JOINT ACT: Streamliing Congressional Debate Act (Passed)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

1. The title of this legislation shall be the “Streaamlining Congressional Debate Act.”

2. The Congressional Reform Resolution of 2021 is hereby repealed.

3. This legislation shall go into effect immediately upon passage.

Sponsor: FalterinArc
Status: Debating

I am invoking my power as President of Congress to suspend the rules and call an emergency joint session on this bill. 24 hours of debate, and then both chambers will vote simultaneously.

[SevenEleven]

This is a good idea. We tried something, it didn't work out, we move on. Hopefully we can pass this as quickly as possible.

[Mike Thick]

Hi folks. I’m sorry that it’s come to this, but the reform we passed a few months ago must be repealed immediately. This cannot wait a month, a week, or even a day.

I have spent literally hours today working through this rules change with Scott and other Congressmen. Nobody understands it. The reform was intended to make the VP’s job easier, but instead it’s made it virtually impossible. The exchange between chambers is so complicated that multiple bills have already been sent to the wrong place, erroneously passed, and more. I was barely capable of administrating under this system and I designed it.

If you do not pass this immediately, future VPs will be forced to choose between following the rules and their own sanity. Nobody will be capable of doing the job. PLEASE vote aye.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The initial debate period is suspended and a final vote is now open.

Senators and Representatives, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[SevenEleven]

Aye.

[Left Wing]

Aye

[Devout Centrist]

Aye

[OBD]

Aye

[YE]

Aye based on what others, who I trust, have told me.

[Former President tack50]

nay

I fear this will have a negative impact on debate in Congress, a debate which each and every time gets smaller and smaller already as is.

I have been #vindicated!!!! (albeit for the wrong reasons lol). Proud to be the only one who voted nay in the Senate and one of only 2-3 Congresspeople to do so (the other one being Representative Poirot and depending on your criteria, representative Cao, who voted too late)

Anyways, a big AYE on this!

[Joseph Cao]

nay

I fear this will have a negative impact on debate in Congress, a debate which each and every time gets smaller and smaller already as is.

I have been #vindicated!!!! (albeit for the wrong reasons lol). Proud to be the only one who voted nay in the Senate and one of only 2-3 Congresspeople to do so (the other one being Representative Poirot and depending on your criteria, representative Cao, who voted too late)

Anyways, a big AYE on this!

Maybe I ought to be celebratory considering all this. Don’t have it in me at the moment so I’ll just note that I dropped the ball near the end of the House debate in active participation and was partially persuaded to vote Nay (too late) on a technicality that Poirot raised. Lots of us in the House could have done a better job, myself included. Poirot is a great representative and it’s unfortunate that he’s retiring.

Anyway, Nay AYE.

[SevenEleven]

nay

I fear this will have a negative impact on debate in Congress, a debate which each and every time gets smaller and smaller already as is.

I have been #vindicated!!!! (albeit for the wrong reasons lol). Proud to be the only one who voted nay in the Senate and one of only 2-3 Congresspeople to do so (the other one being Representative Poirot and depending on your criteria, representative Cao, who voted too late)

Anyways, a big AYE on this!

Maybe I ought to be celebratory considering all this. Don’t have it in me at the moment so I’ll just note that I dropped the ball near the end of the House debate in active participation and was partially persuaded to vote Nay (too late) on a technicality that Poirot raised. Lots of us in the House could have done a better job, myself included. Poirot is a great representative and it’s unfortunate that he’s retiring.

Anyway, Nay.

Ok, this happens to all of us from time to time and it's alright, it's a game. This was an attempt to speed things up that didn't work as planned, it's perfectly fine to say "hey, we tried this and it didn't work, let's start over". I'm a bit confused here with you voting Nay. You wanted to oppose it before, but want to keep it now?

[Joseph Cao]

nay

I fear this will have a negative impact on debate in Congress, a debate which each and every time gets smaller and smaller already as is.

I have been #vindicated!!!! (albeit for the wrong reasons lol). Proud to be the only one who voted nay in the Senate and one of only 2-3 Congresspeople to do so (the other one being Representative Poirot and depending on your criteria, representative Cao, who voted too late)

Anyways, a big AYE on this!

Maybe I ought to be celebratory considering all this. Don’t have it in me at the moment so I’ll just note that I dropped the ball near the end of the House debate in active participation and was partially persuaded to vote Nay (too late) on a technicality that Poirot raised. Lots of us in the House could have done a better job, myself included. Poirot is a great representative and it’s unfortunate that he’s retiring.

Anyway, Nay.

Ok, this happens to all of us from time to time and it's alright, it's a game. This was an attempt to speed things up that didn't work as planned, it's perfectly fine to say "hey, we tried this and it didn't work, let's start over". I'm a bit confused here with you voting Nay. You wanted to oppose it before, but want to keep it now?

Well whoops. As I said about not having it in me earlier…

[Mike Thick]

sh**t happens. The important thing is to just admit that we screwed up, and fix it before the consequences go from bad to horrendous. Thankfully we are on track to do this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I picked a hell of a day to somehow not start drinking.

Am I to assume the problem here was failure to clearly establish in written form what is easily discernible in list form?

1. 48 hours discussion
2. Pre-cloture vote?
3. Regular debate or Final Vote?


