wizardofoz01
TNPer
This is something that I started wondering about during the election.
The Constitution specifices Cabinet positions and "Cabinet-level" positions. Specifically, I was wondering whether this applies to the Speakership position on the subject of term limits. I know that the phrase "Cabinet-level" probably refers to Cabinet members and the UN Delegate/VD but some clarification on this would be helpful.
It could be argued that the Speaker's job is somewhat of a unique one. It is a "leadership" position but in a loose sense of the word since the Speaker is not an "executive" member per se. However, he is also clearly not like the Justices, which is the only other position of responsibility that is not in the Cabinet. The Justices are appointed and (like in real life) may serve as long as their behavior is good. But the Speaker is different -- this position requires a more active role and the potential of a Speaker being elected to multiple consecutive terms bears some discussion. The Speaker DOES have one key power -- and that is the power of debate; the power to limit debate more specifically.
The fact that a Speaker may be elected to multiple terms may not be a bad thing. On one hand, it could be argued that the job itself involves a lot of on-the-ball performance and it is in the region's best interest to keep any good Speaker in office for as long as they wish to serve. On the other hand, it could be argued that having one person in a job for too long is stifling, whether it be the Speakership or any other job.
I think this itself is a tough question because a Speaker's lack of organization may make people feel irritated and result in less contributions by the RA members, but is not necessarily an impeachable offense. Therefore, the RA members would potentially have to put up with a disorganized Speaker (which would make them less willing to impose term limits).
Any thoughts?
The Constitution specifices Cabinet positions and "Cabinet-level" positions. Specifically, I was wondering whether this applies to the Speakership position on the subject of term limits. I know that the phrase "Cabinet-level" probably refers to Cabinet members and the UN Delegate/VD but some clarification on this would be helpful.
It could be argued that the Speaker's job is somewhat of a unique one. It is a "leadership" position but in a loose sense of the word since the Speaker is not an "executive" member per se. However, he is also clearly not like the Justices, which is the only other position of responsibility that is not in the Cabinet. The Justices are appointed and (like in real life) may serve as long as their behavior is good. But the Speaker is different -- this position requires a more active role and the potential of a Speaker being elected to multiple consecutive terms bears some discussion. The Speaker DOES have one key power -- and that is the power of debate; the power to limit debate more specifically.
The fact that a Speaker may be elected to multiple terms may not be a bad thing. On one hand, it could be argued that the job itself involves a lot of on-the-ball performance and it is in the region's best interest to keep any good Speaker in office for as long as they wish to serve. On the other hand, it could be argued that having one person in a job for too long is stifling, whether it be the Speakership or any other job.
I think this itself is a tough question because a Speaker's lack of organization may make people feel irritated and result in less contributions by the RA members, but is not necessarily an impeachable offense. Therefore, the RA members would potentially have to put up with a disorganized Speaker (which would make them less willing to impose term limits).
Any thoughts?
