SENATE BILL: End to Imperialism Act (Law'd)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nay

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Shua-  If you want to debate the bill, you should call for the vote to stop and reopen debate.

Thank you. Yes, I would like to call for the vote to stop and return to debate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Current_Senate_Rules,_Regulations,_and_Procedures#Section_1:__Rules_for_Voting_on_Legislation

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no procedure for a Senator to just call for a final vote to halt and for Senate debate to resume. I would like to know where you found that, Snowguy? This text up top is the only provision that can be used to halt a final vote, that I know of.

 

[Ban my account ffs!]

In the case that there's a real life natural disaster and we have absolutely no access to the internet and it's beyond our control?

This is especially the case since you just started the vote without a senator calling for a vote.. you based it on the fact that nobody posted.. when in fact Shua may have wanted to, but couldn't.

I think it is safe to say that when a hurricane threatens Washington, congress will not take up business... especially on important foreign policy matters that are not considered an emergency.

It is one thing if a senator cannot make it due to a personal problem... but when he is completely unable to debate or vote due to a RL natural disaster that also shuts down our RL nation's capital... I think exceptions can be made.

[Ban my account ffs!]

If you're going to throw the rule book at me, then why wasn't this bill voted on a long time ago?  Surely there were periods of 24+ hours with no debate?

The rules are the rules... but there is no language in the OSPR that states a vote cannot be stopped due to unusual or extreme circumstances.

I would say if this issue isn't addressed and Shua's concerns aren't dealt with to his satisfaction, I will push to keep the vote open until the current senate is dissolved and the next one is seated.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Aye

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Given that we have debated this to death, and no one brought up their reservations prior to the 24 hour period before the vote, and given Ben endorses this compromise along with the President, I will vote aye on it. I am not an expert on the matter, but I do think this proposal is much more in line with what I would consider to be reasonable. While I am not one for timelines, I think this strikes a balance between withdrawing too soon and staying in an endless war too long. It simply isn't sustainable to remain there forever.

Aye

[tmthforu94]

The bill in it's original form was heavily debated, but the new version was very altered, and I think it's unfair to start a final vote on it when at least one Senator who has been an active part in this debate had no internet access due to a natural disaster.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Reason #1 doesn't work because he didn't offer it as an amendment and even called for a final vote; could set a bad precedent. Reason #2 counteracts established precedent. Reason #3 is questionable because, while I believe the presiding officer of the Senate should have the authority to bend the rules in situations where nobody objects, such as this one, there's currently no mechanism in the OSPR to allow this (it would make a good addition, though).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This clause was added in back in 2009 when I think Jedi was PPT. The standard interpretation was votes couldn't be halted for any reason and there was a situation where an amendment got forgot and a bill had to be voted down and reintroduced to consider the amendment. So they added clause three in there.

Ther other problem is Article 5 is not listed in the Article 8 which deals with overiding sections of the OSPR. And I am not sure if BK can still use Section 2.1 as loophole abuse since he actually posted a general delegation of authority to the PPT. If he hadn't he could selectively say this vote was illegal because the PPT didn't have the authority to preside over the Senate. He could say he retracts such authority for the duration of Sunday for the purposes of this thread.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If you're going to throw the rule book at me, then why wasn't this bill voted on a long time ago?  Surely there were periods of 24+ hours with no debate?

The rules are the rules... but there is no language in the OSPR that states a vote cannot be stopped due to unusual or extreme circumstances.

I would say if this issue isn't addressed and Shua's concerns aren't dealt with to his satisfaction, I will push to keep the vote open until the current senate is dissolved and the next one is seated.

There is no need for this bitterness, Snowguy. It is not my intent to deprive shua of his rights as a Senator. My priority is to ensure the Senate operates effectively and fairly. I refrained from using my usual cautious enquiry into the status of a bill prior to opening a vote. In previous PPTships, including yours I beleive, the opening of the vote by the PPT was considered a defacto call for a vote by the PPT. I figured that avoiding a situation like this justified such cautionary change. On this bill I was under the impression that the negotiations had included shua and that all parties had agreed to the posted text, and therefore this one time it was wasn't needed. It seems like everytime I break my own policies I get reminded why I instituted them.

