Bill: Rejected Dissolution During Impeachments Act

[ko531]

A
BILL
TO

Amend the Constitution

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 'Dissolution During Impeachments Act.'
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.
(3) This Act has been authored by: ko531
(4) This Act has been co-sponsored by: MrFluffy2U94


2 - Reasons
(1) Seen in previous administrations, Impeachments can be avoided by simply dissolving a chamber of congress
(2) This bill is to prevent future administrations from using dissolution as a political weapon to avoid or prevent impeachment


3 - Amendments
(1) Hereby changes under Powers of the President: "The President also has the power to dissolve the House of Representatives if requested by the Speaker, and the Senate if requested by the President Pro Tempore."

To:

"The President also has the power to dissolve the House of Representatives if requested by the Speaker, and the Senate if requested by the President of the Senate unless during an active impeachment or motion to impeach of any current member of the Executive or Judicial branch."

 

[End]

Nay - kneejerk reaction to a very niche set of circumstances. Trying to fix the weaponisation of dissolutions and now allowing impeachments to stop dissolutions.

 

[YeetBoy1872325]

Nay - kneejerk reaction to a very niche set of circumstances. Trying to fix the weaponisation of dissolutions and now allowing impeachments to stop dissolutions.

Which is worse? Allowing impeachments to stop a dissolution, or allowing a dissolution to stop an impeachment? I believe the latter is.

 

[Dartanboy]

Nay - This allows impeachment to stop dissolution. It's really not the end of the world to have dissolution stop impeachment because the Speaker has to agree.

Perhaps dissolution could additionally require a referendum?

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Nay.