|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 04, 2020, 12:19:35 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Senate Procedure Resolution Concerning Multiple Issue Bills
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Senate Procedure Resolution Concerning Multiple Issue Bills  (Read 4152 times)
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,702
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 22, 2004, 12:28:13 pm »
« edited: December 11, 2004, 11:03:29 am by Senator Bono »

1. Senators should not introduce bills to the Senate that address two or more
divorced subjects.
2. Senators should not introduce amendments to bills that would cause the bill
to address two or more divorced subjects
3. The Presiding Officer of the Senate is empowered to enforce this resolution
through the ability to reject bills, or sections thereof, and to reject
amendments, or sections thereof.
4. However, the Senate, by a two thirds vote, may overrule the Presiding Officer, if it considers his decision to be on infringment of the intention of this resolution.


Logged
Peter
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,031


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2004, 01:27:25 pm »

As a simple point of order - this cannot be a piece of statute (remember that any future law simply overrides this law as a matter of course); Instead this should be a Senate Procedural Resolution concerning the introduction of bills by Senators.

Secondly, this bill is wide open to interpretation - what is "only one matter". Arguably under your definition, the following statute would not have been considered as one bill because the topics under discussion are very broad:

The Health Care Reform Act of 2004
National Energy Act
Family Planning Amendments Act of 2004

I like how this is really the anti-Miscellany Bill. If you want a section by section vote on the Miscellany Bill, why don't you just ask for one?
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 39,080
United States


P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2004, 03:05:22 pm »

Actually laws concerning the form in which laws may be passed are fairly common.  The relevant section in US law is 1 U.S.C. 104, but the Miscellany Act fits within the parameters of that section of the US Code, in that each section of that Act deals with a single topic.
Logged
Peter
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,031


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2004, 03:35:19 pm »

Just as a point, the bill could not have retroactive effect anyway, as that would be an Ex Posto Facto Law, which will in all likelihood be a power forbidden to the Senate in the Amendment. I was simply pointing out that had this procedure been in effect at the time those bills could not have been considered as one bill.

I still oppose this legislation, not only because I disagree with its purpose, but also because I think it is wide open to interpretation as to how narrow the definition of "only one matter" could become.
Logged
StevenNick
StevenNick99
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,899


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2004, 03:43:13 pm »

I strongly support this resolution.  It will prevent pork barrel spending and prevent possible abuses of power by the senate.  It also ensures that the senate will debate each issue rather than letting a number of issues slip by in bills such as the current Miscellany bill.
Logged
Siege40
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,826


Political Matrix
E: -6.25, S: -4.26

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2004, 03:45:50 pm »

This is far too broad. The word matter has no definition. And then we may have to resort to some sort of list of matters. This bill is not well thought out in my opinion.

Siege
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,702
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2004, 11:46:23 am »

New version, written under the coordination of AG Peter Bell.
Logged
JohnFKennedy
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,449


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2004, 12:33:45 pm »

I think I can now open debate on this.


Logged
2,868,691
Harry
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,002
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2004, 03:27:10 pm »

I support this bill also, just to consisen (is that a word?) matters.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,407
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2004, 04:26:47 pm »

I support this bill also, just to consisen (is that a word?) matters.

No, but consisten is.
Logged
JohnFKennedy
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,449


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2004, 04:27:55 pm »

I support this bill also, just to consisen (is that a word?) matters.

No, but consisten is.

Maybe he means Concisen as in concise.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,407
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2004, 04:31:33 pm »

I support this bill also, just to consisen (is that a word?) matters.

No, but consisten is.

Maybe he means Concisen as in concise.

In that case, that isn't a word.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 39,080
United States


P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2004, 04:52:30 pm »

I support this bill also, just to consisen (is that a word?) matters.
No, but consisten is.
Maybe he means Concisen as in concise.
In that case, that isn't a word.
Concisen is an English word, built using the usual rules for suffixes, albeit one that probably isn't in any dictionary except perhaps the OED.  Given that shorten and its large number of synonyms  are existing verbs that already express the concept and are in common use, I can't say that I am surprised by the lack of the perfectly valid word, concisen, in either common use or the dictionary.
Logged
TexasGurl
texasgurl
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,430
Japan


P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2004, 05:28:38 pm »

This would hamstring a senators right to amend so i'm against it.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,702
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 04, 2004, 05:31:35 pm »

This would hamstring a senators right to amend so i'm against it.

Ammendmets by definition are within teh same matter. Unless you wanted to ammend a bill say, legalizing marijuana to illegalize crosbreading of pigs with weasels.
Logged
TexasGurl
texasgurl
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,430
Japan


P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2004, 05:33:20 pm »

Sometimes a single senator has to be able to delay a bill with killer amendements.
Logged
2,868,691
Harry
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,002
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2004, 05:45:08 pm »

Sometimes a single senator has to be able to delay a bill with killer amendements.
...and delay is the last thing we need with so many bills being proposed
Logged
TexasGurl
texasgurl
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,430
Japan


P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2004, 05:46:25 pm »

So maybe we need less bad bills being introduced?
Logged
StevenNick
StevenNick99
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,899


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2004, 06:25:11 pm »

So maybe we need less bad bills being introduced?

Well, IrishDem is no longer a senator, so this may not be too much to hope for.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,702
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 11, 2004, 04:57:44 am »

Debate ends today. Will the presiding officer put this to a vote?
Logged
JohnFKennedy
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,449


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 11, 2004, 11:01:34 am »

I hereby open the voting.

Please vote Yea, Nay or abstain.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,702
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 11, 2004, 11:02:49 am »

Yea.
Logged
Siege40
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,826


Political Matrix
E: -6.25, S: -4.26

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 11, 2004, 11:35:04 am »

Nay.

Siege
Logged
TexasGurl
texasgurl
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,430
Japan


P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 11, 2004, 12:30:56 pm »

Nay.
Logged
Redefeatbush04
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,504


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 11, 2004, 02:09:58 pm »

I urge my congressman to vote IN FAVOR OF this amendment. Note the final clause Texasgurl
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.128 seconds with 14 queries.