HR 1349: Including Overlooked Constitutional Powers Amendment (Failed)

[Esteemed Jimmy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People's House of Representatives
Failed in the House of Representatives 5-2-0-2
[/quote]

Sponsor: Jimmy7812
House Designation: HB 1349

[Esteemed Jimmy]

HB 1349 is now on the House floor. Debate on this legislation has begun and shall last for no less than 72 hours.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Currently under the Constitution, Congress cannot create, modify, or eliminate executive departments, including those already created by Congress in the past; only the president can. This amendment will fix this problem by also giving Congress to ability to create executive departments with officials appointed by the President.

[Lumine]

Currently under the Constitution, Congress cannot create, modify, or eliminate executive departments, including those already created by Congress in the past; only the president can. This amendment will fix this problem by also giving Congress to ability to create executive departments with officials appointed by the President.

It is a problem, though? Cabinet departments are part of the Executive Power and at the discretion of the President, allowing for a centralized yet efficient system in which, as far as I know, there really hasn't been much (if any) need for Congress to meddle in. I should further note giving such wide powers to Congress when it comes to the Presidency would mean that Congress would be able to terminate existing executive departments (and indrectly fire a cabinet officer) against the will of the President, which is just asking for Constitutional trouble along the line.

I suppose it is kind of strange considering my favorable view towards several instances of reform, but this does seem rather unnecesary at a first glance. Why would it be a problem for Congress not to have such powers?

[Mr. Reactionary]

I support this as I do not understand how we can claim Atlasia is subject to pre-2016 U.S. law, which includes a myriad of bureaucracies that were created by Congress by statute, but also claim that Congress can never ever repeal its own laws creating them when determined that the bureaucracies are redundant or obsolete.

You may prefer to do this in a separate amendment,  but Id like to request we also add:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Apparently those powers were overlooked, even though again, the claim is that Pre-2016 U.S. law is law in Atlasia, and we've even since amended some of those laws without anyone raising this objection.

Also, please add

You must be logged in to read this quote.

to # 2

[Esteemed Jimmy]

I propose this amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People's House of Representatives
Pending
[/quote]

[Mr. Reactionary]

I propose this amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People's House of Representatives
Pending

[/quote]

Thanks

[fhtagn]

Currently under the Constitution, Congress cannot create, modify, or eliminate executive departments, including those already created by Congress in the past; only the president can. This amendment will fix this problem by also giving Congress to ability to create executive departments with officials appointed by the President.

It is a problem, though? Cabinet departments are part of the Executive Power and at the discretion of the President, allowing for a centralized yet efficient system in which, as far as I know, there really hasn't been much (if any) need for Congress to meddle in. I should further note giving such wide powers to Congress when it comes to the Presidency would mean that Congress would be able to terminate existing executive departments (and indrectly fire a cabinet officer) against the will of the President, which is just asking for Constitutional trouble along the line.

I suppose it is kind of strange considering my favorable view towards several instances of reform, but this does seem rather unnecesary at a first glance. Why would it be a problem for Congress not to have such powers?

This is exactly my concern.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

This amendment attempt is truly comical considering it was written after our esteemed Speaker's bill at letting Congress do Weatherboy's responsibilities had to be tabled once he learned that there are legitimate constitutional concerns with it.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This amendment attempt is truly comical considering it was written after our esteemed Speaker's bill at letting Congress do Weatherboy's responsibilities had to be tabled once he learned that there are legitimate constitutional concerns with it.

TBF I had multiple prewritten bills in the queue consolidating redundant bureaucracies until I learned how stupid the Atlasian Constitution is. IRL after 9/11 congress created DHS not Bush alone. Creating a bureaucracy is a legislative power, running it is an executive power. Congress constantly has to reauthorize bureaucracies IRL or their ability to operate expires. If Congress here decided to deauthorize all programs administered by an agency, it makes no sense that they are forbidden from eliminating that agency, thus leaving it staffed by persons not allowed to do anything in perpetuity. How is that good governance? My farm bill last year eliminated all usda marketing programs, which is the sole purpose of the Agricultural Marketing Service's existence. At present time the Agricultural Marketing Service still exists in Atlasia even though it has literally no powers or purpose. Thats dumb.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Lumine]

From a gameplay point of view it is not a set of powers that would be advisable to turn over to Congress, particularly when it could negate Executive initiative and the particular cabinet plans of every President.

