Rescinded Office of the President

[Intercepticon]

House Vote: 6-0-0
Senate Vote: 4-0-0

A
BILL
To

Create the Office of the President

The people of Democracy Craft, through their elected representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:

1 - Short Title and Enactment
(1) This Act may be cited as the “Office of the President Act”.
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.

2 - Reasons

1.The President requires general advisors to assist in the daily operations of the executive branch.

3 - Positions

1.Special Advisor
The President may appoint up to three special advisors.

2.Press Advisor
The President may appoint one Press Advisor

3.Attorney General
The President may appoint one Attorney General.

4 - Relationship
- The President may employ and dismiss any of these General Advisors at his or her discretion.

 

[Krix]

This bill has received presidential assent and is hereby signed into law.​

 

[Westray]

House Vote: 9-0-1
Senate Vote: 4-2-0

A
BILL
To

Reform the Role of Chief of Staff​

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:

1 - Short Title and Enactment
(1) This Act may be cited as the "Chief of Staff Reform Act"
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.

2 - Purpose
(1) According to the Classification Act, the Chief of Staff is responsible for security clearance patronage. Due to the large amount of confidential information that this role has access to, it is only reasonable that they receive the same level of scrutiny as a Secretary.
(2) Historically, the Chief of Staff role has also been a very influential role in the Cabinet, facilitating many vital communications. Due to their influential nature, we must ensure that this role is approved by the Senate.
(3) Furthermore, by moving the role to a Principal Officer position, it prevents the appointment of a member of Congress to such role, to prevent any sort of violation of the separation of power.
(4) The purpose of this act is to change the Chief of Staff role into a Principal Officer role, making them Senate-approved, and subject to impeachment.

3 - Amendments
(1) Amends the "Office of the President Act" to remove:
"1.Chief of Staff -
The President may appoint one chief of staff"

4 - New Role Changes
(1) The role of "Chief of Staff" will be added under the definition of a Principal Officer.
(2) The purpose of the Chief of Staff role will be to be the most senior aide to the President and to maintain confidential communications.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

NAY - Chief of Staff is a advistory role to the President, not a principle role.

The point of this role is to give Congress yet more control over the Executive branch in the form of controlling who the Chief of Staff will be. This is a breach of the Constitution as it removes the power from the executive to chose their Chief of Staff freely due to the clause in the Congressional Jurisdiction Summary:

• Congress cannot give themselves power over other branches of Government nor can they take power away from them.

This bill would GIVE congress power over the executive and is therefore unconstitutional.

So for the second time today I find myself asking the Executive to veto this bill if it passes to the senate and purse legal action against congress due to the unconstitutional nature of this.

I find it deeply troubling that the Congress can keep making unconstitutional actions and proposals without fear of action, however the moment the Executive makes a breach of the constitution they are subject to Impeachment, with every President so far, and a Judge, facing an Impeachment attempt in some form for little reason. Perhaps the requirement to stick to the constitution should be extended to Congress as well? For the sake of our Democracy.

 

[Westray]

NAY - Chief of Staff is a advistory role to the President, not a principle role.

The point of this role is to give Congress yet more control over the Executive branch in the form of controlling who the Chief of Staff will be. This is a breach of the Constitution as it removes the power from the executive to chose their Chief of Staff freely due to the clause in the Congressional Jurisdiction Summary:

• Congress cannot give themselves power over other branches of Government nor can they take power away from them.

This bill would GIVE congress power over the executive and is therefore unconstitutional.

So for the second time today I find myself asking the Executive to veto this bill if it passes to the senate and purse legal action against congress due to the unconstitutional nature of this.

I find it deeply troubling that the Congress can keep making unconstitutional actions and proposals without fear of action, however the moment the Executive makes a breach of the constitution they are subject to Impeachment, with every President so far, and a Judge, facing an Impeachment attempt in some form for little reason. Perhaps the requirement to stick to the constitution should be extended to Congress as well? For the sake of our Democracy.

The Chief of Staff role has an excessive amount of access to confidential government information. Furthermore, they've historically played a large role and had a substantial amount of influence in our Government. It is only reasonable to say that such a powerful role should be held to the same, if not more, scrutiny, as our Secretaries.

This is not unconstitutional, as it is specified directly in the constitution:

"Congress may at any time remove the position via the regular legislative process."

This means that Congress has the clear ability to remove and create positions of advisors and officers.

I will be counter-suing for frivolous actions if you decide to sue.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

Rep Westray this thread is not the place to engage in debate, we have #bill-debate discord for that.

Please limit your responses to the proper place. You don't need to reply to me twice.

 

[HugeBob]

This bill has been granted assent and is hereby passed into law.​