S2: Rules and Procedure of the Southern Legislature (passed)

[NeverAgain]

Okay, folks, I'd ask here that we continue debating. I really desire EVERYONE'S ideas and opinions here. This needs to be passed before we can move forward.

[NeverAgain]

"Delegates shall have seventy-two hours to challenge the decision(s), or until the end of the Speaker's term. If there is a challenge, the Speaker shall call a seventy-two hour vote on the challenge, offering an individual vote for each challenged decision, in the Southern Legislature Thread. If a majority of office-holding Delegates vote in the affirmative (in favor of the challenge), the legislation shall be re-introduced at the same position in the queue. If the legislation's position in the queue was already passed, it shall be re-introduced at the beginning of the queue."

Couple of things here: 1. "seventy-two hours to challenge the decision(s), or until the end of the Speaker's term", I mean that's a pretty big discrepancy. This is basically just saying anytime between the start of a legislative session, and the end of the legislative session you can bring it up. I think that we have to make it 72 hours, as there is a certain point when these bills become no longer relevant and if you wait over half a week to make a complaint, it's obvious you didn't care about the legislation in the first place.

2. "If a majority of office-holding Delegates vote in the affirmative (in favor of the challenge)". I would suggest adding "If a majority, and only a majority, etc.", as the Speaker should not be voting in this decision, so ending up in a tie, which means that the majority of Delegates (3/5) support the Speaker's actions.

3. "If the legislation's position in the queue was already passed, it shall be re-introduced at the beginning of the queue." I would say that if it has already passed, then it should be the FIRST bill to be debated. If a Speaker makes a mistake, then we should not spend possible weeks waiting for this delegate's rightful legislation to be discussed.

I will discuss the next part in a few hours, but first:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why? We already have the rules in place. This bill is not S2, nor should it supplant S2 just because the Governor doesn't like the legislation that is actually S2.

What you are doing, Nev, is setting a precedent that the delegates can simply ignore legislation that they do not like.

This is not a matter of liking or not liking legislation. Do you really think I care whether milk is the regional drink or not, or whether there is a Yankee International Airport? I don't. In fact, I am against the $15 Minimum Wage, but that should be given ample time to be discussed as it something that affects people's lives and prosperity, even though I would easily sign your milk bill over that in it's current form. I think Federalist or Laborite, and anything in between, has to agree that we are needed here to talk about REAL issues that affect people, not naming buildings or making the labor of heifers regionally significant.

But when we are looking at things in context, these are obstructive bills when the goal is getting things done that affect people's lives. I was not elected to obstruct, I was elected to lead. And leading means we have to have rules that clarify the basics of procedure. 

As I said to diptheriadan, my singling you out for your legislation, was nothing against you, but just saying that we need to see where our priorities are at. We cannot continue legislating or governing when our rules put us at the risk of a Constitutional Crisis daily.

In summation, I care very little about your bills, for or against. But whether I like ANY bill or not is not the issue, it is about establishing clear procedure, and all bills that were in the queue were at risk of this crisis if we didn't get clear rules established.

[NeverAgain]

Okay, I'm confused. I thought your problem with the rules was that it opened up the possibility of Ben and JTC suing each other and grinding progress in the Chamber to a halt, not that Ben's bills were obstructionist.

That is my problem with the rules. The possibility of continual constitution crisis (like that alliteration?) is why I wanted to move all bills back so we can get talking about this NOW. Ben's bills were just examples of the bills that needed to be pushed back so that we can get this done. He stated it was that I have some political objection to them, which is not the case. It was the fact that there are a dozen of them sent out in a matter of hours, which can be discussed at any time (hopefully with rules).

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would just say legislative session instead of "Speaker's term", as they are essentially substitutes for one another, and do not require the clarification. And adding "any legislation proposed by former members of the previous session, may be sponsored by Delegates of the next session". Other than that, looks great.

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then let the legislative process work, Nev.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obstructive to whom? You?

What's stopping a federalist governor from deeming a Laborite bill as 'obstructive' and ignoring it. This sets a terrible precedent.

Dunno where I ignored your bills. The Speaker used her authority to do this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What crisis?

Nev has self-declared his own crisis here. Nor has he adequately explained why he must use his emergency powers to force change on the delegates rather than letting us debate and discuss the bills in their due course.

We've had 2 Court Cases, and an false impeachment hearing, according to our rules, which has rendered our Chamber essentially useless, as we cannot even get through a single piece of legislation. I am perfectly fine with letting things go their course, but looking at precedent, the past couple of weeks. We will NEVER be able to get anything done if we continually have the threat of Supreme Court cases daily, due to these unclear rules.

