SENATE RESOLUTION: Rules Amendment (Tabled)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Amendment to Article 11 of the New Senate Rules Resolution

In the Atlasian Senate,

Article 11, Section 6 of the New Senate Rules Resolution is hereby amended:

Whenever either house shall vote to pass a bill, order, or resolution that shall have originated in the other, having previously made amendment to the same, the President of the Congress shall immediately call the amended bill to a vote in the house in which it originated return the amended bill to the house in which it originated and allow no less than 48 hours for debate.  Any member of the house may motion to extend debate no longer than seven days from the date the amended bill was presented.  If the original house should then vote to pass the amended bill, it shall proceed to the President; otherwise, the President of the Congress shall instruct the other house either to pass the bill as it stood prior to its amendment by that house, or else reject it entirely.

Sponsor: Scott
Senate Designation: SB23:15

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sponsor!!!

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

So this is a fairly minor change to the rules, but one I believe is worth making so that legislators have more time to consider, and debate, legislation that has passed and been amended by the other house.  If the Senate adopts this rule change, I will encourage the House to do the same.

Unfortunately, it recently occurred to me that a constitutional amendment might actually be necessary to make this minor change, because currently our Constitution instructs the Vice President to "immediately" call a final vote to legislation amended by the other house and doesn't appear to allow for more debate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Could we possibly get Truman's opinion on this.

[Former President tack50]

I don't get the point of the extra debate time? Like we would not be allowed to make amendments or anything so what is the point?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I don't get the point of the extra debate time? Like we would not be allowed to make amendments or anything so what is the point?

The point is to allow more time for discussion and consideration, as opposed to just throwing legislation on the floor and forcing people to make a decision on how they should vote immediately.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Yes, this is unconstitutional at present.

[Former President tack50]

Could we transform this into a constitutional amendment then?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Could we transform this into a constitutional amendment then?

Is there any reason we couldn't?

We are the Senate, we can transform any bill we want (except those coming back from house hence the point ).

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Honestly, I don't see a point to just passing this text as is (after it's transformed into a constitutional amendment) without also giving power to the chamber that the bill is returning to be able to also further amend the bill. Just delaying final votes and passage of legislation seems pointless in itself. Also, Scott, I don't see how delaying the final house vote on the gun control bill would've changed the outcome with this congress.

[YE]

Honestly, I don't see a point to just passing this text as is (after it's transformed into a constitutional amendment) without also giving power to the chamber that the bill is returning to be able to also further amend the bill. Just delaying final votes and passage of legislation seems pointless in itself. Also, Scott, I don't see how delaying the final house vote on the gun control bill would've changed the outcome with this congress.

Yeah I agree with this. This just slows an already complex process of bicameralism down further.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If you allow debate that means you allow amendments and with amends the risk of the kickback loop. That would then require conference committees. This approach fell apart in 2016.

[Former President tack50]

If you allow debate that means you allow amendments and with amends the risk of the kickback loop. That would then require conference committees. This approach fell apart in 2016.

To clarify how do things work in Real Life when the House and Senate can't quite agree on a bill?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Honestly, I don't see a point to just passing this text as is (after it's transformed into a constitutional amendment) without also giving power to the chamber that the bill is returning to be able to also further amend the bill. Just delaying final votes and passage of legislation seems pointless in itself. Also, Scott, I don't see how delaying the final house vote on the gun control bill would've changed the outcome with this congress.

The outcome of the gun control bill wouldn't have changed, but that's really not what this rule change is about.  For instance, I see people in the House debate our versions of their bills all the time as they're voting (like the Antifa Act), and I don't think that's a very efficient way of legislating.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If you allow debate that means you allow amendments and with amends the risk of the kickback loop. That would then require conference committees. This approach fell apart in 2016.

To clarify how do things work in Real Life when the House and Senate can't quite agree on a bill?

In RL the VP isn't the go between officially. They send bills to the other chamber and then the partisan administrations determine when or even if a bill is brought up.

There are hundreds of House bills that Mitch is basically crinkling up and smoking in his pipe.

What happens, nothing. The bill just languishes until the end of the session. In RL, unlike in game, when a bill isn't passed by the end of the session it is dead. Here there is perpetual carryover, so you run the risk of a perpetual feedback loop.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Honestly, I don't see a point to just passing this text as is (after it's transformed into a constitutional amendment) without also giving power to the chamber that the bill is returning to be able to also further amend the bill. Just delaying final votes and passage of legislation seems pointless in itself. Also, Scott, I don't see how delaying the final house vote on the gun control bill would've changed the outcome with this congress.

