Palais de la Concorde

The Council will come to order for Debate on the pending bill. No less than one week or debate on the bill.

Presidential Term Limits Bill

Vedek Tabor of Bajor for Himself submits:

A bill to limit the number of terms for a President of the United Federation of Planets to 2 consecutive terms.

BE IT ENACTED by the Federation Council and by and with the consent of the President of the United Federation of Planets as follows:

Section 1. Short Title

This bill shall be referred to for all purposes as the “Presidential Term Limits Bill.”

Section 2. Limitation of Consecutive Terms

No President of the United Federation of Planets may serve for more than two consecutive terms in that office. Nothing in this Act shall forbid a person who has served 2 consecutive terms from running for President after two intervening terms.

Section 3. Calculation of Partial Terms

“Consecutive Terms” shall refer to an individual who has served for a term of at least 2 years as President of the United Federation of Planets.

Section 4. Enactment

This bill will officially become law once it has been Constitutionally enacted.

I would like to offer an amendment. I would like to change one detail. In Section 2 the proposal states that a former president may return "after an intervening consecutive term." I would like to change that to "after two intervening terms".

It should not matter if the intervening president or presidents served consecutive terms. As worded, you could have any number of presidents serve a single term, and the former president would still be locked out. The lock out period should be of fixed length, not dependent on a consecutive term occurring.

I am not sure yet of my opinion of the bill overall. That can wait on a little more debate.

Idris wrote: ↑

10 Sep 2020, 20:06

I would like to offer an amendment. I would like to change one detail. In Section 2 the proposal states that a former president may return "after an intervening consecutive term." I would like to change that to "after two intervening terms".

It should not matter if the intervening president or president served consecutive terms. As worded, you could have any number of presidents serve a single term, and the former president would still be locked out. The lock out period should be of fixed length, not dependent on a consecutive term occurring.

I am not sure yet of my opinion of the bill overall. That can wait on a little more debate.

As the author of this legislation, and if the council has no objection, I shall accept the amendment as friendly and have the bill therefore amended. Debate continues.

Upon reconsidering, a term could be shortened for various reasons, many unfortunate. If a president immediately following the two termer were to have to cut short his term, the exclusion period under some understanding of the two term limit could end after 4 years. It could end even sooner if the dominant party arranged for a ghost candidates who would immediately resign.

Thus, you may want to state the lock out period as 8 years rather than two terms. I feel no great desire to change that length of time, but you may want to make the time firmer.

I suspect if we leave this unchanged, the Supreme Court will be left to define what is meant by 'term'. If the Vedec is content with as it is, fine. I do not intend to change it again.

On the main issue, we have the advantage of long incumbency against pretending we have more wisdom than the people who are aware of the issues of the time. I am inclined not to override the wisdom of the people. This would be most likely to be applied to unseat someone particularly outstanding at the job. I am not inclined to override the people just to do that. I will vote nay and urge that others do so as well.

As Councilor Yot

Aye

Nay

Aye