Amendment to the OPSR

[Sam Spade]

I will only talk about the last two parts, because the first two parts go along with it.

Part 3 worries me because it takes legislation the President presents and gives it priority over Senatorial legislation.  For example, if we have 10 pieces of legislation that are currently waiting for time on the Senate floor, the President can introduce a new piece of legislation and it will automatically jump to the front of the pack (so to speak). 

Presidential legislation is very important, but he should have to work with the Senate to introduce the legislation and/or persuade the PPT and his VP to bring it to the floor of the Senate immediately, rather than having a separate "road" for his legislation to reach the Senate that gives his legislation priority over other Senators.

Part 4 gives the President a role in amending legislation currently in Senate debate, presumably legislation that has not been written by the President as well.  I find this a troubling expansion of executive power into the legislative role of drafting and approving legislation.

[Sam Spade]

I'll introduce this for Joe Republic.


The entirety of this bill is amended to read;

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."

I have no issue with the first two sentences of this amendment.  The second sentence is useful to me, I think, especially considering the travails of the last session.

My concern with regards to the last sentence is two-fold.

1. Technically, the PPT and President of the Senate together can pretty much introduce as many bills on the Senate floor as they want to by use of Article 7, Section 1, with Senatorial remedy, if need be.  Adding an extra bill on the floor to facilitate this power seems redundant.  In fact, I really see no reason for the last part of that sentence to be there.

2. I have great concern over the first part of the sentence giving the PPT the powerful ability to introduce what he considers to be "forum affairs legislation" to this so-called fifth spot.  There is no power to hold the PPT in account for potential abuse of this clause, introducing his own legislation in front of others under the guise of being related to "forum affairs", except for direct removal of the PPT, which requires a two-thirds majority (for obvious reasons). 

I also do not feel that "forum affairs legislation" is necessarily any more important or any less important than other legislation in general.  Certainly, some forum affairs legislation is gravely important, but this can be taken care of by Article 7, Section 1's broad powers.  But there is really no reason for "forum affairs" to receive its own legislative spot and without any recompense as to what the PPT determines "forum affairs legislation" to be.

My own personal feelings are to keep the first two sentences as such and totally remove the third.

If Senators feel like the third is of vital importance, Senatorial remedy, such as the ability to overrule the PPT by majority vote, must be created to prevent abuse of the clause.