|
| 02 Apr 2017 10:07 PM |
The amendment we're voting on can be found here: https://forum.roblox.com/Forum/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=212775207
The House may begin voting.
RULES: - The vote is closed when a 2/3 majority is reached. - The vote is closed when a 2/3 can not possibly be reached. - Only Representatives who've been sworn in may vote.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 02 Apr 2017 10:08 PM |
Truest words from my friend, AnimatedDannyo, on this amendment. I share his sentiments:
Don't let the legalese deceive you. This sneakily makes it so that Senators and Representatives can be appointed to offices before their terms are up; allowing the executive to entice votes or get rid of legislators they dislike by promising positions; practically a form of bribery. This clause exists to prevent this. Don't shred what the constitution stands for.
This would most certainly fail the Supreme Court.
My vote is nay. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 02 Apr 2017 10:08 PM |
aye - empress gobeingbanned of the united states of banned all hail her holy name
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 02 Apr 2017 10:24 PM |
i recommend every representative to aye this, this is almost exactly the same as the ineligibility clause
this will promote realism in NUSA
ill beat u up 👊👊👊 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 02 Apr 2017 10:31 PM |
"i recommend every representative to aye this, this is almost exactly the same as the ineligibility clause"
NO IT ISN'T. Don't let him fool you. It looks the same, but the key words used here change the meaning entirely.
The previous clause did not allow for legislators to be appointed to offices for the time for which they were elected.
This one allows for them to be appointed unless the position was created/emoluments increased during their term (>>this is practically no positions<< or at least not relevant ones).
Don't be a fool. This is for game's own personal gain. You're trying to take advantage of those who aren't good at reading legalese, but this basically removes the ineligibility clause.
ᗩᘉᓰᗰᗩ☂ᕮↁᗪᗩᘉᘉϒ〇 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 02 Apr 2017 10:40 PM |
i was talking about the real life one
the real life one is:
"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."
ill beat u up 👊👊👊 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 02 Apr 2017 10:40 PM |
| Aye I don't really see how this is gonna cause as many problems as you say... |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 02 Apr 2017 10:44 PM |
now compare it to my version (really surprise's version):
"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time."
ill beat u up 👊👊👊 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 02 Apr 2017 10:53 PM |
That part of it was removed in our constitution for a reason; we *wanted* to impose the restriction on all position. This amendment removes the entire meaning of the clause (in nUSA, not in real; we have different constitutions for a reason). You are just being power hungry trying to pass this.
anyway sc not ratifying this cuz we can see through it so pass if you want lol
ᗩᘉᓰᗰᗩ☂ᕮↁᗪᗩᘉᘉϒ〇 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 02 Apr 2017 11:02 PM |
exactly how am i being power hungry?
asides, the current clause prevents qualified ppl from congress to serve in positions that they are not allowed in bc of it (not to mention there's a loophole in the current clause)
ill beat u up 👊👊👊 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
Truenks
|
  |
| Joined: 21 Jul 2012 |
| Total Posts: 212 |
|
|
| 02 Apr 2017 11:16 PM |
I can see positives and negatives from both sides.
My final vote is Abstain. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Zak_Pak
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Jun 2011 |
| Total Posts: 573 |
|
| |
|
Ryphen
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Oct 2010 |
| Total Posts: 474 |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| 03 Apr 2017 07:11 AM |
Nay,
this will just lead to increased vacancies in our Congress and this will be abused by the Executive Branch.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
IIBenWB
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Jun 2014 |
| Total Posts: 541 |
|
| |
|
|
| 03 Apr 2017 05:11 PM |
welp already failed ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
ill beat u up 👊👊👊 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Apr 2017 06:03 PM |
@sudden
we didnt even want this to pass it was just a compromise with lordsights but hey the unified reform party also fails amendments w/ their own majority leader
we failed his version for the same reasons but are bipartisan and wanted to give him something /shrug
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Apr 2017 06:04 PM |
@animated
it only allows for them to be appointed if the office wasnt created within the tenure/time for which they were appointed or if the pay wasnt increased (inapplicable here)
so it wasnt necessarily allowing all-out appointment but now we know you can read amendments accurately (sarcasm)
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Apr 2017 06:07 PM |
@animated
also game hardly presented this for his own benefit lol once you take into consideration the fact that the only reason we even considered proposing this was because many people wanted ineligibility clause repealed in the senate and we very bipartisan people so after we failed iishadow & lordsights' amendment, we sat down and spoke with them on finding a compromise and our solution was to replicate it off the real life constitution as much as possible.
#bipartisanship
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|