HB 1228: Transparency is a Right Act (Tabled)

[Associate Justice PiT]

     This bill has passed the Senate with amendment and returns to the House for a final vote. Representatives have 72 hours to vote aye, nay, or abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Atlasian People's House of Representatives
Passed 7-0 in the Atlasian House Assembled,


As Amended:
People's Regional Senate:
Passed 5-0-1 in the Atlasian Senate assembled

[/quote]

[NeverAgain]

Aye. While I think, for efficiency's sake at times, we should discuss bills and options in formats outside of this forum (especially on such broad topics of tax reform and budgets), I do worry about the recent scandals creating a lack of trust in our elected officials. Therefore, I think it is necessary and proper for this bill to become law.

[Sestak]

Some misgivings; I'd like to allow suspension of this in emergency, but Aye for now.

[Sirius_]

Abstain ftr.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Mr. Vice President, that link for the senate vote goes to the wrong bill.

Also, aye. I think, similarly to sestak, that this should be suspended in emergency, such as if the forum is down, but this is a very serious issue.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Mr. Vice President, that link for the senate vote goes to the wrong bill.

     Fixed.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

AYE

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Leinad]

Aye!

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I guess it's too late now, but for the record, I still contend this bill is an unconstitutional violation of the right of each chamber to determine its own methods of proceeding, as per Sections 2(iii) and 3(iv) of Article III.

Finally, I would question the constitutionality of enacting this as a provision of federal Law rather than as an amendment to the Senate Rules. Under Article III, both Houses have the exclusive right to determine their own methods of proceeding; this bill amounts to the executive and the Senate mandating that the House conduct business in a certain way (and from the opposite perspective, the executive and the House mandating that the Senate conduct business in a certain way). I don't think any of these provisions would be inoperable as part of the House/Senate rules (I'd argue an expulsion provision would be on firmer constitutional ground in that context), but the distinction is important.

As I see it, the Constitution gives each House the power to determine their own methods of proceeding—independent of any other authority. If this bill were to become Law, however, the Senate would no longer be able to decide to meet on Discord without the House passing and the president signing a repeal bill. Basically, the president and one house of Congress would be preventing the other from deciding where and how to go about their business—which rather undermines the constitutional provision that the Senate alone make that decision.

Section 3 is definitely unconstitutional

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I guess it's too late now, but for the record, I still contend this bill is an unconstitutional violation of the right of each chamber to determine its own methods of proceeding, as per Sections 2(iii) and 3(iv) of Article III.

Finally, I would question the constitutionality of enacting this as a provision of federal Law rather than as an amendment to the Senate Rules. Under Article III, both Houses have the exclusive right to determine their own methods of proceeding; this bill amounts to the executive and the Senate mandating that the House conduct business in a certain way (and from the opposite perspective, the executive and the House mandating that the Senate conduct business in a certain way). I don't think any of these provisions would be inoperable as part of the House/Senate rules (I'd argue an expulsion provision would be on firmer constitutional ground in that context), but the distinction is important.

As I see it, the Constitution gives each House the power to determine their own methods of proceeding—independent of any other authority. If this bill were to become Law, however, the Senate would no longer be able to decide to meet on Discord without the House passing and the president signing a repeal bill. Basically, the president and one house of Congress would be preventing the other from deciding where and how to go about their business—which rather undermines the constitutional provision that the Senate alone make that decision.

Section 3 is definitely unconstitutional

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Typo in the constitution. Doh.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Time has expired, but the vote has not been called. Until a vote is officially certified by the house administrator in question, it is not final.

Therefore, stepping on PiT's toes yet again. I ask unanimous consent to cancel the final vote, Representatives have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Once the vote is canceled, I think we should just table this.

The only way to do this is the way we did the Amendment Explanation Thing.

Have a Joint Resolution contained three different sections with the chamber only voting on their relevant sections and a non-severability clause linking them together. That way each chamber is only voting on their own rule changes, but they don't become effective until both have done so.

We are not allowed to amend this either because it has already come back with an amendment.

[wxtransit]

Once the vote is canceled, I think we should just table this.