While I appreciate Ted's desire to fix this quickly and calling for a correction to a mistake, there are two glaring errors in the means by which you have gone about fixing this.

1. It is way too damn fast
2. And I hope you guys can read this, this vote is probably unconstitutional

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

1. This is a "JOINT RESOLUTION" not a "JOINT ACT". Nothing becomes an act without Presidential signature and this is Congressional rules and do not involve the President, that is one problematic aspect constitutionally.
2. And IIRC, I made a point to stress this so much in the passage of the original resolution and as such to avoid a problem with this. Rules must be passed and voted on by each chamber separately. And no UC does not override the constitution.

Once my head stops spinning, I will review the constitution and find some way to bail this out.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I picked a hell of a day to somehow not start drinking.

Am I to assume the problem here was failure to clearly establish in written form what is easily discernible in list form?

1. 48 hours discussion
2. Pre-cloture vote?
3. Regular debate or Final Vote?


While I appreciate Ted's desire to fix this quickly and calling for a correction to a mistake, there are two glaring errors in the means by which you have gone about fixing this.

1. It is way too damn fast
2. And I hope you guys can read this, this vote is probably unconstitutional

I did raise concerns about constitutionality in discussing this, and we concluded it would be constitutional to hold a vote if there is an objection to suspension of the rules. The objection would immediately be voted on in a separate thread.

There is no upset in the balance between the executive and the legislative branch. Congress has the power to reject this motion, although we highly suggest simply voting for this bill for the sake of the integrity of our system. The status quo cannot continue and this is indeed an emergency situation.

[SevenEleven]

1. This is a "JOINT RESOLUTION" not a "JOINT ACT". Nothing becomes an act without Presidential signature and this is Congressional rules and do not involve the President, that is one problematic aspect constitutionally.
2. And IIRC, I made a point to stress this so much in the passage of the original resolution and as such to avoid a problem with this. Rules must be passed and voted on by each chamber separately. And no UC does not override the constitution.

Once my head stops spinning, I will review the constitution and find some way to bail this out.

Act vs Resolution is largely semantic. This is an Act of Congress. And there is no constitutional limitation that prohibits this action. Indeed, it's the responsible thing to do.

[Sestak]

1. This is a "JOINT RESOLUTION" not a "JOINT ACT". Nothing becomes an act without Presidential signature and this is Congressional rules and do not involve the President, that is one problematic aspect constitutionally.
2. And IIRC, I made a point to stress this so much in the passage of the original resolution and as such to avoid a problem with this. Rules must be passed and voted on by each chamber separately. And no UC does not override the constitution.

Once my head stops spinning, I will review the constitution and find some way to bail this out.

Votes are technically separate, no? they just happen to be going on at the same time. Are you saying the constitution requires them to be in different threads?

[Mike Thick]

Argument for constitutionality is pretty simple, I think. Even though this was erroneously titled "act," the actual substance, content, and context of the legislation makes it clear that it was intended to be a resolution.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

1. This is a "JOINT RESOLUTION" not a "JOINT ACT". Nothing becomes an act without Presidential signature and this is Congressional rules and do not involve the President, that is one problematic aspect constitutionally.
2. And IIRC, I made a point to stress this so much in the passage of the original resolution and as such to avoid a problem with this. Rules must be passed and voted on by each chamber separately. And no UC does not override the constitution.

Once my head stops spinning, I will review the constitution and find some way to bail this out.

Votes are technically separate, no? they just happen to be going on at the same time. Are you saying the constitution requires them to be in different threads?

Separate texts and separate votes, administered by the Presiding Officers of each chamber. The thread is irrelevant. We can do it in here.

The House of Representatives shall elect its Speaker and other officers, and shall have sole authority to determine its own methods of proceedings.

The Senate shall elect its leader and other officers, and shall have sole authority to determine its own methods of proceedings.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Argument for constitutionality is pretty simple, I think. Even though this was erroneously titled "act," the actual substance, content, and context of the legislation makes it clear that it was intended to be a resolution.

Not the only problem Ted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

1. This is a "JOINT RESOLUTION" not a "JOINT ACT". Nothing becomes an act without Presidential signature and this is Congressional rules and do not involve the President, that is one problematic aspect constitutionally.
2. And IIRC, I made a point to stress this so much in the passage of the original resolution and as such to avoid a problem with this. Rules must be passed and voted on by each chamber separately. And no UC does not override the constitution.

Once my head stops spinning, I will review the constitution and find some way to bail this out.

Act vs Resolution is largely semantic. This is an Act of Congress. And there is no constitutional limitation that prohibits this action. Indeed, it's the responsible thing to do.

Read my whole post please.

[Mike Thick]

If a majority of both chambers approves the resolution, I would argue that constitutes implicit approval of the process as well.

[Sestak]

3. The Senate shall elect its leader and other officers, and shall have sole authority to determine its own methods of proceedings.

4.
The House of Representatives shall elect its Speaker and other officers, and shall have sole authority to determine its own methods of proceedings.

Pretty clear here, isn't it? If 5 representatives and 4 senators make a determination with regards to their own rules, they each have the sole authority over their own chambers and thus can change the rules in such a manner. I don't see anything here that would imply the threads need to be separated?

Your point about texts is interesting I suppose but I don't think it's particularly relevant; I'd argue that it's implicit here that the Senate is voting on repealing it from their own rules while the House is doing the same for their rules.