 I didn't throw the rule book at you, I was asking where you found such authority since I wasn't aware of any such procedure. We definately need a procedure to allow the PPT to waive certain portions of the OSPR. As BK said three weeks ago, such doesn't currently exist, except now in two parts of Article 4 dealing with debating and the ending of debate.

As I said in the previous post, the precedent is that the PPT isn't able to end votes unless the OSPR authorizes such like clause three of Article 5.

And finally, waiting till the end of the Senate, really doesn't do a damn thing. Whatever BK can do then, he can do now.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Thanks for your efforts here Snowguy.

Does it matter at all that there was no chance for debate between the time the amendment was announced to have passed and the time the vote on the amended version begun?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

to illustrate my confusion with the idea of combat forces staying in Afghanistan to conduct training until October 2012 as a compromise with the President -

Attached to funding cessations
Libya: 1 November (combat) -> 1 January 2012 (peacekeeping)
Iraq: 1 December (combat) -> 15 April 2012 (all remaining forces)
Afghanistan: 1 June 2012 (all forces)

Thirdly, Afghanistan. I thank you for acknowledging that this is a difficult situation. The security situation is not stable, especially with the announcement that President Karzai will not be seeking a third term. We are now at the end of the fighting season, which will give Commanders the ability to take stock of where we are, and the formal withdrawal and handover strategy. Considering our position in the security structure of entire provinces of Afghanistan - we do need to fast-track the recruitment and training of new soldiers for the Afghan Army - the Autumn and Winter period is the peak time for training and recruitment - it's as simple as that. And until we have done that job, it will be necessary for troops to be on the ground.

[Napoleon]

Change my vote to Abstain.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Thanks for your efforts here Snowguy.

Does it matter at all that there was no chance for debate between the time the amendment was announced to have passed and the time the vote on the amended version begun?

It might.

Ultimately the only one who can decide whether it is though is BK. He bitchslapped every reason I gave for ending the CSS final vote and then utilized the Section 2.1 arrow to legalize the ending of that vote. Then he officially delegated authority which may have rended 2.1 as unusable. I didn't get a chance to PM him yet, I will do that next. In the meantime, operate under the assumption that the vote will be ended, make your case, ask your questions etc etc as you currently are.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I called 24 hours for the amendment at 10 PM on the 26th and then declared it had passed at 3 PM on the 28th and started the voted immediately, on the grounds that no debate had occured in that last 24 hours.

I don't know the precedent on this specifically but a similar one was rejected by BK. The 24 hour period to object to an amendment could be considered as part of the "consideration" of the amendment, and thus possibly as debate. So from 10 pm on the 27th to only 3 PM on the 28th is less then 24 hours. I would then use my choice of words "no debate having occured in the last 24 hours" as the factor that makes it different from the similar justification of final vote abortion. That vote was started using past periods of innactivity as grounds for calling it and then when I stopped it saying debate was on-going at that time and thus the vote was invalid, BK responded that violated precedent. So I take that to mean past periods of innactivity are legitimate reasons for starting a vote. What makes this case different is that the final vote wasn't started using past periods of innactivity but a "current" period of inactivity in excess of 24 hours, "With no debate occuring in the last 24 hours...". It would then come down to whether or not that 24 hour objection period can be counted as debate since it is part of the consideration process of the amendment. I think so, though the President of the Senate (BK) is free to make his own judgement on that.


I thus abort the final vote on the grounds that debate had not ceased for the requisite 24 hours.

This decision is subject to VP review and revising, in case you are too lazy to read the paragraph

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Now that is "thin".


lol, Lethal Weapon.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are we going to get answers here to shua's concerns, or was stopping the vote pointless?


Just because he is no longer Senator, doesn't mean he doesn't deserve a response, especially since they were posed while still in office.

[Bacon King]

I agree that it's a bit unfair to start a final vote when someone missed the debate of a significant amendment due to a natural disaster. Not that you did anything wrong, NCYankee, because you didn't know that was the case. We really need an OSPR amendment to allow greater discretionary power to the Senate's presiding officer(s).

In the mean time, though, let's fix this problem with the magic of BK's Patented Loophole Abuse!™


Ahem. It appears we have missed an amendment. I do assure you my intent in this post was to offer an amendment. Of course.

