Vetoed Oath of Office Act

[xeu100]

A
BILL
TO

Mandate an oath of office.

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives and Senators 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 "Oath of Office Act".
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.
(3) The Act has been co-sponsored by hugebob23456.

2 - Reasons

(1) It stands to hold individuals accountable to an oath.
(2) Ceremonially, it requires officials to commit to the Constitution of Redmont.
(3) Expands the Congressional Oath of Office from the Legislative Standards Act to all offices of high government.

3 - Terms

(1) Senior Government Officials are defined as (for the purposes of this act):

• Constitutional Senior Government Officials
• The Senate and House of Representatives
• Deputy and Assistant Secretaries
• Any official that must be nominated
• Mayors of Towns

(2) The oath of office is to be rendered by the Chief Justice, if unavailable, any Justice may render the oath of office. In the event that no Justice is available, the next available constitutional senior government official may render the oath of office.
(2.a) Any senior government official may ascend to office without this oath, however, they must take the oath of office within 15 days.
(3) The oath of office shall be “I, (username), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont for the people. So help me End.”
(4) Any current senior government officials, as of the date of signing into law, shall not be required to take the oath of office until a new Presidential term begins, if they have not yet taken the oath. Any official, that has remained in their capacity as a senior government official, that has already taken the oath of office is exempt from taking the oath once again.

 

[Austin27]

AMENDMENT
Senate Vote: 4-0-0
House Vote: 9-0-0

Section 3 entitled "Terms" shall be amended as follows:
"(3) The oath of office shall be “I, (username), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont for the people. So help me End.”

Changes to:

"(3) The oath of office for all senior government officials excluding the President shall be “I, (username), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont for the people. So help me End.”
(3.1) The oath of office for the President of the Commonwealth of Redmont shall be "I, (username), do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the Commonwealth of Redmont, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont for the people. So help me End."

 

[218218Consumer]

Veto

This bill has been vetoed for the following reasons:

1) This bill mandates an oath for the President, the Vice President, the Chief Justice, two associate justices, seven secretaries, up to three ambassadors, up to five federal judges, eleven representatives, six senators, eight deputy secretaries, and four mayors. If I didn't miss anything, that's a total of forty-nine positions.

Is it an effective use of the Chief Justice's time to administer an oath to nearly fifty people from several conflicting time zones? No. From my time as Speaker when I managed the swearing-in of only eleven representatives, I imagine that scheduling oaths for nearly five times that many would be an extreme inconvenience.

2) What would requiring that many oaths actually contribute to the server? Ceremonial benefits? I imagine that for scheduling flexibility, the majority of these oaths wouldn't even be administered at an official ceremony. Additionally, I don't predict that many players would be excited about a swearing-in event for the Deputy Secretaries of Public Affairs (no shade to Rurge or Muffins). For ceremonial purposes, the current swearing-in process for representatives, senators, and the President are sufficient.

Would a mandated oath enhance commitment to our constitution? From spending thirteen months on a server with its fair share of corrupt demagogues, I can assure you that no oath would deter corrupt demagogues from blatant constitutional violations.

Would a mandated oath improve accountability? I don't believe so. Currently the best legal mechanisms for accountability are Congressional impeachment powers and executive dismissal powers. It's both the threat of those processes and existing commitment to the server, not an oath, that motivates senior government officials and department leaders to do a good job.

3) This bill does not rescind the existing swearing-in process codified in the Legislative Standards Act, creating redundant legislation. Additionally, the LSA requires that the Clerk of Congress swears in representatives and senators, so assuming that the Speaker or President Pro Tempore held a separate swearing-in ceremony by the terms of the LSA, members of Congress would be expected to be sworn in by both the Chief Justice and the Clerk. Congressional independence would be better secured if Congress managed their own swearing-in ceremony.

4) This bill codifies an oath of office for the President that already exists in the Presidential Inauguration Amendment, creating redundant legislation.

5) I believe that towns should have self-determination in the swearing-in process for their mayors, and I find it an overstep to subject a non-federal position to a federal oath.

For all of these reasons, while I respect the intentions of the bill, I cannot sign it in its current state.