Legislation Introduction Thread

[Jake]

I'll be challenging the bumping of the legislation if Defarge agrees FYI

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Fair enough

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The next piece of legislation up is the Myanmar Declaration of War Bill in case anyone is interested...

[Joe Republic]

I'll be challenging the bumping of the legislation if Defarge agrees FYI

Any particular reason?

[Jake]

I'll be challenging the bumping of the legislation if Defarge agrees FYI

Any particular reason?

Your legislation is no more important or critical than any other. If you have any legislation to propose, I'm sure you can find at least one senator (I'd propose anything) to introduce your bills. Why you have to wait until this amendment is passed is beyond me.

[Joe Republic]

It's not so much to do with finding a senator to sponsor my bills.  I'm grateful to both my senators for being extremely helpful in this respect.  It's more to do with legislative expediency.

Perhaps we could have one 'legislative stream' for forum affairs bills, and another for everything else?

[Jake]

I've been thinking about changing the introduction of legislation like that. I'll PM what I have wrote up.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There is a fair chance that what I am about to do will make some people very irritated.

Seeing as the time for dealing with the budget is the next session etc. etc and that that isn't so far off and that beginning all this stuff now would just kill any hope of getting any other legislation through this Senate and for no good reason... I am removing the following from the floor:

-The Elimination of Medicaid Act
-The Department of Education Budget Reduction Act
-The Elimination of the Department of Commerce Act
-The Elimination of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act
-Department of Defense Budget Reduction Act
-Office of Personell Management Budget Reduction Act
-Department of Agriculture Budget Reduction Act
-Environmental Protection Agency Budget Reduction Act
-NASA Auction Act
-Department of Labor Budget Reduction Act

I had hoped that the Senator from Wyoming would have just withdrawn the above himself and he's had ample time to do so. If anyone wants to complain about this, fine.

[CheeseWhiz]

Al, you can’t just pull this stuff from the floor!  I’m sorry, but this is totally uncalled for.  What, if I get to be PPT should I remove the Children’s “Rights” Amendment?  PPT’s are not there to remove things from the floor because they want to see other stuff go first.  You know that they are at least three Senators who support these, they have just as much right to go onto the floor as the Right to Life Amendment.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al, you can’t just pull this stuff from the floor!

I can actually (Article 3, Section 1, Clause 4 OSPR) and all things considered I should have before. I'd just assumed that the Senator from Wyoming would have pulled it himself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How so? I am only doing this to give the Senate half a chance of having a legislative record this session. We voted to dely messing around with the budget a while ago; I cannot see any reason why we should waste our time debating on this mountain of budget related legislation NOW. We can deal with all this stuff in the next session which is not long away at all. We just do not have the time to do this now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Look, this is not politically motivated AT ALL, understand? I am just trying to stop the Senate from dying on it's feet. According to some people it's already dead.
None of the recent attempts to bump anything have suceeded as the VP has not been here to confirm any of the bumpings, btw.

I find all this darkly amusing; on the one hand I'm attacked for not doing enough, and on the other I'm attacked (by different people) for doing too much. Great. A scapegoat for all that's wrong with this, this... alledged body, this disembodied body, this corpse, that is the Senate right now.

[MasterJedi]

Might I suggest leaving the NASA Auction and the 5% lowering of defense spending? Those are actually the only good ones.

[CheeseWhiz]

Might I suggest leaving the NASA Auction and the 5% lowering of defense spending? Those are actually the only good ones.

And who are you to judge what's good and what's not?

Al, it says:
"If the PPT determines that a piece of legislation is functionally impractical, frivolous, or is directly unconstitutional, he may, in a public post on the Legislation Introduction thread, remove said legislation from the Senate floor. "

How is it any of these things?

[Ebowed]

Well, his reasoning is that it is functionally impratical to keep them on the floor, so he did use that criterion.

I wouldn't mind keeping the 5% defense cut, either.

[CheeseWhiz]

Well, his reasoning is that it is functionally impratical to keep them on the floor, so he did use that criterion.

I don't see how.  How's it any less practical than the Children's Rights Amendment?  Or the Right to Life Amendment for that matter?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al, it says:
"If the PPT determines that a piece of legislation is functionally impractical, frivolous, or is directly unconstitutional, he may, in a public post on the Legislation Introduction thread, remove said legislation from the Senate floor. "

How is it any of these things?