The only way to do this is the way we did the Amendment Explanation Thing.

Have a Joint Resolution contained three different sections with the chamber only voting on their relevant sections and a non-severability clause linking them together. That way each chamber is only voting on their own rule changes, but they don't become effective until both have done so.

We are not allowed to amend this either because it has already come back with an amendment.

If it helps, I can amend the Senate amendment of this bill (which is currently on the floor) into a new version of the bill, with the above included and reformatted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Once the vote is canceled, I think we should just table this.

The only way to do this is the way we did the Amendment Explanation Thing.

Have a Joint Resolution contained three different sections with the chamber only voting on their relevant sections and a non-severability clause linking them together. That way each chamber is only voting on their own rule changes, but they don't become effective until both have done so.

We are not allowed to amend this either because it has already come back with an amendment.

If it helps, I can amend the Senate amendment of this bill (which is currently on the floor) into a new version of the bill, with the above included and reformatted.

I assume you mean this: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=291680.0

Yes, that would be appropriate. Otherwise that amendment is junk too since it is kind of hard to amend a previously passed law that wasn't passed itself.

So either way, the bill you reference needs to be altered anyway and treated as standalone legislation as opposed to amending an already passed (or in this case an expected to be passed) bill.

[wxtransit]

Once the vote is canceled, I think we should just table this.

The only way to do this is the way we did the Amendment Explanation Thing.

Have a Joint Resolution contained three different sections with the chamber only voting on their relevant sections and a non-severability clause linking them together. That way each chamber is only voting on their own rule changes, but they don't become effective until both have done so.

We are not allowed to amend this either because it has already come back with an amendment.

If it helps, I can amend the Senate amendment of this bill (which is currently on the floor) into a new version of the bill, with the above included and reformatted.

I assume you mean this: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=291680.0

Yes, that would be appropriate. Otherwise that amendment is junk too since it is kind of hard to amend a previously passed law that wasn't passed itself.

So either way, the bill you reference needs to be altered anyway and treated as standalone legislation as opposed to amending an already passed (or in this case an expected to be passed) bill.

Can you link me to a former Joint Resolution so I can know the format?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Once the vote is canceled, I think we should just table this.

The only way to do this is the way we did the Amendment Explanation Thing.

Have a Joint Resolution contained three different sections with the chamber only voting on their relevant sections and a non-severability clause linking them together. That way each chamber is only voting on their own rule changes, but they don't become effective until both have done so.

We are not allowed to amend this either because it has already come back with an amendment.

If it helps, I can amend the Senate amendment of this bill (which is currently on the floor) into a new version of the bill, with the above included and reformatted.

I assume you mean this: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=291680.0

Yes, that would be appropriate. Otherwise that amendment is junk too since it is kind of hard to amend a previously passed law that wasn't passed itself.

So either way, the bill you reference needs to be altered anyway and treated as standalone legislation as opposed to amending an already passed (or in this case an expected to be passed) bill.

Can you link me to a former Joint Resolution so I can know the format?

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=290384.msg6169832#msg6169832

Quote box hell. Just remember, Morty, if one box is broken and the substances mix, it will cause a chain reaction, which may cause existence to melt into itself or produce a really tasty sandwich spread. I cannot remember which!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Looks like that bill is going to die too.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Looks like that bill is going to die too.

    The number of bills getting killed makes me worry about the levels of quality of proposed bills these days.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Looks like that bill is going to die too.

    The number of bills getting killed makes me worry about the levels of quality of proposed bills these days.

Well it is better than low quality bills getting passed.

[RFayette]

Aye

[Associate Justice PiT]

Time has expired, but the vote has not been called. Until a vote is officially certified by the house administrator in question, it is not final.

Therefore, stepping on PiT's toes yet again. I ask unanimous consent to cancel the final vote, Representatives have 24 hours to object.

     There was no objection to this motion, so it passes. The final vote on this bill is cancelled.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I motion to table the underlying bill for the reasons stated above.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I motion to table the underlying bill for the reasons stated above.

I second.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     A vote is now open on the motion to table. Representatives have 48 hours to vote aye, nay, or abstain.