into law. Can we actually add an explanation even though such explanations are not formal part of the law yet?

Well informally you can include whatever you want, it just won't carry with it the strict processes that the Senate bill included, which may or may not be modified in the house as well.

Certainly the objective statement type explanations, though short, would be possible (we have been including them in the "outer quote box" of the bill format for over a year now).

So for example something like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]


Edit (Notices SB in the topic line):

Also, technically speaking, a Constitutional amendment is not a bill, it is a resolution of each chamber. When certified as being passed by both chambers it becomes a Joint Resolution of both Houses of Congress meeting the constitutional requirements for Congress to "propose" an amendment, which is then ratified or rejected by the regions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The difference with a bill is that when passed by both chambers it becomes an Act of Congress and depending on how much classical "whiggery" one wants to bring to bear in terms of legislative supremacy, can indeed by considered a final action (though not currently in the forth constitution, the previous constitution allowed for bills to become law if the President did not act within a certain time frame) and of course you have overrides. So it is possible for Congress to go it alone on statutes, and thus an Act (which a bill evolves into) has more finality to it, whereas that can never happen with a constitutional amendment and thus it is treated as a resolution.

At least that is my dime store lawyerly explanation at work.

[Lumine]

Interesting to hear, Yankee, I rather like the concept of brief statement and I'll propose an amendment to that effect. It would be the last one I have, unless someone has a concern with this Constitutional Amendment as currently written:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]