Bearing in mind the fact that we voted to dely the budget (after that legislation was introduced) and will shortly be starting work on it *anyway*... it could be argued that the legislation is frivolous. A case for it being "functionally impractical" can also be made and for similer reasons. And this is another example of Senate rules being very autocratic; the only person who can define the meaning of those words is the PPT; there is no one, absoultely no one, to go and complain to about this. It really *could* be abused for political reasons... and I'm beginning to get very worried that in the not so very distant future it will be (although with any luck I'll be long gone from the Senate by then)...

Damn it, but this place is a [expletive deleted] mess right now...

[CheeseWhiz]

Al, we voted to delay working on the Budget, that doesn’t mean we can’t vote on cutting or reducing the budget of some of these programs.

[Gabu]

the only person who can define the meaning of those words is the PPT; there is no one, absoultely no one, to go and complain to about this.

The OSPR says the following, immediately after the section that CheeseWhiz quoted:

"The sponsoring Senator of the legislation shall have seventy-two (72) hours to challenge this action in a public post, and with the concurrence of one-third (1/3) of office-holding Senators in the affirmative (excluding the PPT), may override the actions of the PPT."

It seems to me that that section does not give the PPT carte blanche to simply exercise his will over introduced legislation.

Al, we voted to delay working on the Budget, that doesn’t mean we can’t vote on cutting or reducing the budget of some of these programs.

It's fairly pointless to make them separate bills when we're going to need to do a comprehensive budget in a big hurry soon.  When we're working on the budget as a whole, we can just implement everything in one big chunk.  No need to make it a bunch of separate bills - that's only for when we aren't going to be working on the budget for a while.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al, we voted to delay working on the Budget, that doesn’t mean we can’t vote on cutting or reducing the budget of some of these programs.

Daniel introduced this legislation as part of the Budget as he was unaware as to how the Budget procedure works.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It seems to me that that section does not give the PPT carte blanche to simply exercise his will over introduced legislation.

True, but it doesn't change the fact that there's no one to complain about the definition of the wording to.
I am probably be unduely negative, but that's just me I'm afraid. Sometimes I can't see a positive thing if it walks up and hits me...

[CheeseWhiz]

Fine, whatever, doesn’t look like I’m gonna have any say in the matter *sigh*

I just think that was put into the OSPR for bills that Naso would propose, not legitimate bills that have support from more than one Senator.  I think doing this is over stepping your bounds, even if it isn’t against the rules.  I hope Daniel challenges this, these bills have every right to get their time on the floor.

[Gabu]

It seems to me that that section does not give the PPT carte blanche to simply exercise his will over introduced legislation.

True, but it doesn't change the fact that there's no one to complain about the definition of the wording to.
I am probably be unduely negative, but that's just me I'm afraid. Sometimes I can't see a positive thing if it walks up and hits me...

Well, the concept of "frivolous" and whatnot is indeed entirely subjective and unscientific, but we essentially have two options: do it like that, or not have any safeguards against Nasolation.  I prefer the former, myself.

Fine, whatever, doesn’t look like I’m gonna have any say in the matter *sigh*

I just think that was put into the OSPR for bills that Naso would propose, not legitimate bills that have support from more than one Senator.  I think doing this is over stepping your bounds, even if it isn’t against the rules.  I hope Daniel challenges this, these bills have every right to get their time on the floor.

But the bills will get their time when we go back to finish the budget.  When we're working on the budget, we can make any changes we need to make.  I don't see why we need to do it one at a time in bill form.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think doing this is over stepping your bounds, even if it isn’t against the rules.

Please time just what the **** I am supposed to do? Everyone seems to know but so far no one has been bothered to tell me.

[CheeseWhiz]

I’m just saying that cutting programs isn't exclusive to creating the budget.  I see no urgent legislation, so I can't understand why Al is removing this.  Al, no need to get upset, I didn't mean to make you angry   If I were PPT, I would let them stay and vote on them.

[Gabu]

I’m just saying that cutting programs isn't exclusive to creating the budget.  I see no urgent legislation, so I can't understand why Al is removing this.

But the thing is that appropriation bills are only for times after a budget has already been approved.  If you still have a budget pending, there is literally no purpose in considering spending bills because we can just apply all of them in one big package to the budget instead of allocating debate time for and voting on each one individually.

[CheeseWhiz]

I’m just saying that cutting programs isn't exclusive to creating the budget.  I see no urgent legislation, so I can't understand why Al is removing this.

But the thing is that appropriation bills are only for times after a budget has already been approved.  If you still have a budget pending, there is literally no purpose in considering spending bills because we can just apply all of them in one big package to the budget instead of allocating debate time for and voting on each one individually.

I guess you right   I’m sorry for overreacting Al   But, does the PPT have anyway to suspend them or something?