Constitutional Amendment to Remove the Balanced Budget Requirement

[Sam Spade]

The revision does not affect the budget requirement in general, in case anyone's wondering.

And I know my legalism there may seem onerous, but it was put there to prevent abuse of the clause.

[Sam Spade]

Where is the current OSPR?

In the Senate Resolutions link from the Front Page, I put the original OSPR plus the Amendments to the OSPR together to form Current Senate Rules, Regulations, and Procedures here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Current_Senate_Rules%2C_Regulations%2C_and_Procedures

[Sam Spade]

Just some advice:  This amendment is vaguely worded (to be blunt)

[Sam Spade]

Well, if DanielX were to vote Nay, all of this discussion really wouldn't matter.

[Sam Spade]

This amendment has recieved enough votes to pass and has done so. As per Article Four, Section Four, Clause Three of the Senate Procedural thing, this vote is now closed and Senators are no longer permitted to change their votes.

This all goes to public poll now IIRC.

Uh, did Colin resign or is he still a member of the Senate?  And did he say to abstain every vote while he has been through his troubles?  (I might have missed something while I've been sort of absent)

If not, with 6 votes in favor, the amendment is surely not passed until 7 days have started from the vote beginning (i.e. December 6, 2005 @ 6:13:59 PM).  I know this sounds nit-picky, but there's reasons why these rules were created and since I expect DanielX would vote Nay, it means that Colin's vote would probably be the decider, if he were to come back.  Of course, if y'all would expel him before this time ended, it would eliminate the problem completely.  This is not a threat, but you expect me to vote Nay on the amendment if I believe it has been improperly approved.

Also, for real practical purposes, the Senators need to be given 24 hours to change their votes, as laid out in the OSPR.

[Sam Spade]

"The Senate, whenever two-thirds of its number shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution"

No mention is made of the full Senate (unless this has been replaced by an amendment) and bearing in mind how most legislatures work, I don't think that one is implied either.

Well, the interpretation that "its number" means "the whole number of Senators" was accepted in this thread.

I tend to disagree with Emsworth's supposition here, since it is clearly defined in the Constitution that the Senate has power to create rules governing its own assembly, and by right this means they have the power to choose how to define what two-thirds of their number means in real terms.

The only place in the OSPR where Abstaining is treated as a Nay is clearly marked in Article 5, Section 3, Clause 3, which states:

"3. Sections 1 and 2 of this Article shall apply in full to voting on a Veto Override, with this exception:

For the purposes of a Veto Override only, any Senator who Abstains from voting shall be counted as a vote Against the legislation under consideration."

The implication here is that only under the circumstances of a Veto Override may an Abstention be counted as a Nay against legislation.  Otherwise, Abstentions do not count towards the overall "number" of Senators.

I have proposed (quite a while ago) an amendment to the OSPR which could take care of some of the confusion, if worded properly.

In this post, I laid out the concept of a "quorum requirement" and the addition of the vote "Present" to be counted against said requirement.  "Abstain" would not count against the requirement or against anything for that matter.

If the amendment were so worded as to imply that the vote of "Present" would count towards the Senate's "number", then a vote of Present would count against an Amendment or Veto Override (where the "two-thirds of its number" clause is made) and not towards a simple majority vote.  However, if one wanted to include it for certain types of votes and not for others, clauses could added stating such, i.e. if the Senate did not want "Present" votes to count towards amendment voting.

Just a little food for thought.

[Sam Spade]

Actually no mention is made of a minimum time; the procedural thing says "This vote shall last for a maximum of seven (7) days". If the intention was to make it so that a vote has to last for 7 days or until all Senators have voted, it isn't written down.
I could be misreading things though.

I believe his point is that the vote could still be 6-4-0, which is obviously not a two-thirds majority. The general workings of the Senate have been that a vote stays open until it is absolutely guaranteed passage (in this case, has 7 votes) or its maximum duration expires (in this case, 7 days).

Correct.

[Sam Spade]

Uh, do I need to sign this?

The President has nothing to do with the process concerning Amendments or Senate Resolutions. 

If you wish to change the Constitution to make that possible, please go on ahead.

[Sam Spade]

Uh, do I need to sign this?

The President has nothing to do with the process concerning Amendments or Senate Resolutions. 

If you wish to change the Constitution to make that possible, please go on ahead.

It was a genuine question, and I didn't need the snide response.  Thanks anyway.

My snide responses are generally to make a point.

I was hoping the President might have taken the time to read the Constitution.  But as in the good ol' US of A, I can see that hasn't happened.