S1: Act to revise Bill 2's 'revision to the rules of the chamber of delegates'

[fhtagn]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The clause 'who is not the Speaker' is struck.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This clause shall be struck

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This clause shall be struck, and amended to the following. "Ballots cast shall follow the same rules for validity as under the Federal voting laws of atlasia."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This entire section shall be struck.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The number 6 will be replaced by the number 2. Also sections b and c will be struck.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This shall be struck.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This shall be struck

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This shall be struck

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This shall be struck

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This shall be struck

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The clause, "The presiding officer may ignore amendments that he or she deems frivolous, functionally impractical, or unconstitutional at his or her discretion" Shall be struck

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This shall be amended to add the following clause:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This shall be struck
[/quote]

Sponsor: Ben Kenobi

[Wisconsin+17]

Bill 2 has some pretty big issues with it as you can see from the 20 some amendations. We changed the rules of the delegates and as we've seen Bill 2 just doesn't work.

In Amending Bill 2 we can fix the problems with it and make it so that we get rules that actually work for the Chamber of Delegates in the future.

[JustinTimeCuber]

The rules work just fine as they are. We don't need to fix something that isn't broken.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your complaint that "I never intended the rules to work the way I wrote them", suggests strongly that there are significant problems with Bill 2.

You wrote the bill and even you didn't want to follow it.

[fhtagn]

I believe this is the quote Ben Kenobi is referring to, for clarification purposes:

I wrote that language and didn't intend for it to be strictly implemented in the way you're suggesting.

[NeverAgain]

I have some comments that I'll present tomorrow afternoon.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your complaint that "I never intended the rules to work the way I wrote them", suggests strongly that there are significant problems with Bill 2.

You wrote the bill and even you didn't want to follow it.

Okay, now you're just going back to your stupid frivolous attacks.

I said that I didn't intend for that language to be interpreted strictly, but there was no other rigorous way I could think of to write that part. Ideally, if we had a Chamber full of 5 people who want to make progress instead of 4, it wouldn't have been an issue. If you want to offer an amendment to Article IV of the rules, go right ahead, but this bill is just getting rid of parts of the rules that might inconvenience your obstructionism.

Also, I didn't *write* the bill. I wrote two amendments.

I would like you to provide me with an example of how these rules have actually failed to work in practice, so that I could address that.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By quoting you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I warned you very clearly in the thread that there were problems with what you were proposing. You chose to ignore my comments altogether. Now it's been proven that this part of Bill 2 does not work.

Clearly then you should be supporting amending that portion out of the rules permitting bills to carry over as they always have done.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The issue is with wiping out the slate. There are problems with it that you did not foresee. We need to go back to the older rule set.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, pretty sure that's exactly what I'm doing. There are 20 different changes to Bill 2 here. That's not a small number.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And even then you're not happy with what you wrote. That speaks volumes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I already quoted you here. The whole setup of 'prefiling bills' and erasing the queue does not work. We should go back to just letting the queue carry over from session to session.

 
 

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By quoting you? and taking that out of context, yeah

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I warned you very clearly in the thread that there were problems with what you were proposing. You chose to ignore my comments altogether. Now it's been proven that this part of Bill 2 does not work. that's a logical leap the likes of which only Kellyanne Conway would dream of making.

Clearly then you should be supporting amending that portion out of the rules permitting bills to carry over as they always have done. no, I don't... we shouldn't be considering bills from f**king March in July.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The issue is with wiping out the slate. There are problems with it that you did not foresee. We need to go back to the older rule set. mhmm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, pretty sure that's exactly what I'm doing. There are 20 different changes to Bill 2 here. That's not a small number. I'm specifically talking about Section IV, subsection 1, which you are complaining about. You also seem to deny the existence of my amendments to S2. Maybe you should have done your homework.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And even then you're not happy with what you wrote. That speaks volumes. I'm perfectly happy with it. Stop taking what I say out of context. However, I didn't remember the exact wording, and thought I was right to pre-file the bills at the end of the election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I already quoted you here. The whole setup of 'prefiling bills' and erasing the queue does not work. We should go back to just letting the queue carry over from session to session. Then why do real state legislatures do that?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because women can't do logic? Pretty sexist IMO.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When I was in the majority we cleared out the queue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You should probably read the bills you write once in awhile.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Real state legislatures also don't have 5 members. Just because it's done in real life doesn't make it right to do it here.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because women can't do logic? Pretty sexist IMO. really, really funny. ha. ha. ha.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When I was in the majority we cleared out the queue. so clearing out the queue is okay then? huh

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You should probably read the bills you write once in awhile. You want me to know the exact wording of every bill or amendment I've written but you did so little homework that you forgot that S2 was amended.
Talk about double standards.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Real state legislatures also don't have 5 members. Just because it's done in real life doesn't make it right to do it here. Not a valid disanalogy. Delaware and Nevada only have 21 state senators. What counts as "too few"? 10? 9? 13? 20? 5?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely hysterical. I didn't take Labor as being the party of troglodytes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, we actually got through all of them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We have this thing called the internet. It allows us to research stuff.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

21!=5. It's pretty clear to me that there are significant differences between the game and real life.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely hysterical. I didn't take Labor as being the party of troglodytes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, we actually got through all of them.
because no one spammed the queue

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We have this thing called the internet. It allows us to research stuff. Yes, and although I should have been more familiar with the rules, someone who doesn't even notice that the rules were amended, WHILE THEY WERE A SITTING DELEGATE, had zero room to talk.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

21!=5. It's pretty clear to me that there are significant differences between the game and real life. 21! definitely isn't equal to 5. I can play stupid games too you know.

