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

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Motion to bypass the rules of the chamber require unanimous consent.

As this bill is already filed, and I am the sponsor of the bill already on the order paper, I will reject this motion.

We will take the matter up in due course.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, this is why we should take the legislation up in it's proper order. No one is talking about removing this legislation from the order paper, least of all me, who is it's sponsor. Just because the legislation in front of this is deemed 'frivolous' by one member is insufficient cause to reorder things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We already have existing rules of the chamber.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that's something that will have to come up. We can't simply suspend the rules. I could have done that as Speaker earlier to ignore Laborite bills, which I didn't actually do.

I let them come up in due course. I hear the desire to tighten up the rules. I just don't think we are helping matters by establishing precedent that just because we don't like legislation means we can change the order paper.

[Wisconsin+17]

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.

[Wisconsin+17]

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.

[Wisconsin+17]

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.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We had two court cases because the rules were unclear at the time with how things should proceed. While I was speaker not only did I successfully conduct the vote the second time, I also established a precedent for a revote.

All without 'emergency powers' or breaking any of the rules.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

NeverAgain - just drop this bill and let us finish up with S1.

Then we can get rolling again on S2, and so on and so forth.

I've already sponsored the rules changes on the order paper so we will get to this bill. No need for emergency powers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why are we debating this bill now which is also in the queue, even though S2 should come first?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no emergency. I've asked, and you're yet to explain why we are in an emergency situation.

If you can't explain why this is an emergency situation, I'm forced to conclude that you are deliberately ignoring bills that you labeled 'obstructionist', and violating the rules of the Chamber.

We have rules and a process here. We should be following them.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What constitutional crisis is there? There are already limits on debate, on the length of debate to which debate has been extended, etc.

The legislation is proceeding with appropriate discussion, amendments, etc. Amending a bill after discussion is hardly out of the ordinary. Calling for a vote on the bill after the bill has been amended, again, all proper part of the normal course of the delegates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I'm saying that you're violating the established rules of the chamber to take legislation up in the order listed on the order paper. That's the whole reason why we have an order paper in the first place.

The Order Paper states that S2 is not this bill. Ergo, this bill, by the rules of the delegates is out of order.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How hard is it to follow the currently established rules, Nev? I did. I didn't push Laborite bills to the bottom, or manipulate the order in which bills were taken up.

I also managed to pass a budget, etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We already have clear rules.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh. Then. I guess you can't do it then. Unless you're in the party that believes that because the Chamber of delegates says nothing about appointing yourself as perpetual God emperor that you can declare yourself so.

Why are you making up powers for yourself out of whole cloth rather than following the established rules of the delegates. You make it sound like it's impossible to debate and pass bills under the same rules that I've been working with for months.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This bill is clearly out of order.

[Wisconsin+17]

We aren't under an emergency, Cuber.

That's the point I'm trying to make. We have an 'emergency slot' in a situation where no such emergency exists.

Are we at war, Cuber?

Is the South going to suddenly collapse if the Chamber of Delegates is forced to work under the same rules as it had all of last year?

Rules, I might add that I was able to work quite successfully under to pass bills and legislation?

It most definitely is possible to do.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This bill is already on the order paper. It will be introduced in due course. I agree it is a problem which is why I sponsored it.

Where we disagree is using this method to introduce it. Nev, why are you going out of your way to invoke controversial emergency powers where none are needed?

You have the support for this bill, already. But I do not want it passed in such a way as to cast doubt on it's legitimacy. This is not the way.

[Wisconsin+17]

I motion to extend debate on this. I don't think we've discussed this enough.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This amounts to effectively removing the order paper entirely.

Why have it if the Speaker has full discretion over what bills can or cannot come up? This is a massive extension of the power of the Speaker.

I would like to amend the bill to remove this clause entirely from it.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are most definitely NOT in agreement on the amendment, let alone the final bill.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that there was agreement on the amendment.

In any case, the bill as worded is unconstitutional. I'd rather amend it so that the bill is constitutional.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, then. I'm going to start the court case as this bill is unconstitutional.

Take it up with Justice Brase.

[Wisconsin+17]

And there we go. Motion to debate extended.

This bill has a ton of problems, we need to get cracking to make it better.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd much rather you let us hammer out the problems with this bill rather than ramming it through unamended.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed it is.

Now are we actually debating this? Then I can withdraw the case.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This gives far too great a latitude to the speaker. Frivolity is not an objective measure. When I was speaker, I could have blocked all the laborite bills, by making sure they never got on the order paper.

This is why this segment had the rest of it put on that it had to be in agreement with the majority of the delegates rather than solely at the discretion of the speaker.

[Wisconsin+17]

The proposed amendment was to remove that clause.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Wisconsin+17]

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

Also, I'd much prefer this omnibus legislation split up. It's huge as it is.

Shall I continue on with my objections?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's what the process of debate and amending is, JTC. The process is to improve legislation not just autoclick on the table button.

You notice I'm not arguing to table this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's quite an extensive bill. That makes it harder to pass as everyone can find something wrong with it. Shorter bills have an easier time.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cuber was confused as well. Rather than just letting us sort it out, Fhtagn jumped in to rush it through. IMO that wasn't warranted especially when we weren't certain we were voting on the amendment, what the amendment was and wholly apart from the final bill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's been done many times before. I'm not suggesting it to kill parts only because again - it's easier to pass in a small chunks. These are extensive rules changes to the delegates.

I'm not even motioning for it to be changed, just putting the suggestion out there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks.

[Wisconsin+17]

We have like 48 hours on the motion to extend debate to the amendment, Cuber

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks. We just kinda settled that. We'll debate a bit on the amendment and then vote on it. I'll go over it and see if there's anything else I want to do with the bill.

[Wisconsin+17]

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.

[Wisconsin+17]

Tell you what, Nev, I'll happily vote for this bill with this added to the end.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do we have a deal?