Message from @FroggyC
Discord ID: 450743814093799454
Yeah, not in the mood to deal with that cancer
jesus christ
hang on, so should women not be whores? or have you fucked lots of women? @Webber
kill me
"Progressivism is the support for or advocacy of improvement of society by reform. "
what did I walk into?
"we've never experienced degeneracy" - said by the men who spent weeks carving perfect dicks into marble
my sides
The kumite
Seriously, what did I miss? because non of this makes sense
Enough degeneracy for today.
L8er
😃
I made it
I wanted to have a hard copy of a lot of different ideas that were spinning around in my head, and I figured that if I was going to write them down anyway I might as well write it as if it were a constitutional amendment.
The quorum on referenda will make actually passing a referendum nigh impossible
we have the same system in my country
I also don't really understand why limiting the President's power to define his or her cabinet that much
It's interesting tho
Thanks, the reason I limited the President's ability to create a cabinet is described in the fourth paragraph of section 19. Basically I'm using the Cabinet as a check on the President's ability to use executive orders, and so I need the Cabinet to not be loyal to the President but instead to congress, and by extension the people of the United States.
And as for the referendums, I am curious about which restriction specifically you think will make them impossible to pass?
The quorum
Aka needing the vote of 50%+1 of voters
It makes abstention = a no vote
So who's against the referendum will campaign for just not voting
Since a sizeable percentage of the people always not vote, you will end up with the referendum not passing having a significant headstart
About the cabinet. I understand what you're saying but it still needs to be expression of a single political line.
You might need the nominations to have a confirmation by the Senate, but you can't ask the Senate to pick them. It also would break separation of powers, making executive positions dependent on the legislative branch.
Even parliamentary democracies don't have ministers appointed by the upper house. The houses just give confidence
What I'm saying is that having a cabinet that doesn't express a single vision might make it impossible to work together at all
I expect the Cabinet will still represent a single vision, it will just be the vision of the leading coalition instead of the vision of the President. Because the new Electoral system would make everyone hyper aware of how fast their political career can end, and therefore it would eventually be considered political suicide to be an obstructionist unless you are absolutely sure that is what your base wants. The idea is that because nobody likes a government that can't get things done people will punish politicians who make that impossible.
And even if they don't this ability to check executive orders is the only power that the Cabinet as a whole has, the rest of the powers belong solely to individual Cabinet members and therefore they will likely get there individual jobs done regardless.
It would interfere with the separation of powers in the sense that the president would have a harder time passing legislation, but passing legislation is the job of the legislature anyway. As far as I see it the separation of powers has already broken down in the executives favor, this would just be correcting for that.
As for your point about the referendums, I agree that that may have been an over correction. The main thing I was worried about was a common occurrence in my state of Texas, here the state has to hold a referendum everytime it wants a constitutional amendment, which is often because of the way the Texas constitution is written, however because so few people vote in state elections they usually pass with only a few percentage points of the population in favor of them. But yeah like I said, in hindsight I may have over corrected for that problem.