It is far more preferable for a President to set his own executive departments depending on the context, interest and relative activity than to have Congress handling the process, particularly because the level of autonomy we presently have (which allows a President to efficiently remake a Cabinet if he so desires it) is replaced with what promises to be an unnecessarily long process in the House and Senate to reform/eliminate/consolidate and so on offices created by Congress. And as I pointed out before, allowing Congress to terminate Cabinet officers by eliminating their departments is just asking for trouble along the line.

At the risk of sounding excessively critical, I'm also skeptical on whether Congress would make effective use of those powers as well given the carelessness we've seen on several legislative attempts lately, including the creation of offices that remained empty for six months (such as the Debate Moderator office).

[Vern]

I can not support this. What would stop a congress controlled by a party that is not the same as the President to just get rid of departments to undermine the President.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

I pull my previous amendment and propose this amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People's House of Representatives
Pending
[/quote]

[Mr. Reactionary]

I can not support this. What would stop a congress controlled by a party that is not the same as the President to just get rid of departments to undermine the President.

It'a called a veto. If its Congress's prerogative to eliminate bureaucracies then Congress should be allowed. That is literally how real life works. I really don't understand why anyone should oppose Congress being able to eliminate the position of Deputy undersecretary of Agriculture for Rural Development if Congress wants. That the President can hypothetically create eleventy billion new bureaucracies and Congress can never ever never put its foot down is moronic. Congress can defund agencies and deauthorize programs, why shouldn't they be able to also eliminate those bureaucracies affected by such decisions?

[fhtagn]

Jimmy are you even going to bother addressing the concerns of folks on here, some of which are your fellow House members? This is your amendment, you should be able to defend it.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

After speaking with another representative, they helped me come up with a new amendment which will protect cabinet officials and those in other positions created by executive order from being removed by Congress terminating the department, while still allowing Congress to have powers over other agencies and departments that are/were created in Congress.

[Mr. Reactionary]

#TeamJimmy

[fhtagn]

I'd still very much like to see Lumine's questions answered, something you seem to be ignoring. Sure, your amendment may protect cabinet officials and those in positions created by executive order, but what problem is this fixing, exactly? It seems that this has more to do with you being frustrated that your previous bill was unconstitutional, rather than fixing a real problem in the game.

In case you missed it, I'll go ahead and repost it here:

It is a problem, though? Cabinet departments are part of the Executive Power and at the discretion of the President, allowing for a centralized yet efficient system in which, as far as I know, there really hasn't been much (if any) need for Congress to meddle in. I should further note giving such wide powers to Congress when it comes to the Presidency would mean that Congress would be able to terminate existing executive departments (and indrectly fire a cabinet officer) against the will of the President, which is just asking for Constitutional trouble along the line.

I suppose it is kind of strange considering my favorable view towards several instances of reform, but this does seem rather unnecesary at a first glance. Why would it be a problem for Congress not to have such powers?

[Mr. Reactionary]

I'd still very much like to see Lumine's questions answered, something you seem to be ignoring. Sure, your amendment may protect cabinet officials and those in positions created by executive order, but what problem is this fixing, exactly? It seems that this has more to do with you being frustrated that your previous bill was unconstitutional, rather than fixing a real problem in the game.

This fixes a lot of problems,  including the retarded number of bullschit useless bureaucracies that shouldn't exist, the fact that a multitude of laws the Supreme court chief justice thinks are legal may be illegal, and a really stupid division of power that ignores commonsense. At least Jimmy is pushing for a Constitutional amendment first rather than just passing something at letting others deal with it.