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We haven't been operating under them, until you withdrew the lawsuit...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why don't we actually try and follow the rules as is, before we make major changes to a document that hasn't even been tested in action yet?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Speakership elections are not the same as Federal Elections and shouldn't follow the same procedure. A Body of 5 vs. the entire nation, should definitely have different procedures, ESPECIALLY after the stunts pulled in a recent speakership race. All Delegates should be able to vote, and that shouldn't depend on who the Dean is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This entire section shall be struck. [/quote]

I'd be more than happy to join you in striking it, if you'll come up with another anti-clogging/spamming measure. The reason this is (and has been an essential part of Legislature rules) here, is because of the danger that spamming/clogging the legislature performs on the body. If you want to find a way to limit the clogging, and have some assurances that it cannot happen, I'd be more than happy to join you in that measure. Otherwise, this must stay, and go into effect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

This chamber can handle more than two threads open... Also, the Speaker and Governor must have the power to address issues that are facing our region, without waiting months for the bill to come up. The Federal Government has this (expanded, but the same concept), and has done wonders for clearing up and helping address important issues. This is very much needed in our Chamber.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

This Chamber shouldn't be forced to deal with legislation where the Speaker has since left or is not even a member of the Chamber. Everyone should have their chance to put legislation forward, not to keep dealing with legislation session after session by members who aren't even there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This shall be struck[/quote]

Why should co-sponsors have any say in what happens to the legislation, other than advocate for it. The Sponsor is the sponsor for a reason, and it must be up to them, not other members, what they do with it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Why?! This just seems like obstruction for obstruction sake! The only purpose of this is to get debate going! Why in the world would we change that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Again, the chamber should have easy access to make decisions on the timing of bills. I don't see why we should get rid of these provisions, other than to confuse newer members and leave all discretion to the Speaker, which can lead to a whole lot of problems.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Again see above. The Chamber shouldn't be forced to deal with inactive or non-members legislation, which has been proposed in prior sessions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

/quote]

Again, flooding prevention must be in place. The Speaker must have the authority to help get things to go along, just as the sponsor has every right to challenge their decision. Another thing that the feds have.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Again, lessening clarification is not helpful here. This is very (deathly) specific to help lessen the amount of arguments over timing, etc. that can and has certainly happened. We do not need another Constitutional Crisis due to unclear rules.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

I mean, I am fine with this, just as long as we add something that says like: "if no majority is reached for a veto override, the vote must be taken again, or will follow the Governor's veto".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would also ask that this be stripped, as defamation of my and Fhtagn's character is just ridiculous. If you believe either one of us overstepped our powers, sue me or her, otherwise this is defamation of our character's and must be removed.

I will try and respond with more if there are rebuttals, but I have a band concert tonight, and a Trip Tomorrow.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And since we've been operating under them, Cuber has been complaining about how they are operating.

Clearly bill 2 is not working as intended and ought to be amended.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We have been following them and the rules are already breaking down. There are significant problems with Bill 2.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The reason for the issues with the ballots is because we permit ballots being edited long after they are being cast. Federal ballots do not have this loophole which permits abuse of the voting process. The Federal law is much better than Bill 2 which is why we should adopt the federal law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As has been demonstrated, Bill 2 as worded doesn't actually work to prevent clogs. Giving the speaker power to dismiss bills because the speaker deems them to be frivolous is a massive loophole that needs to be shut.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Six is unnecessary. Two is more than sufficient to clear the queue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again when I ran the delegates there was no issue with the pace when we ran two threads at a time. Six is wholly unnecessary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why have a Chamber of Delegates if the Governor is going to ignore us?

You have a perfectly good method of proposing legislation and letting the delegates take it up. If the Delegates really believed that your legislation served a real purpose they would happily introduce it.

Instead, you have not even bothered to propose legislation. None whatsoever. When you're not even using the process that you forced upon the delegates, why should we take into consideration your request? Why are you unwilling to wait as every delegate must?

Use the process you set out and let us decide whether your legislation has merit. Surely you can get Cuber to sponsor your legislation.  

