JOINT ACT: Streamliing Congressional Debate Act (Passed) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 10:36:43 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  JOINT ACT: Streamliing Congressional Debate Act (Passed) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: JOINT ACT: Streamliing Congressional Debate Act (Passed)  (Read 1476 times)
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,603


« on: February 26, 2021, 08:01:19 PM »

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.
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,603


« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2021, 08:03:53 PM »

Aye.
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,603


« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2021, 10:00:11 PM »

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!!!! Smiley (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?
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,603


« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2021, 12:25:35 AM »

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. Tongue

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.
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,603


« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2021, 12:34:10 AM »

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. Tongue

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.

This operates the same way as the other joint session. Each houses votes will be affirmed seperately.
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,603


« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2021, 12:41:52 AM »

The House asserts it only seeks to amend its own rules (as if this weren't perfectly clear by how prior joint sessions were handled).
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,603


« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2021, 12:58:08 AM »

Abstain

Only reason I am not voting Nay is for Ted's sake. Frankly, I think this could have been salvaged or at least given time to review the options for like a day in public where the problem is discussed before rushing into a solution. I would assume this was all done on discord in matter of hours no? I generally am not fond of legislating by wham, bam, thank you mam.

I also wanted to give twenty four hours, but this became a little more problematic than it needed to be way too quickly. Part of this could even be considered my fault, as I read the rules and then suggested the wrong thing. At that point everything became a mess. As has been stated before, we tried something, it didn't work, we move on and can work together to find a better path while cutting our losses here. My full apologies to both you and VP Scott.
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,603


« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2021, 04:57:22 AM »

With a majority of House Reps in favor, we have 24 hours to change votes.
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,603


« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2021, 11:52:01 AM »
« Edited: February 27, 2021, 03:16:12 PM by SevenEleven »

By a vote of 6-1-1-1, this passes the House.

X SevenEleven
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 11 queries.