The outcome of the gun control bill wouldn't have changed, but that's really not what this rule change is about.  For instance, I see people in the House debate our versions of their bills all the time as they're voting (like the Antifa Act), and I don't think that's a very efficient way of legislating.

So basically you want is just a period to discuss the merits before voting? Am I to assume it is not your intent that amendments be allowed to the underlying text during this "debate phase"?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Honestly, I don't see a point to just passing this text as is (after it's transformed into a constitutional amendment) without also giving power to the chamber that the bill is returning to be able to also further amend the bill. Just delaying final votes and passage of legislation seems pointless in itself. Also, Scott, I don't see how delaying the final house vote on the gun control bill would've changed the outcome with this congress.

The outcome of the gun control bill wouldn't have changed, but that's really not what this rule change is about.  For instance, I see people in the House debate our versions of their bills all the time as they're voting (like the Antifa Act), and I don't think that's a very efficient way of legislating.

So basically you want is just a period to discuss the merits before voting? Am I to assume it is not your intent that amendments be allowed to the underlying text during this "debate phase"?

Correct.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Honestly, I don't see a point to just passing this text as is (after it's transformed into a constitutional amendment) without also giving power to the chamber that the bill is returning to be able to also further amend the bill. Just delaying final votes and passage of legislation seems pointless in itself. Also, Scott, I don't see how delaying the final house vote on the gun control bill would've changed the outcome with this congress.

The outcome of the gun control bill wouldn't have changed, but that's really not what this rule change is about.  For instance, I see people in the House debate our versions of their bills all the time as they're voting (like the Antifa Act), and I don't think that's a very efficient way of legislating.

So basically you want is just a period to discuss the merits before voting? Am I to assume it is not your intent that amendments be allowed to the underlying text during this "debate phase"?

Correct.

I think that is going to need to be clarified in the Rules amendment, because debate on its own traditionally implies that amendments are allowed.

[Sestak]

There may technically be a way to get around the constitution issue: have the VP post a quote "preview" of the bill into the Senate thread; no signatures on the bottom etc, - and PM the Senators to make them aware of this. Then after 24 or 48 hours or however long the VP could formally introduce the passed House bill back to the senate and go to an immediate vote?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There may technically be a way to get around the constitution issue: have the VP post a quote "preview" of the bill into the Senate thread; no signatures on the bottom etc, - and PM the Senators to make them aware of this. Then after 24 or 48 hours or however long the VP could formally introduce the passed House bill back to the senate and go to an immediate vote?

Thats a possibility, also deals with the "are amendments allowed" issue, since obviously they wouldn't in that situation.

[Former President tack50]

Well, honestly Yankee is getting this basically right. There are 2 options here:

1) We rework this into a constitutional amendment; allowing the Senate and the House to propose amendments. However this has the massive disadvantage of making legislation grind to a halt as everything will be very slow.

2) We do keep it without a constitutional amendment, not allowing amendments. In which case allowing more debate is a bit pointless. You can just make your "Aye" or "Nay" post come followed by a small speech saying why you vote this way, PM other Representatives/Senators to lobby for them to vote your way and what not.

I do not think this bill is a good idea in general.

[Sestak]

I don’t buy the idea that it’s pointless - the opportunity to discuss for a few days could, for instance, reveal legitimate issues with a bill or allow senators to debate in an attempt to change each other’s minds on something.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Honestly, it takes long enough as it is to move a bill from the back of the queue to the floor and through both houses without adding still more time for debate at the end, but that's just my two cents.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The institutionalist conservatism in me dictates that I strive to preserve the bicameral system and the Burkean conservatism dictates that I strive to make it the least annoying as possible to people lest it foment opposition to its continued presence.

[Former President tack50]

I don’t buy the idea that it’s pointless - the opportunity to discuss for a few days could, for instance, reveal legitimate issues with a bill or allow senators to debate in an attempt to change each other’s minds on something.

If that is the case, as I say just following your vote with a small speech should be enough?

There is also the possibility for the president to do a redraft I believe; if an amendment is crucially needed for some reason.