HB 1324: The Dual Officeholding Act (Passed)

[fhtagn]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: Young Texan
House Designation: HB 1324

[fhtagn]

YT, 24 hours to speak on this.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

An amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

I don't support this. A ban on dual officeholding would, in my opinion, increase the levels of inactivity we already have. We've seen people like Mr. Reactionary (Senator + federal cabinet secretary) and Peebs (Rep + federal cabinet secretary + regional cabinet secretary) hold more than one office at once, and they have been some of the most reliably effective executives in recent Atlasian history.

If a player wishes to take on another job, and they are effective at that job, they should be able to add it to their CV. And if they are doing a bad job juggling responsibilities, I don't believe it would be a problem to simply find a replacement. Under this bill, extremely active players would be punished for taking on new responsibilities.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I think Congress is competent enough to decide the qualifications of cabinet secretaries on a case by case basis.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Razze and Mr. R are correct, of course. There is literally no evidence that dual officeholding has harmed the game whatsoever, and reams of examples to the contrary.

So I ask again:

I challenge the supporters of this bill to submit an actual instance when this republic has been demonstrably weakened by the pluralist policy.

[fhtagn]

Razze and Mr. R are correct, of course. There is literally no evidence that dual officeholding has harmed the game whatsoever, and reams of examples to the contrary.

So I ask again:

I challenge the supporters of this bill to submit an actual instance when this republic has been demonstrably weakened by the pluralist policy.

I'd still like to hear an answer to this as well, since not a single person answered it the last time this bill was on the floor.

[fhtagn]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
Sponsor Feedback: Friendly

[Vern]

I have mix feelings on this.

[fhtagn]

Razze and Mr. R are correct, of course. There is literally no evidence that dual officeholding has harmed the game whatsoever, and reams of examples to the contrary.

So I ask again:

I challenge the supporters of this bill to submit an actual instance when this republic has been demonstrably weakened by the pluralist policy.

You know what, you’re not entirely wrong, but there’s no evidence that suggest dual office holding has helped the game either. I’m extremely concerned about the separation of powers and activity as well. This is a massive issue that needs to be dealt with.

There's tons of evidence where dual officeholding has been beneficial, especially in times of low activity in the game. 

[Sirius_]

From what I see we have good intentions but not the best execution. The argument of low activity is valid, and I believe this could be remedied with a suspension clause. The restriction could also be made to only apply to federal elected offices, and there should be a grandfather clause that allows current cabinet members to keep their jobs.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I feel like this comes up every session

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The argument of low activity is valid, and I believe this could be remedied with a suspension clause.

If we trust the Senate to appropriately invoke such a clause, why do we even need this bill in the first place? The premise of the sponsor's argument seems to be that the Senate cannot be trusted to judge when it is appropriate for an elected official to serve in the Cabinet (because he presumably believes they are inclined to make the wrong judgement); but if the argument is that sometimes it is appropriate for an elected official to be a Cabinet member, and sometimes it isn't, then isn't that the reason we have confirmation votes and hearings? I don't see why the Senate should have to hold an extra vote to confirm a qualified nominee. 

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Well I disagree but I appreciate that you are doing something in good faith.

Does everyone feel like there has been enough debate? If so, can I motion for a final vote?

[fhtagn]

Well I disagree but I appreciate that you are doing something in good faith.

Does everyone feel like there has been enough debate? If so, can I motion for a final vote?

Seems to be like it. I'll go ahead and take that as a motion and leave 24 hours for objections. 

[Pericles]

I thought we were going to insert a grandfather clause. In any case, objecting to a final vote until this amendment is debated. I believe Jimmy's previous amendment has already been adopted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[fhtagn]

It wasn't my amendment.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

I motion for a final vote

[fhtagn]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
Sponsor Feedback: Friendly

[fhtagn]

I motion for a final vote

24 hours for objections.

[fhtagn]

Given no objections, the amendment is adopted and a final vote is now open on this bill as written:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote][/quote]



Representatives, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting ends in 72 hours.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Aye

[fhtagn]

Nay

[Pericles]

Aye

[Vern]

aye