It would probably be good to define "combat troops" in the bill, perhaps something like, "Atlasian military units currently engaged in combat operations" or something?

As we started this vote while an amendment was still suposed to be under consideration, by OSPR Article 5, Section 1, Clause 4 I'm stopping this vote. (Note that, unlike all other parts of that section, it does not specify an amendment offered by a Senator.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The final vote ceases; the Senate shall now consider the amendment.


Under OSPR Article 4, Section 2, Clause 4, I am removing the current amendment from consideration because it is clearly frivolous, unconstitutional, and in violation of Senate by-laws, as it was not offered by a member of the Senate. The amendment's sponsor has 24 hours to object (and I assure you, I will not )

Debate on the bill resumes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you sure? Just kidding


I would have felt more awkward making that case, then I felt making mine.


We have an OSPR amendment coming up in the queue, but there might be opposition to attaching other/more significant changes onto it.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Alas, debate has resumed, and our esteemed colleague is no longer here to debate. 

Perhaps if our esteemed colleague were to PM me his thoughts or objections to the bill, I would voice said thoughts on behalf of said constituent. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Alas, debate has resumed, and our esteemed colleague is no longer here to debate. 

Perhaps if our esteemed colleague were to PM me his thoughts or objections to the bill, I would voice said thoughts on behalf of said constituent. 

"You can check out anytime you like, but you may never leave" - Hotel California

Well technically debate resumed on the 31st and even before my "inferior" vote ending attempt (no one is as creative at this as BK ), I posted that Senators should operate as if the vote had been ended in terms of discussion etc because even if mine was no good, something would have been done to end the vote. I even changed the topic line at that point so people would take notice.

In the meantime, operate under the assumption that the vote will be ended, make your case, ask your questions etc etc as you currently are.

Ironically,  it seems that after I "attempted" to stop the vote, what also stopped was the discussion.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Well, I am supportive of the compromise... but I believed Shua was getting the raw end of the deal and we were letting outdated and rigid senate rules get in the way of his rights as a senator.

I am glad we found a way to resume debate.

I will PM Shua about his input.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The middle paragraph of my post got erased.


The basic contents were that atleast as far as I am concerned, shua is free to discuss the matter openly in this thread. We have never prevented private citizens from taking part in debate and even if one did have a problem with allowing such, this is certainly a case where it is most deserved considering what happened to shua. Personal Messages work good for allowing Senators to introduce bills and amendments to bills, but transcribing thoughts and ideas via such a method seems impractical, especially if in high volume.

Oh, and in case some have missed it with all the procedural crap, shua did start on the previous page on the 30th of August to explain some of his concerns:

to illustrate my confusion with the idea of combat forces staying in Afghanistan to conduct training until October 2012 as a compromise with the President -

Attached to funding cessations
Libya: 1 November (combat) -> 1 January 2012 (peacekeeping)
Iraq: 1 December (combat) -> 15 April 2012 (all remaining forces)
Afghanistan: 1 June 2012 (all forces)

Thirdly, Afghanistan. I thank you for acknowledging that this is a difficult situation. The security situation is not stable, especially with the announcement that President Karzai will not be seeking a third term. We are now at the end of the fighting season, which will give Commanders the ability to take stock of where we are, and the formal withdrawal and handover strategy. Considering our position in the security structure of entire provinces of Afghanistan - we do need to fast-track the recruitment and training of new soldiers for the Afghan Army - the Autumn and Winter period is the peak time for training and recruitment - it's as simple as that. And until we have done that job, it will be necessary for troops to be on the ground.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Shua's concerns, and I'm wont to echo them, is the size of the security force remaining on the ground in Afghanistan after most troops leave.

His concern is that if the force is anything but the absolute minimum we need, it could draw unwanted attention and they could become targets along with the people they are there to protect and train, thus defeating the entire purpose of having a training/security force in place in the first place.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

Completely random linguistic sidenote:

The word "wont" comes from middle English "woned", which was the past participle of the verb wonen, which meant "to live".  This is very similar to the German word "wohnen", which means "to live" or "inhabit". 

Leben is the German word to live as in "I am alive" but I could never figure out if wohnen had somehow been in the english language as well.  Well, now we know it has.. and its definition has changed into "being inclined or apt" to do something.