Is the reason you refuse to actually propose legislation is because you believe as governor, your opinion is more important than any of us *mere* delegates?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL this was just put in so that if you manage to oust a delegate all their legislation goes away. Why should their legislation that the put the time and effort into introducing be eradicated? The legislation is not synonymous with the delegate. I have proposed and reintroduced good bills submitted by delegates who have left the chamber.

Why are you not objecting to this if you believe this clause should be in?

The rules before did not touch legislation written by delegates who have since left and nor should it because legislation is not the same as the delegate. All your rules do is force people to do the busywork of re-introducing legislation that was already on the order paper which is a waste of time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually your rules tossed out all the legislation that didn't make the cutoff. Under the old rules they would be taken up now in this session. Is that really helping this legislation reach the floor?  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We had this come up with DFW's desire to withdraw legislation that the delegates wanted taken up. The rules at the time permitted DFW to do so in order to withdraw the legislation that he sponsored.

Sponsorship of legislation should mean something rather than just a nametag. Sponsors should be able to withdraw their own bills.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Requiring bills to be introduced within 48 hours creates unintended problems with the timing. This should be left to the discretion of the speaker.

For example, sessions start on the Friday. Given that we had a speakership vote, legislation was introduced then on the Tuesday, long after the 48 hour period had passed. How the delegates has ran in the past is to do speakership vote first then to tackle the business of the day.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cloture on bills has some significant issues. Right now the process that we have where the delegates waits for debate, etc seems to work most of the time. Cloture could be abused by the speaker to shut down debate on items prior to the debate being concluded. Also, Cloture could also fail pretty easily if delegates are away etc. You could try to enforce it but what would end up happening is that bills would end up dying because of strict cloture not being able to get the necessary votes to either close debate or to continue them. This chamber is a house of deliberation, the bias should always be to the chamber debating over the chamber having to prevent cloture from shutting off debate. 

I see what you're trying to do but as worded the Cloture does not work the way you want it to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not? Legislation is not the same as delegates. Why should good bills die if the delegate chooses to leave?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why bother having a CoD if the Speaker can just toss out any bills that they do not like? Tossing out bills is a massive loophole that needs to be closed. Toute de suite.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

3 of 5 after a week and 4 of 5 after 2 days requirement to invoke cloture is a reasonable amendment. This way the delegates do have a say as to when debate can be closed off while permitting debate to continue if enough delegates wish to continue discussing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The previous veto override law worked fine. There was no need to change this. 2/3rds is a sufficiently high barrier to override.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I said nothing referring to the actions of any specific speaker or governor. I see no purpose for Lese majeste laws in the south.

There's an old proverb the dog that yelps is the dog hit.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Just for the record, I'm not "complaining about how they're operating". I made a mistake, now fk off.

[fhtagn]

I get that you're annoyed by Ben, Mr. Cuber. I really do. But can we please not sink to cussing at each other over what is going on? Surely we are all old enough to express our opinions in a much more mature fashion.

[JustinTimeCuber]

I get that you're annoyed by Ben, Mr. Cuber. I really do. But can we please not sink to cussing at each other over what is going on? Surely we are all old enough to express our opinions in a much more mature fashion.

Sorry, I have a low tolerance for people putting words in my mouth.

[JustinTimeCuber]

As debate seems to have died down, I move for a final vote.

[fhtagn]

I personally would prefer to vote on each item Ben wants to amend individually, as there are some I feel we can mostly agree with, and some we could work with keeping. Not sure how everyone feels about doing it this way.

[fhtagn]

It would take a lot longer, but prevent us from doing this same thing over and over again every session.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Just call all the votes at once or something.

[fhtagn]

I don't think enough discussion has taken place on the actual content of the bills. Governor NeverAgain appears to be the only one (besides Ben) who has really come up with arguments discussing what we are actually voting on.

I understand the tension, but considering the size of this bill, I feel that there is a need for further discussion as to why or why not the delegates support revising the new rules, with the proposed amendments.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Editing ballots is bad. Why? Because I said so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Surely you understand that the other delegates can override such a decision.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

UP TO 6. If the queue is clogged, it would be much easier to get through it with 6 open threads.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A whole lot of BS here.
First, it is literally in the Southern Constitution that the Governor can propose bills. I'm sure a strict constitutionalist like you would have read the Constitution.
Second, that's not true, NeverAgain DID propose legislation. It's currently numbered as Bill S19, the Taxpayer Receipt Act, which I co-sponsored.
Also, it's not that NeverAgain's opinion matters MORE, but as the duly elected Governor he should at least have a non-voting presence in the Chamber, and it's weird that you're fighting this as it is in the Constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you think the clause you are repealing means, because it definitely isn't that.

[fhtagn]

Forgive me because I am at work and Atlas-ing from my phone, so I'll have more opinions to give as I get the chance to/when I'm on a computer later.

I agree with this piece of the proposed amendment below, based on what I consider "abstaining" to mean.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This shall be struck
[/quote]


Abstaining is neither for nor against. It should not be counted as a vote. It is implied that they allow the decision that everyone else makes, whether that decision is for or against.