Yates Cancer Research Bill [Failed]

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Would the PPT be so kind as to point out where in the Senate rules a bill may be withdrawn unilaterally by the initial proposer once it has reached the Senate floor.  We have spent sufficient time on this bill that I would prefer to see this Senate rather than another finish it because it had to be reintroduced as a new bill.

[Brandon H]

I have seen other bills withdrawn by the sponsor, though some have received criticism saying "this bill is ridiculous". I don't see much difference between this and some of the other ones.

[Јas]

Would the PPT be so kind as to point out where in the Senate rules a bill may be withdrawn unilaterally by the initial proposer once it has reached the Senate floor.  We have spent sufficient time on this bill that I would prefer to see this Senate rather than another finish it because it had to be reintroduced as a new bill.

I'm fairly sure no provision exists, though of course, it is the convention to remove bills when the proposer withdraws the bill.

I would suggest though that there may be precedent for considering any bill which has been completely overhauled by amendment to be considered the bill of the proposer of the amendment. In this regard, I would refer to the comments of the then PPT, Dave Hawk, on my amendment to the Cabinet Restructuring Act, originally introduced by Jake.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm fairly sure no provision exists, though of course, it is the convention to remove bills when the proposer withdraws the bill.

Agreed, but usually that been done when it has become obvious that vote on final passage would be lopsided with only the proposer voting for the bill, and sometimes not even him, if he has been convinced that it is a bad idea because of the debate on that bill.

[minionofmidas]

Would the PPT be so kind as to point out where in the Senate rules a bill may be withdrawn unilaterally by the initial proposer once it has reached the Senate floor.  We have spent sufficient time on this bill that I would prefer to see this Senate rather than another finish it because it had to be reintroduced as a new bill.

I'm fairly sure no provision exists, though of course, it is the convention to remove bills when the proposer withdraws the bill.

I would suggest though that there may be precedent for considering any bill which has been completely overhauled by amendment to be considered the bill of the proposer of the amendment. In this regard, I would refer to the comments of the then PPT, Dave Hawk, on my amendment to the Cabinet Restructuring Act, originally introduced by Jake.

MasterJedi claims in that thread that Jake had withdrawn the bill, but the way I read it (it's not quite obvious) Jake withdrew an amendment he had proposed.

[Ebowed]

Would the PPT be so kind as to point out where in the Senate rules a bill may be withdrawn unilaterally by the initial proposer once it has reached the Senate floor.

Tradition.

[minionofmidas]

Would the PPT be so kind as to point out where in the Senate rules a bill may be withdrawn unilaterally by the initial proposer once it has reached the Senate floor.

Tradition.

Indeed, it's not sanctioned by the OSPR. However, it seems to me that tradition pertains only to the withdrawal of original unamended bills or maybe bills still close in spirit to the original (might be worth studying in further depth though).

[minionofmidas]

Searching through the last 15 pages, I can see no evidence whatsoever of a precedent that allows a Senator to withdraw a bill he doesn't like just because he was the original sponsor of the bill in its original form.
While I don't much care about the Yates Cancer Research Bill, this would set a precedent that we REALLY don't want, and I urge the PPT to reconsider.

[Ebowed]

Well, I can put it back, though we'll have to remain content with 7 pieces of legislation on the floor for a while.  Doubt it will hurt anything.

In which case, we are now voting on my amendment to add a section which states:

"An additional $50 million will go towards embryonic stem cell research effective FY 2008."


Aye

[Brandon H]

Indeed, it's not sanctioned by the OSPR. However, it seems to me that tradition pertains only to the withdrawal of original unamended bills or maybe bills still close in spirit to the original (might be worth studying in further depth though).

A bill should not be able to be amended to the point where it gets to not "close in spirit to the original".

---

Nay on the amendment.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Nay


Look, this section of the forum needs serious cleaning up, it's getting out of hand.

[Јas]

Aye

[Colin]

Aye

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Nay on the stem cell amendment and Abstain on the de-Yates-ification amendment that was being voted upon when DWTL called for the bill's withdrawal.

[minionofmidas]

A bill should not be able to be amended to the point where it gets to not "close in spirit to the original".

Why not? It happens all the time in the real US Congress.

[Brandon H]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not? It happens all the time in the real US Congress.

Yes. The real U.S. Congress is broken.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Nay

[Sam Spade]

LOL @ bill title.

[Rob]

Aye.

[minionofmidas]

LOL @ bill title.

Oh yeah, given recent developments I guess Yates' name can now stay in the bill. (OOC: And for Atlasia legend affairs, I'd propose that VP Yates' cancer death be accepted as valid.)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I agree with what Lewis said about accepting VP Yates' cancer death, although I will now oppose establishing a national holiday for him like some have suggested.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Oh, and if the vote on the amendment is still valid: Aye

[Ebowed]

The amendment passes.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Again, I withdraw this bill and unless someone can find a law that says I cannot withdraw it (and I read the OSPR and cannot find any specific rules on it other than I have the right to withdraw), I will challenge it in court.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Could the PPT please indicate whether the de-Yatesification amendment has been passed?  Indeed, would he please be so kind as to present a current copy of the bill as amended to date.