Legislation Introduction Thread

[MasterJedi]

No offense Bono but that's horrible and I won't be voting for it.

[Gabu]

Term Limits Amendment

Section 1
Subsection 1
1. No person shall be elected to the office of Senator more than two consecutive terms, weather for the same District or Region, of for different ones.

2. No person shall be elected to the office of President or Vice-President more than one consecutive terms.

If we need to have twelve new people every eight months, it seems to me that we will very quickly run out of good candidates.  What happens if we have no eligible candidates as a result?  2006 will likely see a spike in membership, but then that'll settle off and we'll have roughly the same people hanging around until 2008.

[Bono]

Term Limits Amendment

Section 1
Subsection 1
1. No person shall be elected to the office of Senator more than two consecutive terms, weather for the same District or Region, of for different ones.

2. No person shall be elected to the office of President or Vice-President more than one consecutive terms.

If we need to have twelve new people every eight months, it seems to me that we will very quickly run out of good candidates.  What happens if we have no eligible candidates as a result?  2006 will likely see a spike in membership, but then that'll settle off and we'll have roughly the same people hanging around until 2008.

It's two consecutive terms. You can run again after one term has passed.

[Bono]

No offense Bono but that's horrible and I won't be voting for it.

Afraid to lose the ol' job?

[The Dowager Mod]

This isn't the place to debate this.

[MasterJedi]

No offense Bono but that's horrible and I won't be voting for it.

Afraid to lose the ol' job?

I don't want to lose my job yes but I haven't supported term limits before when this was last brought up. Soon I'll be introducing a bill that would get rid of the PPT term limits, if I win I definitly won't go over the original 4 because I wouldn't want the job that long.

So what about all that freedom that you talk about before? Don't have enough trust in the people to decide who or who they don't want? Let the people decide, if they don't want us we won't be in office.

[Bono]

No offense Bono but that's horrible and I won't be voting for it.

Afraid to lose the ol' job?

I don't want to lose my job yes but I haven't supported term limits before when this was last brought up. Soon I'll be introducing a bill that would get rid of the PPT term limits, if I win I definitly won't go over the original 4 because I wouldn't want the job that long.

So what about all that freedom that you talk about before? Don't have enough trust in the people to decide who or who they don't want? Let the people decide, if they don't want us we won't be in office.

freedom is much more endagered by an aristocracy of incumbents than some people not being able for a term limited senator.

[Gabu]

Term Limits Amendment

Section 1
Subsection 1
1. No person shall be elected to the office of Senator more than two consecutive terms, weather for the same District or Region, of for different ones.

2. No person shall be elected to the office of President or Vice-President more than one consecutive terms.

If we need to have twelve new people every eight months, it seems to me that we will very quickly run out of good candidates.  What happens if we have no eligible candidates as a result?  2006 will likely see a spike in membership, but then that'll settle off and we'll have roughly the same people hanging around until 2008.

It's two consecutive terms. You can run again after one term has passed.

Oh, I missed that part.  Never mind, then.

freedom is much more endagered by an aristocracy of incumbents than some people not being able for a term limited senator.

If you don't like incumbents, why allow senators to have two terms?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Term Limits Amendment

Section 1
Subsection 1
2. No person shall be elected to the office of President or Vice-President more than one consecutive terms, or during the six months after achieving his term limit

How can one terms (sic) be consecutive?

[Bono]

Term Limits Amendment

Section 1
Subsection 1
2. No person shall be elected to the office of President or Vice-President more than one consecutive terms, or during the six months after achieving his term limit

How can one terms (sic) be consecutive?

Hm, oops. can you give me a better phrasing for that?

[Gabu]

Term Limits Amendment

Section 1
Subsection 1
2. No person shall be elected to the office of President or Vice-President more than one consecutive terms, or during the six months after achieving his term limit

How can one terms (sic) be consecutive?

Hm, oops. can you give me a better phrasing for that?

I would put it at something like, "No person shall be elected to the office of President or Vice-President twice in any two consecutive general elections."

