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

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The whole point of the Dean is that it's an unelected position. Do you not understand that?

Nev, I have a question, if there's no speaker in the delegates, who can remove the dean?

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ben, this isn't about you. Stop being a snowflake.

[Wisconsin+17]

I'm just going to take a stab here.

Nev - you believe that anyone can initiate a vote in the chamber of delegates, including yourself?

The reason it's the dean that conducts the vote for the Speaker is because the CoD cannot call votes without a Speaker.

Calling a vote to remove a dean - who would initiate your vote? There is no speaker.

You cannot call a vote yourself because you're a governor. There's a reason I waited for Spenstar because when I was no longer speaker I no longer had the ability to call and conduct a vote.

*this* is what you're not getting in your haste to remove me. Your bill does not work, and it cannot work. Now it does work if we assume that you can step in and conduct the vote for us, but I don't think you're concerned about such niceties.

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

? I don't know what this means.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think we have come close to requiring this in some circumstances, yes. But our rules shouldn't be solely based on what has been, but more so pre-emptive, on the what could be. I have no doubt that there is the possibility for a Dean, in the future, to overuse and abuse their powers to gain some leverage over the choosing of the next Speaker of this Chamber. We need to be ready for that, so therefore this is here. I'd be more than happy to more it more specified so that it is clearly for reasons of the Dean, and not based on the possible political orientations of their counterparts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I mean, there are problems with it's broadness, no doubt, but to say it doesn't solve a potential issue is just not true. I would be more than happy to specify it for abuses of the Dean's powers, and not on the basis of the politics of the four other members. As I had just said on this note, I think it to be more likely that we'd have a Dean overreach, than have a Chamber made up of persons whom are all, except for the Dean, of an opposing party.

Anywho, if we'd like to work on trying to clarify the wording, I'd be all for that. You can see my proposal up there for reference, at least as a starting point.

[JustinTimeCuber]

I'm just going to take a stab here.

Nev - you believe that anyone can initiate a vote in the chamber of delegates, including yourself?

The reason it's the dean that conducts the vote for the Speaker is because the CoD cannot call votes without a Speaker.

Calling a vote to remove a dean - who would initiate your vote? There is no speaker.

You cannot call a vote yourself because you're a governor. There's a reason I waited for Spenstar because when I was no longer speaker I no longer had the ability to call and conduct a vote.

*this* is what you're not getting in your haste to remove me. Your bill does not work, and it cannot work. Now it does work if we assume that you can step in and conduct the vote for us, but I don't think you're concerned about such niceties.

Remember when you tried to remove fhtagn as speaker? lol

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The process to impeach a speaker is already in the Southern constitution, cuber.

You're not understanding me.

Who is going to call a vote initiated against a Dean prior to the Dean calling a vote for Speakership?

There is no speaker.

Is the Dean himself going to call the vote against him?  Is the Governor? Who?

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course I do, that's why the goal should be to keep it that way and not let politics intercede, but sadly, it does. So, I think this has to be an option.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My assumption is that it would be the 2nd in seniority would initiate a vote after all 4 delegates have made a motion against the Dean.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, as Governor, I am not part of the Chamber...? The other four would be the ones to do that, led by the 2nd in seniority, which we can certainly add to it. Good linkage, thanks

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, there is no binding rule that states that the Chamber cannot conduct a vote solely without the Speaker, but that's a pretty gray area. But if we want to add that it's 2nd in seniority, just to clarify, sounds great to me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Problem solved! Teamwork

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yup, and there was nothing about it in the rules, then. But now we can add it! What fun!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By bill, I assume you mean this section? Well, as I said, I'll have to pass the kudos to the folks of the old Senate, because I actually didn't write that (other than to change it to more CoDify this part). And it does work, now that we, together, have established a chain of command. I don't know why I would ever want to get rid of you, when we brainstorm these great ideas together . Keep it up!

[NeverAgain]

And with that, after all this brain fun, I am going to hit the hay and get to work bright and early on more ways we can revitalize this clause. Thanks everyone !

I hope tomorrow is even more fun than today (hard to do, though).

Night everyone, love you all .

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your assumption? We can't go on 'your assumptions', Nev.

This clause says nothing about it.

As worded, this clause does not work. What would happen is that the dean could simply laugh it off, shrug off the vote and the conduct the vote for Speakership.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The rules say nothing about 2nd in seniority taking over, Nev.

So, then. You're in favor of killing your bill then?

[Wisconsin+17]

Given that even Neveragain has admitted that this clause is fatally flawed, I'm going to motion for a vote on Subsection 2.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This clause shall be struck
[/quote]

[NeverAgain]

I had to check the lovely progress we were making, to find that Oh No! I said that the clause is fatally flawed even though I never said that. It's okay though, I am just an idiotic awful creature who should cry in amazement of how I was tricked into saying my clause is flawed (IT RHYMES SO IT'S TRUE). .

Lovely Benny Boo, I don't think little ole' me actually said that. My assumption was something that I thought that when we work together on to add into the clause. Because I think that you are not listening to me, which is being a vewwy vewwy naughty daughty.

Since I am not a member of this chamber, I cannot actually propose amendments, so my "assumption" was the start of a possible reform we could all make to help the clause become able to be more representative of the Chamber. I didn't mean that I was assuming the current clause said so, nor did my small, inconceivably stupid brain comprehend the words to say that I think it's flawed.

Now, I am really going to bed. Oof da ishta.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You were most unwilling to work with me earlier. Imagine. This all could have been fixed months ago.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Remember when you assumed that federal voting laws applied to the Speakership vote?
Also when you assumed that any delegate could call a vote against a Speaker?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any delegate can call an impeachment vote against a Speaker.

[fhtagn]

Given that even Neveragain has admitted that this clause is fatally flawed, I'm going to motion for a vote on Subsection 2.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This clause shall be struck

[/quote]

Seconding this motion and bringing subamendment 2 to a 24 hour vote.

For clarification, an "AYE" vote would remove the rule that a two-thirds majority can give the title of Dean of the Chamber to the next longest serving delegate. A "NAY" vote would keep this rule.

[JustinTimeCuber]

NAY

[Wisconsin+17]

AYE

[fhtagn]

Given that Ben Kenobi has resigned and deregistered, I am temporarily placing voting on the subamendment on hold until someone either objects to the following motion, or if it passes:

I am motioning to assume sponsorship of this bill.

[fhtagn]

Given that Ben Kenobi has resigned and deregistered, I am temporarily placing voting on the subamendment on hold until someone either objects to the following motion, or if it passes:

I am motioning to assume sponsorship of this bill.

As the designated time has passed with no objections (per the rules), I will now be assuming sponsorship of this bill.

I will now re-open voting on subamendment 2 for 24 hours.

[fhtagn]

well, since the voting prior to Ben's regisnation was at 1-1, and no one else has voted, I'm going to set this aside to vote at a later time (preferably when the delegates are full again).

anyway, let's move on to discussion on subamendment 3:

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."[/quote]

[JustinTimeCuber]

The Chamber contains 5 people, unlike the Federal votes which contain 120+ people.

Therefore, this seems unnecessary.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Since we have a full Chamber now, can we vote on part 2?

[fhtagn]

Since we have a full Chamber now, can we vote on part 2?

Works for me.

Calling for a 24 hour vote (again) on subamendment 2:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This clause shall be struck
[/quote]

For clarification, an "AYE" vote is a vote to strike this clause from the rules. A "NAY" vote is a vote to keep the clause.

[White Trash]

Nay

[JustinTimeCuber]

Nay