Ben, I don't know where your going here. I didn't ignore your legislation, no one did. It's still in the queue. Focus on this bill, which was brought here legitimately under the Speaker's power (something that is in entire excess under our unclear rules). I don't want anymore screaming contests or court cases, because believe or not, it's really not my cup of tea.

[NeverAgain]

Explained it pretty darn clearly. If we don't have clear and set boundaries on slots, length of debate, etc, we will get into little tiffs like this which will explode into Constitutional Crisis, like we've seen.

Ben, I am going to have to stop responding, if all you're saying is that I established rules, which the Speaker brought, that get the ball rolling for the Chamber.

I just really, really want to get this stuff done, but you are really making this difficult. The problem here en lies, that we can't debate on any bill yours or anyone's, unless we have clear rules so we don't get held up on misinterpretations.

The rules say nothing about emergency slots, nor about forcing the chamber to go solely by the queue. That is up to the Speaker's discretion, and the Speaker has opened this. Arguing with me isn't going to get your bills debated any quicker.

 

[NeverAgain]

"Quite successfully" is not the word I would use. I have no doubt that we would've come to buttheads, had your Speakership continued due to some of the "successful" practices you used.

In any case. I am tired of arguing. Whether you agree or not that this is an emergency, it is a significant problem, as there is no mention of slots, , and I feel very uncomfortable with the possibility of wasting any more of any delegate's, and my own, precious time when the Southern people have elected us here to create and execute the law, due to individuals concerns over the format and rules of our legislature.

I just really don't see how this constant temper tantrum, over this bill is in any way helpful to the process. It's here now, done legally by the Speaker, and will serve a great purpose to both the Chamber and the Southern people if passed. Let's focus on working out possible kinks and then get this passed, so that we all can do our jobs in a way that we are not at constant risk of crisis.

[NeverAgain]

For those that extended debate, can you please explain your grievances?

[NeverAgain]

Well, it wasn't clear to me that you were replacing that with that. Anyways, I'd prefer the part I quoted struck altogether. 1.

Also, I'd much prefer this omnibus legislation split up. It's huge as it is. 2.
Shall I continue on with my objections? 3.

1. This is so important to ensuring the queue stays free and fair for all delegates to participate in, and not just one forcibly excluding others from participating through forcing legislation to be debated which the majority of the chamber is wholeheartedly, or clogging the queue with inane and insane legislation. Many of the pre-reset Senate's had this provision, as does the current Federal House and Senate. It is vital we have this for the survival of the chamber's queue.

2. This is a lengthy piece, but one that is quite common-sense, as much of it is something I worked with Mr. Yankee, and Mr. PiT on for their respective houses. I see no reason to separate a bill based on it's length.

3. Go ahead.

[NeverAgain]

So your argument against this is that Fhtagn "rushed" it, so it shouldn't become law. Kay.

I think that it's pretty obvious why we need an anti-clogging provision in the new rules, if you look at our third slot.

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, my argument was that we should actually debate and discuss this bill first rather than rushing it through.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That you deem the legislation 'frivolous' is exactly why we should continue to take up legislation in the order in which it is on the order paper.

Do you really want a Federalist Speaker ignoring all Laborite legislation because it's 'frivolous'? You guys changed that to the situation that we have now, and now you want it back the instant you're in power? LOL.

It's a pretty transparent attempt.

Also, you've still not explained why you can invoke emergency legislation here. IMO, you've not provided an adequate explanation as to why your will should prevail over that of the delegates here.

I'm trying to accommodate you here by discussing this bill so that we can get some discussion done. But I still believe that this whole bill is out of order. S2 is the Fremont bill, not this.

We have a Federalist Speaker of the Federalist controlled House in the Federalist Congress (except for the Beautiful Senate). I have no problems allowing Yankee to take out legislation he deems as frivolous, and if other House Members disagree, they can use the method provided to them (which Mr. Cuber kindly amended to better suit the Legislature).

I have explained it time and time again, I am not going to rehash something that is due to poor reading comprehension or lack of focus. If you have any problems, sue me for something I didn't do. This was the Speaker's own, with sound of mind and body, smart and sane decision to (using her powers as Speaker), get this passed before we move on to other bills. We cannot be flying in the face of constitutional crisis.

What are your other grievances?

[NeverAgain]

I used my constitutional right as Governor to sponsor legislation. You were more then welcome to sponsor it as a Delegate, but in the end, it is still sponsored.

[NeverAgain]

Wow! Major victory for our legislature! I look forward to seeing the newfound progress these rules will bring to the Chamber!