S1: Act to revise Bill 2's 'revision to the rules of the chamber of delegates'

[West_Midlander]

For the accuracy of Southern balloting in the Chamber, I vote "aye."

[White Trash]

Aye

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Nay

[fhtagn]

With 3 votes in favor, 1 vote against, and 1 abstaining, subamendment 3 passes.

[fhtagn]

Now onto subamendment 4:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This entire section shall be struck. [/quote]

[West_Midlander]

I agree with striking this. As the section stands it allows too much (and up to an unreasonable level) discretion to the office of Speaker.

[JustinTimeCuber]

I agree with striking this. As the section stands it allows too much (and up to an unreasonable level) discretion to the office of Speaker.

I suggest you take a look at some of the bills sponsored by former Delegate Ben Kenobi in March. 2 of those bills were the "Regional Tree Act" and the "Regional Beverage Act".

This isn't absolute power for the speaker. If a majority of Delegates agree that the decision is wrong, they can override it. In many real bodies, the chairman can declare a motion out of order and you need a majority to consider it.

If you think a 3/5 majority isn't enough, think about this: A 3/5 majority can amend the rules however they please, or ignore them entirely. But this won't happen, because Atlasians value the rights of the minority. So there's nothing to gain from repealing this rule, and if we repeal it, we won't have spamming protection anymore, and I will vote no on final passage and lobby the other members of my party to do the same.

Federalists have nothing to worry about with regards to this rule as long as you have at least two delegates, and I am still in the Chamber​.

[fhtagn]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why are you making this a partisan issue?

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why are you making this into a partisan issue?

Presumably a group of 3 people who abuse their powers in the chamber together would share a party.

I'm simply making clear that I am not interested in abusing this rule, and that the opposition party does not need to worry about that.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I simply was not convinced that striking this rule was neccessary. It's not clear if the current text is really flawed anyway; why change it?

[West_Midlander]

I agree with striking this. As the section stands it allows too much (and up to an unreasonable level) discretion to the office of Speaker.

I suggest you take a look at some of the bills sponsored by former Delegate Ben Kenobi in March. 2 of those bills were the "Regional Tree Act" and the "Regional Beverage Act".

This isn't absolute power for the speaker. If a majority of Delegates agree that the decision is wrong, they can override it. In many real bodies, the chairman can declare a motion out of order and you need a majority to consider it.

If you think a 3/5 majority isn't enough, think about this: A 3/5 majority can amend the rules however they please, or ignore them entirely. But this won't happen, because Atlasians value the rights of the minority. So there's nothing to gain from repealing this rule, and if we repeal it, we won't have spamming protection anymore, and I will vote no on final passage and lobby the other members of my party to do the same.

Federalists have nothing to worry about with regards to this rule as long as you have at least two delegates, and I am still in the Chamber​.

Valid point.

[fhtagn]

Does anyone else have anything that they'd like to add?

[fhtagn]

As it appears that no one else has anything to add, I'm going to go ahead and bring subamendment 4 to a 48 hour final vote.

[JustinTimeCuber]

NAY

[fhtagn]

Nay

I dislike JTC's partisan reasoning, but the fact remains that there are checks in place to ensure it isn't being abused.

[West_Midlander]

Nay

[White Trash]

Nay

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

nay

[fhtagn]

with 0 votes in favor, and 5 against, the subamendment fails.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Bump. Next sub-amendment?

[fhtagn]

Apologies, busy day at work today

On to the next subamendment:

Subamendment 5

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The number 6 will be replaced by the number 2. Also sections b and c will be struck.
[/quote]

[JustinTimeCuber]

but... why? That's just obstructionism for obstructionism's sake.

[West_Midlander]

but... why? That's just obstructionism for obstructionism's sake.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

but... why? That's just obstructionism for obstructionism's sake.

How would you describe the effect that would issue from the striking of clauses b and c?

[JustinTimeCuber]

but... why? That's just obstructionism for obstructionism's sake.

How would you describe the effect that would issue from the striking of clauses b and c?

The Governor would not have an emergency slot, and there would be no thread for civilian submitted legislation.