[MasterJedi]

Term Limit Removal Resolution

1. Clause 1 of Section 2: "PPT Guidelines" from Section 4, Article 8 of the Official Senate Procedural Resolution shall be stricken and replaced with:
"No limit on the number of terms any Senator may serve as President pro tempore shall exist."


I'll tell you right now I won't even try for more than 4 terms if even that. I'll probably try for only one more and then that will probably be it.

[Sam Spade]

Just for the legislators' information, the Senate will need to pass a supplemental appropriation for Katrina relief efforts in FY 2006 of $33.75 billion towards Homeland Security before the end of next session.

Otherwise, not-so-good things will happen.

[MasterJedi]

Just for the legislators' information, the Senate will need to pass a supplemental appropriation for Katrina relief efforts in FY 2006 of $33.75 billion towards Homeland Security before the end of next session.

Otherwise, not-so-good things will happen.

Couldn't we just do this at the start of the next session with the budget and add the money then?

[Sam Spade]

Just for the legislators' information, the Senate will need to pass a supplemental appropriation for Katrina relief efforts in FY 2006 of $33.75 billion towards Homeland Security before the end of next session.

Otherwise, not-so-good things will happen.

Couldn't we just do this at the start of the next session with the budget and add the money then?

The money must be part of FY 2006, not FY 2007.  FY 2007 is what the budget session in March will be considering.  It is simply a supplemental appropriation on what you already approved (happens a lot in real life).

Consider it like the Iraq appropriation that was done last year for FY 2005.

[MasterJedi]

Just for the legislators' information, the Senate will need to pass a supplemental appropriation for Katrina relief efforts in FY 2006 of $33.75 billion towards Homeland Security before the end of next session.

Otherwise, not-so-good things will happen.

Couldn't we just do this at the start of the next session with the budget and add the money then?

The money must be part of FY 2006, not FY 2007.  FY 2007 is what the budget session in March will be considering.  It is simply a supplemental appropriation on what you already approved (happens a lot in real life).

Consider it like the Iraq appropriation that was done last year for FY 2005.

So it would be toward Homeland Security or the DOD?

[Sam Spade]

Just for the legislators' information, the Senate will need to pass a supplemental appropriation for Katrina relief efforts in FY 2006 of $33.75 billion towards Homeland Security before the end of next session.

Otherwise, not-so-good things will happen.

Couldn't we just do this at the start of the next session with the budget and add the money then?

The money must be part of FY 2006, not FY 2007.  FY 2007 is what the budget session in March will be considering.  It is simply a supplemental appropriation on what you already approved (happens a lot in real life).

Consider it like the Iraq appropriation that was done last year for FY 2005.

So it would be toward Homeland Security or the DOD?

Place $21.75 billion towards Homeland Security and $12 billion towards DOD

[MasterJedi]

So something like this?


Supplemental Appropriation for Katrina Relief Efforts Bill

1. The Senate hereby appropriates $21.75 billion to Homeland Security and $12 billion to the Department of Defense for the purpose of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts in FY 2006.

[Jake]

Make sure you say that it is in FY 2006.

[MasterJedi]

Make sure you say that it is in FY 2006.

Fixed that, so is that good Sam?

[Sam Spade]

Make sure you say that it is in FY 2006.

Fixed that, so is that good Sam?

Looks good to me.

[MasterJedi]

Okay, great. So I hereby introduce the bill I posted above.

[Ebowed]

Pending the agreement of the PPT, the Supplemental Appropriation for Katrina Relief Efforts Bill is bumped to the top of the legislative agenda, after the Deregistration Bill.

[MasterJedi]

And I agree with Ebowed, up it shall go!

[Ebowed]

From a concerned constituent:


Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the OPSR shall be amended to read:

"At any one time, there may be no more than five pieces of legislation on the Senate floor. Of these, no more than two shall be constitutional amendments. The PPT shall leave one spot open for the introduction of legislation that he considers to be related to forum affairs, and emergency legislation which can be introduced pursuant to Article VII, Section 1."

As this has already passed in the form of another amendment to the OPSR, this is withdrawn from the floor pending consent of the PPT.