Yates Cancer Research Bill [Failed]

[minionofmidas]

Yeah, this bill is way too vague.

[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Would the PPT be so kind as to point out where in the Senate rules a bill may be withdrawn unilaterally by the initial proposer once it has reached the Senate floor.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MasterJedi claims in that thread that Jake had withdrawn the bill, but the way I read it (it's not quite obvious) Jake withdrew an amendment he had proposed.

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Would the PPT be so kind as to point out where in the Senate rules a bill may be withdrawn unilaterally by the initial proposer once it has reached the Senate floor.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

[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.

[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.)

[minionofmidas]

Are we still voting on the amendment to change the sum involved to 1$?

In that case, I change the Midwest's vote to "aye".

[minionofmidas]

Are we still voting on the amendment to change the sum involved to 1$?

In that case, I change the Midwest's vote to "aye".

Not sure whether this will be allowed. Voting on amendments lasts 5 days max (IIRC). The new presiding officer, BrandonH, will have to make a call on this.

That's why I asked whether we're still voting. If we're not voting anymore, obviously I'm not changing your vote.

[minionofmidas]

Aye

[minionofmidas]

Nay.

[minionofmidas]

Nay.

If this amendment fails, I will propose another amendment that merely strikes the word "million" wherever it occurs in the text.

[minionofmidas]

Nay.

If this amendment fails, I will propose another amendment that merely strikes the word "million" wherever it occurs in the text.

From the PPT:  Is this an actual amendment being proposed or just a joke? (just for my help)

DWTL's cloture motion will occur before the amendment (if it is one).

No, it`s a real amendment (provisional on the current one failing, though). The wording is slightly jocular is all.

[minionofmidas]

Aye.

[minionofmidas]

Aye. I think we can afford donating that dollar for a worthy cause.