No comment on how many of my bills this year eliminated useless, redundant bureaucracies and were then passed by both Houses of Congress (including the previous 2 Houses) and signed by the President (including the one prior to NCY) without any reference to the absurdity of this really dumb lack of congressional oversight in the Constitution.

[fhtagn]

I'd still very much like to see Lumine's questions answered, something you seem to be ignoring. Sure, your amendment may protect cabinet officials and those in positions created by executive order, but what problem is this fixing, exactly? It seems that this has more to do with you being frustrated that your previous bill was unconstitutional, rather than fixing a real problem in the game.

This fixes a lot of problems,  including the retarded number of bullschit useless bureaucracies that shouldn't exist, the fact that a multitude of laws the Supreme court chief justice thinks are legal may be illegal, and a really stupid division of power that ignores commonsense. At least Jimmy is pushing for a Constitutional amendment first rather than just passing something at letting others deal with it.

No comment on how many of my bills this year eliminated useless, redundant bureaucracies and were then passed by both Houses of Congress (including the previous 2 Houses) and signed by the President (including the one prior to NCY) without any reference to the absurdity of this really dumb lack of congressional oversight in the Constitution.

This doesn't actually answer what specific problems existed in game because of how the constitution is written. It seems that those who support this amendment want to pass it only want to do so to create departments that would end up either being unfilled, filled by someone who won't actually do the job, or could easily just be done by the SoIA, a position that already exists and often doesn't do enough in this game as is (and is still a position that the current President has made no effort to fill). The reason behind this amendment will end up just causing more issues than it fixes.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I'd still very much like to see Lumine's questions answered, something you seem to be ignoring. Sure, your amendment may protect cabinet officials and those in positions created by executive order, but what problem is this fixing, exactly? It seems that this has more to do with you being frustrated that your previous bill was unconstitutional, rather than fixing a real problem in the game.

This fixes a lot of problems,  including the retarded number of bullschit useless bureaucracies that shouldn't exist, the fact that a multitude of laws the Supreme court chief justice thinks are legal may be illegal, and a really stupid division of power that ignores commonsense. At least Jimmy is pushing for a Constitutional amendment first rather than just passing something at letting others deal with it.

No comment on how many of my bills this year eliminated useless, redundant bureaucracies and were then passed by both Houses of Congress (including the previous 2 Houses) and signed by the President (including the one prior to NCY) without any reference to the absurdity of this really dumb lack of congressional oversight in the Constitution.

This doesn't actually answer what specific problems existed in game because of how the constitution is written. It seems that those who support this amendment want to pass it only want to do so to create departments that would end up either being unfilled, filled by someone who won't actually do the job, or could easily just be done by the SoIA, a position that already exists and often doesn't do enough in this game as is (and is still a position that the current President has made no effort to fill). The reason behind this amendment will end up just causing more issues than it fixes.

I wanted to do this amendment back in August or September or whenever I started sending annoyed PMs about how stupid the Atlasian Constitution was when I couldnt axe the subdepartment of Agriculture. Some of us want to pass it to eliminate/butcher/destroy subdepartments rather than create new ones.

Is the opposition at least on board with the other overlooked powers? Because as Senator we passed laws on all of those subjects and no one peeped.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Yeah, this is awful. Lumine has already pointed out why taking control of the executive branch away from the executive is a bad idea (seriously, Congress has way too much power already), so I'll just add that allowing Congress to create new federal courts is also a super bad idea.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I'll just add that allowing Congress to create new federal courts is also a super bad idea.

Article I judges are not the same as Article III judges. What do you think immigration judges are? Those types of courts and other ALJs depend upon those powers, otherwise we cannot have ANY immigration judges which once again contradicts pre 2016 US law. We arent supposing in-game simulation where posters serve as ALJs

[Sestak]

The compromise that I'd advocate for is this: Give Congress the power to establish specific agencies, offices, etc., but give the President control of the Departments, of which agencies fall into which departments, and who heads the departments.