Northeast Assembly Thread

[Napoleon]

Three consecutive votes on legislation were missed.

[Napoleon]

Three consecutive votes on legislation were missed.

When was the last vote missed by both Assemblymen? 

I will have to hold a special election to fill the seats.  The question is whether that's tonight or next week.  It might be next week anyway because of the lack of time to give notice.

The Northeast Parks and Recreation Act that passed today.

[Napoleon]

Three consecutive votes on legislation were missed.

When was the last vote missed by both Assemblymen? 

I will have to hold a special election to fill the seats.  The question is whether that's tonight or next week.  It might be next week anyway because of the lack of time to give notice.

The Northeast Parks and Recreation Act that passed today.

Thanks.  I'll double-check that.  If you are correct, we will hold a special election to fill the seats next week.

If it helps, there was a vote to pass the SRC that was 1-0 followed by a vote to pass it over the governor's veto that was 4-0.

[Napoleon]

Every vote was held for 24 hours. This has been consistent.

[Napoleon]

I'm going to have to go back and look at the thread.  For starters, I don't think we've viewed veto overrides as votes on legislation because of the simultaneous tracking in the SOAP.  In general, we've very liberally interpreted the three consecutive vote provisions lest run out of people wishing to run for Assembly.

I'd be inclined to agree if it were considered a motion to veto an override but the constitution makes reference to "previously vetoed legislation" which designates it is indeed legislation. I believe that would make it qualify as a third consecutive vote.

[Napoleon]

Jeez I'm the Speaker, not a babysitter. I should not be held responsible for the activity of others.

Wormy, this is the first time three consecutive votes have been missed. You can think that all you want but you'll be wrong.

[Napoleon]

Additional Amendments to the Northeast Gun Safety Act

The Northeast Gun Safety Act shall be re-amended to read:

1. Any person who has committed a non-murder felony while under the age of 21, will automatically have his rights restored at age 35.
     a. Except in cases where the victim of the offender's crime is a minor.
     b. Except in cases where the offender has committed two or more felonies during this period.
2. Whenever a gun is used as an instrument in the crime, an additional five years will be added to the sentence.
     a. In cases of abduction, rape, or murder of any degree, in which a gun is used as an instrument in the crime, these rights will not be restored.

48 hours for debate.

[Napoleon]

So section 2 basically says that a person will have rights restored at age 40, right?

No...

Would a felon to which either 1a or 1b apply ever receive restoration of his rights? And what "rights" do the amendments (either of them) refer to?

What counts as "instrument in a crime"? Does the gun have to be fired for this to apply?

It seems pretty clear to me, this is largely the existing text. The rights referred to are obviously gun rights as provided by the Constitution. A gun does not have to be fired to be a criminal instrument.

[Napoleon]

Your issue seems to be with the law as currently in place, perhaps that should be done separately from these minor changes?

Either way, 24 more hours. It is rather disappointing this hadn't already been taken care of.

[Napoleon]

We arbitrarily punish people more just because they use a gun in their crime? What exactly is the justification of that? Is that how things really work in relation to gun crime?

Well, the use of a gun in a crime can be seen as justification.  The language "instrument of crime" is what deserves attention.  Non-specific language like that can leave to much room for interpretation.

Also, if section 1 mentions non-murder felony, and section 2 talks about a gun being used as an "instrument of crime", can't this be contradictory if in fact, the felon had a gun during the crime, but the crime was not murder?

Keyword would be the, indicating prior text as the antecedent.

[Napoleon]

I'm with Marokai.

I vote Nay.

It seems superfluous to over make an already complex legal system even more intricate.

I'm going to wait for homelycooking since he requested extra time.

[Napoleon]

Nay. The amendments have the right ideas in mind, but the bill that they seek to amend is critically flawed.

We aren't voting yet. In fact, I was waiting for you.

[Napoleon]

Oh! Sorry. Well, let's proceed to a vote, then.

Okay, I thought you were offering changes. We still wont have a vote until later tonight because I intend on making this passable. If anyone else wants to offer something constructive rather than cheap attacks, I'd welcome that. The status quo isn't the answer if you don't like the bill as it stands; I prefer accomplishing what needs to be done even if I don't like the sponsor of the law.

[Napoleon]

@hc: that bit was not at all meant to refer to you.

@Marokai: offering amendments usually works better than acting like a third grader in this Assembly.

Anyone else think that holding debate open longer at hc's request expecting an amendment or something is just terrible inactivity on my part?

[Napoleon]

Well.. I don't wrong you for waiting in expectations for an amendment.  We should however, try and stick to a timeline when someone requests a 24 hour extension.

My amendment is as follows regarding section 1;

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Accepted. Unless there's anything else, I will have a final amendment before the vote.

[Napoleon]

I guess we have a final vote. 24 hours.

[Napoleon]

Aye

[Napoleon]

This bill fails.

[Napoleon]

Call to Vote Amendment

Section 3 of the Standing Order on Legislative Procedure is hereby amended with the addition of a sub-section (i), as follows:

(i) The Speaker of the Assembly shall notify all members of the Assembly via private message of an ongoing vote on the floor of the Assembly no later than one hour after the commencement of the voting period.   

We will now open the floor to debate this bill.

[Napoleon]

I disagree with the basis for this law. The Speaker is not meant to be Babysitter.

[Napoleon]

Being Speaker has responsibilities?! Never would have guessed that on my own.

All this bill does is shift responsibility away from other members and discourage participation in debate. Who needs to participate in discussion when a nifty little message will arrive telling when to vote each time?

Every Representative has responsibilities.

[Napoleon]

I disagree with the basis for this law. The Speaker is not meant to be Babysitter.

Whie this is true and I agree with this, it takes less than 2 seconds to send a PM that could create more activity. I ran for Governor on the platform of improving Legislative activity, so if this bill helps, I'm all for it.

It doesn't help though.

It takes less than. 2 seconds to check the thread themselves. Remember there is a limit to the number of PMs one can send within a certain period.

[Napoleon]

I wouldn't support stringent enforcement upon the Speaker to tell Assembly members to do their job.  This bill doesn't seem to do so, and because it does not, I'm sorry to say that I see little purpose in it except formalities.  I don't think it's the duty of the Speaker to encourage the Assembly to follow through on their duties.  Perhaps if the size of the Assembly is reduced, those that fail to participate will no longer plague this Assembly. 

In the coming session of this legislature, we will most likely have four assemblymen - a majority of this body - who did not run for their office and merely wrote themselves in on the ballot. I, too, would prefer that this amendment to SOAP be made unnecessary by a reduction in the size of the Assembly, but that is not the case. In such a situation, I believe that it is preferable to encourage absentee legislators to participate via a PM call to vote than to wait until they have missed three votes before throwing them out. To my mind, it is better to attempt to do something constructive with our execrable situation than to fall back on the punishments intended for a less dysfunctional legislature.

If it is agreeable to anyone, I would be willing to change the text of my amendment from "ongoing vote" to "ongoing debate", since Napoleon's comment about reliance on calls to vote as an excuse to avoid debate is a relevant and important one. I realize that this won't solve the "babysitter" role that he has inveighed against, but perhaps it will nonetheless achieve the result that I'm trying to bring about.

That would be an improvement but I would still probably be opposed. This bill screams nanny state. We can't even expect our legislators to check a thread?

[Napoleon]

I'd rather those schmucks get booted if they choose not to do their job.

LOL at mentioning the Governor. Ghostwhite can't even do anything without being PMed. We might need a law for that too.

[Napoleon]

Is Winfield aware of his duties as Lieutenant Governor?

Yes.