|
| 19 Oct 2017 06:34 PM |
Representative SheldonParty Democrat, California 58th Congress 10/19/17
PREAMBLE: We the United States (House of Representatives) believe that in order to prevent abuse and dishonesty within our leadership and to lend the deserved authority to the House's elected Leaders that the position seen to be known as "Speaker Pro Tempore" be abolished upon passage of this aforesaid resolution. The position has had a history of dishonesty as the position is mainly used as a bargain in order to gain votes come Speaker elections, to add on, the position is appointed (unelected) and holds more authority than the House's Majority & Minority Leaders who are indeed elected. To further add on: the following resolution will allow for legislation to be opened with ease and cut off the history of abuse seen with individuals given the authority of opening votes.
SEC 1. SHORT TITLE. (a) This resolution may be cited as: "House Resolution 5005". (b) Any provision which conflicts the current resolution at hand shall be considered null. (c) This resolution shall pass upon the vote in which it requires for it to be passed.
SEC 2. DELEGATION OF POWERS. (a) Upon passage of the current resolution at hand, the position seen to be known as "Speaker Pro Tempore" shall be abolished and relieved of all its powers. (b) The Majority Leader and the Minority Leader shall have jurisdiction (with consent of the Speaker) to uphold the Speaker's duties come a time where he takes a leave of absence. (c) All resolutions, constitutional amendments, or any such legislation shall open upon 24 hours of its presentation unless an individual with given authority opens it beforehand. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 19 Oct 2017 06:44 PM |
I hereby open the vote for this legislation.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 19 Oct 2017 06:45 PM |
I totally support this, as I brought this idea to light, and Rep. Sheldon and I took action on this issue.
Aye.
Rep. Bernard (R-PA-3) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 19 Oct 2017 06:47 PM |
Aye
no no no, no bribes today!
Rep. xXWolversXx (G-KY-4th) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 19 Oct 2017 06:50 PM |
Aye.
Really to add on to the reasons: if we have a good Speaker there's really no need for a Speaker Pro Tempore. There's no use electing someone incapable of doing the simplest of things (opening votes, hosting sessions) if they need an assistant to do so, at the most we already have a clerk to assist with all that, what's the need for a Speaker Pro Tempore? Elect a good Speaker and you won't need a Speaker Pro Tempore, and if time comes when the Speaker is desperate and does need to take a few days off we can allow the elected Leaders of the House to take over (with authority of the Speaker) juxtaposed to just having the unelected leader take over. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
teasoup
|
  |
| Joined: 26 Sep 2012 |
| Total Posts: 833 |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
Ozzymen
|
  |
| Joined: 26 May 2011 |
| Total Posts: 7115 |
|
| |
|
Monaldo
|
  |
| Joined: 09 Aug 2015 |
| Total Posts: 433 |
|
| |
|
ZeItric
|
  |
| Joined: 14 Mar 2017 |
| Total Posts: 96 |
|
| |
|
Apolloqi
|
  |
| Joined: 08 Dec 2013 |
| Total Posts: 783 |
|
| |
|
| |
|
ZeItric
|
  |
| Joined: 14 Mar 2017 |
| Total Posts: 96 |
|
|
| 19 Oct 2017 08:23 PM |
| Mb, aye, I was in a discord with someone who said yes really slowly. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
JTPort
|
  |
| Joined: 13 Aug 2013 |
| Total Posts: 267 |
|
| |
|
Banelock
|
  |
| Joined: 16 May 2015 |
| Total Posts: 250 |
|
|
| 19 Oct 2017 08:35 PM |
Nay.
The Speaker Pro Tempore role may be viewed as a role dedicated to the social advancement of its occupier, but I disagree.
Although many before have used the role to push their relevancy and their selfish narcissism, it does not mean we should remove those who are capable of such position their right. Although we live in a community dominated with narcisstic, greedy people who seek only to benefit their own cause, there are a few people out there who still cling on to the idea of ethics and democracy as a whole.
To permanently dissolve the corruption within the Speaker Pro Tempore does not require the need of its removal, but rather yet the nomination of a sophisticated, yet passionate person who deeply adopts his own code of ethics. As a whole, when looking for candidates our main priority should not be "experienced" but rather yet, the candidate's character and his motives for the position as a whole.
In short, we shouldn't lose faith in such a position, even if its been plagued with corrupt and selfish humans (not including tea, she's chill). |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Ozzymen
|
  |
| Joined: 26 May 2011 |
| Total Posts: 7115 |
|
|
| 19 Oct 2017 08:55 PM |
| I change my vote to nay, although I will not whip support against this House Resolution. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 19 Oct 2017 09:45 PM |
Nay
Representative Smith (D-NC-8) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 20 Oct 2017 12:13 PM |
"The Speaker Pro Tempore role may be viewed as a role dedicated to the social advancement of its occupier, but I disagree. "
No it's not, it's just a filler for whenever the Speaker is unavailable (which should be rare), you're getting it all wrong here.
"Although many before have used the role to push their relevancy and their selfish narcissism, it does not mean we should remove those who are capable of such position their right. Although we live in a community dominated with narcisstic, greedy people who seek only to benefit their own cause, there are a few people out there who still cling on to the idea of ethics and democracy as a whole."
Then what's the point of voting against if all the factors you mention is true? I don't think you should be voting on legislation such as this with morals, but with common sense. Really, why do we need someone else to do the Speaker's job in which we elected him to do? The very fact any Speaker for this matter (not referring to #### ### a lot of the previous) needs an assistant to help do their job for them is absurd. If you're not capable of doing two simple jobs: opening votes and hosting sessions, then you're obviously not capable of being in such a position and should be grounds for expulsion. "To permanently dissolve the corruption within the Speaker Pro Tempore does not require the need of its removal, but rather yet the nomination of a sophisticated, yet passionate person who deeply adopts his own code of ethics. As a whole, when looking for candidates our main priority should not be "experienced" but rather yet, the candidate's character and his motives for the position as a whole. "
You're clearly looking at this all wrong: you really want to enforce Deputy's for when the Speaker is absent? This would just encourage inactivity from the Speaker and set dual tickets for when an individual is running for a position. We already have enough leadership positions, why are we enforcing new positions just for the sake of absences? The very fact we even need a replacement a lot of the times is disgusting in itself and shows ineffectiveness within not only our Chamber but our leadership as well. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
atron2
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Aug 2011 |
| Total Posts: 233 |
|
| |
|