The White House

[TomC]

Great picks- what promise!

[TomC]

Thank you. I look forward to the convention.

[TomC]

 No one may hold Atlasian office, federal or regional, while serving as GM and no former GM can hold elected office for six weeks after they have stopped serving as GM.

It is so resolved.[/i]

My suggestion is to chuck everything except the above sentence and make it a proposal for a constitutional amendment.

The resolution is not bad, but there's too much there.

[TomC]

 No one may hold Atlasian office, federal or regional, while serving as GM and no former GM can hold elected office for six weeks after they have stopped serving as GM.

It is so resolved.[/i]

My suggestion is to chuck everything except the above sentence and make it a proposal for a constitutional amendment.

The resolution is not bad, but there's too much there.

I can see TCash's point, but I also like the idea of the people having the ability to get rid of the GM and playing a part in the approval process.

Overall I give this plan a thumbs up, even though it is somewhat complex it is still pretty good.

I agree that we may want more oversight but believe we should break this up and vote on things individually. The more complex a "bill" gets, the more reason there is for citizens not to approve. In my opinion removing the conflict of interest is the most important aspect. I'd hate for it to not be approved because there are other parts of this plan citizens don't approve of. We need to break this proposal up.

no former GM can hold elected office for six weeks after they have stopped serving as GM.

This seems to be a little too strict.

I agree with this too- six weeks is a lifetime here. I'd argue that maybe any time limit for elected should parallel the time between a declaration deadline and the election- or scrap an actual time limit and say that no GM may run for or serve an office while GM.

[TomC]

I agree that we may want more oversight but believe we should break this up and vote on things individually. The more complex a "bill" gets, the more reason there is for citizens not to approve. In my opinion removing the conflict of interest is the most important aspect. I'd hate for it to not be approved because there are other parts of this plan citizens don't approve of. We need to break this proposal up.

No, that's not going to happen.  We're going to vote on this thing as one solid package and finally settle this matter.  And to call this a "complex" plan is laughable.

Excuse me? Is it going to be standard practice for the Attorney General to tell citizens what they can and cannot propose as laws? That you seem to be inflexible on this further reinforces my belief that citizens or the Senate should settle this matter, as they are charged with making laws rather than executing them.

[TomC]

I agree that we may want more oversight but believe we should break this up and vote on things individually. The more complex a "bill" gets, the more reason there is for citizens not to approve. In my opinion removing the conflict of interest is the most important aspect. I'd hate for it to not be approved because there are other parts of this plan citizens don't approve of. We need to break this proposal up.

No, that's not going to happen.  We're going to vote on this thing as one solid package and finally settle this matter.  And to call this a "complex" plan is laughable.

Excuse me? Is it going to be standard practice for the Attorney General to tell citizens what they can and cannot propose as laws? That you seem to be inflexible on this further reinforces my belief that citizens or the Senate should settle this matter, as they are charged with making laws rather than executing them.

The citizens are going to settle this matter - whenever we vote on the measures.  My opposition to dividing this up is for clear practical reasons.  I'm not proposing these as reforms to complement our existing structure but as a whole new code of doing things.  We can compromise on some of the quanitive areas that are of dispute before we vote, but once we do, we need the whole thing to pass as one and act as one, solid system.

If you refuse to consider breaking the proposal up, you are not fully allowing citizens to decide this matter.

"Is it going to be standard practice for the Attorney General to tell citizens what they can and cannot propose as laws?"  What the hell is this?  This isn't a law.  And I'm not the Attourney General.  I'm proposing this as a member of atlasia, not as an executive figure.  The reason we're taking charge in administering everything is that there are no precedents for what we're doing .

"I'm, proposing this as a member of Atlasia"- then why was this introduced in the White House thread, by the President, with White House letterhead at the top, in the same 24 hour period that the Senate opened up a thread for your nomination as AG??

If individual citizens are able to make this kind of proposal and hold a vote on "legislation," and say we're going to make some rules here, but we're not going to do it in the traditional way we make rules, then I take huge issue with your comment that

"No, that's not going to happen.  We're going to vote on this thing as one solid package and finally settle this matter."

That is quite an uncompromising statement from someone who is proposing reform in this quite unusual manner as a private citizen.

I'd like some GM reform too. But I truly believe if it's all or nothing, it will be nothing. I'm not satisfied with that.

And I am still quite clueless as to why the Senate (hello??) would allow itself to be bypassed and completely ignored in such a manner. Senators- you make the laws here- maybe free trade with Mynmarekistan is fun for you to pass- but we've got some real needs here in this system- and again, it's YOUR job to "make all laws necessary and proper" for making this nation work. You, according to Peter Bell, initially inserted the GM into our constitution via the Budget stuff, yet you have not MADE laws to settle the matter of how this GM you mention gets into "office" (if it is an office). The President has been criticized for this most recent appointment, but all we have had to go on is precedent. I'm sorry if this sounds rude and disrespectful, but I'm not sure how else to get your attention on this matter.

[TomC]

The problem is that this isn't a law. 

Rule, guiding principal, call it whatever you want- it's setting forth standards of conduct. I'm arguing a small part of it needs to be law.

This has nothing to do with atlasia.  This isn't concerning the world in which atlasia exists;

You seem to have decided so, and I'm still trying to figure out on what authority it's based, but "GM" is mentioned in the Constitution so a legal basis for this position does exist, in fact, some might say there is a need to define the nature of the position since there is defined resonsibility. We have Senators serving as GM, and in fact, you have proposed a - well it's not a law- but I guess an agreement that includes disallowing Atlasian officials- positions created and defined by our constitution- from serving as GM. So this part of your proposal is based in Atlasian law- it is necessary to limit federal officers, and this most certainly does enter the Atlasian world. I think you agree or you wouldn't have written it into your proposal to eliminate the conflict of interest. The rest of it, more arguably, could be left out of the Constitution. But no, "we can't won't and shant break it up." I'm telling you how to keep a lot of it out of the Constitution; ignore me if you want to.

that would be like having a debate

And what's there to break up. 

I believe I've explained my opinion on this already:
1. limiting of federal officials from serving as GM and
2. everything else.

This isn't a controversial matter.  That's as if we we're voting on a law code and you say you want to break it up.  You can't break it up.  If one part doesn't pass then its incomplete.  Like I said, we're working on a clean slate here.

[TomC]

Can we also get rid of Earl? He hasn't done any GM business for awhile (besides complaining about Jake's football team's name) and doesn't seem to be working on the budget which NEEDS to get done.

If all the governors would open the booths on Constitutional Amendments, I have a feeling this would be taken care of.

[TomC]

I thank the President for his confidence in me and accept his nomination to serve Atlasia and his administration. I stand ready for any questions the Senate may have.