The Senate: Introductory Business

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

I say that for our first meeting we should all bring our favorite sausages to improve goodwill

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Thank you for the clarifications! Apologies if my initial post came off as "taking a hacksaw." I have just been leery to see any establishing document pass without a fine-tooth comb ever since my experience with the Philadelphia Plan (which was a learning experience for me).

As for your second point, my intention was actually the other way around -- I was suggesting that Article 5's existence rendered Article 4.3 unnecessary; I fully agree with the existence of Article 5.

For me it is the memories of the early days of the Fourth Constitution and especially the Fourth Senate while I was President, but the end result is the same. Fine tooth comb.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Explanations/What I did not change:

1. Technically yes, wxtransit, the passing of responsibilities is permanent under the current text, but we've never encountered a situation (at least to my memory) where a senator passed seniority down to someone else. Perhaps Yankee would know?

2. I actually think section 5 is appropriate standalone, because tabling of bills (in effect, stopping debate and not allowing a bill to receive a formal up-or-down vote on its merits) is not something that should be common or seen as a standard part of debate.

3. Technically, yes, if one senator votes to table a bill and eighteen either abstain or don't vote (the effect is the same and abstentions and non-votes are only counted differently), the bill is tabled. But this is extremely unlikely to happen and if a senator does not wish for their vote to be counted, their abstention or non-vote should not have any impact on the bill in question.

Everything else wxtransit raised has been accounted for and modified accordingly.

Their actually is nothing in the text that explicitly dictates permanent or temporary so really it comes down to the declaration of passage itself by the Dean. The Dean may set a period of time, make it indefinite and potentially reclaim it at will.

We have not had this situation manifest except where Razze designated someone to administer the Speaker voters, though I am not familiar with that first hand. Perhaps Cao or someone has more direct knowledge of that situation.

One area where I do have experience with pertains to the Vice President and since Jan 2010 onwards (after a court case by Fritz) legally the ability to administer the Senate rested with the VP and only through delegations of authority did the PPT perform such. It was this legal arrangement that allowed for us to split administration in 2013 since the VP would just op to retain management of those items himself.

Lastly, I would often delegate ongoing authority to the Deputy PPT in the hopes of fostering a first come first act approach to procedural motions. This was not a complete delegation of power or designation, as the intent was to allow for both to operate simultaneously to try and move stuff faster.

[wxtransit]

Explanations/What I did not change:

1. Technically yes, wxtransit, the passing of responsibilities is permanent under the current text, but we've never encountered a situation (at least to my memory) where a senator passed seniority down to someone else. Perhaps Yankee would know?

2. I actually think section 5 is appropriate standalone, because tabling of bills (in effect, stopping debate and not allowing a bill to receive a formal up-or-down vote on its merits) is not something that should be common or seen as a standard part of debate.

3. Technically, yes, if one senator votes to table a bill and eighteen either abstain or don't vote (the effect is the same and abstentions and non-votes are only counted differently), the bill is tabled. But this is extremely unlikely to happen and if a senator does not wish for their vote to be counted, their abstention or non-vote should not have any impact on the bill in question.

Everything else wxtransit raised has been accounted for and modified accordingly.

Their actually is nothing in the text that explicitly dictates permanent or temporary so really it comes down to the declaration of passage itself by the Dean. The Dean may set a period of time, make it indefinite and potentially reclaim it at will.

We have not had this situation manifest except where Razze designated someone to administer the Speaker voters, though I am not familiar with that first hand. Perhaps Cao or someone has more direct knowledge of that situation.

One area where I do have experience with pertains to the Vice President and since Jan 2010 onwards (after a court case by Fritz) legally the ability to administer the Senate rested with the VP and only through delegations of authority did the PPT perform such. It was this legal arrangement that allowed for us to split administration in 2013 since the VP would just op to retain management of those items himself.

Lastly, I would often delegate ongoing authority to the Deputy PPT in the hopes of fostering a first come first act approach to procedural motions. This was not a complete delegation of power or designation, as the intent was to allow for both to operate simultaneously to try and move stuff faster.

I remember this setup being the case when you made me Deputy Speaker as well back in 2018.

[Sestak]

Right. Section sign is in the copy-paste buffer, so here we go. Based on the version in Reply 45 (2:43:00 PM).


Definitions §4: this reads weird; "X is defined as Y, which is defined as Z" might technically work but it's going to make anyone take a minute to figure out. First of all, the minimum number of members required is already the dictionary definition of the term quorum. If we really want to restate it here, maybe something like "a quorum of the Senate, defined as the minimum..., shall be a majority of the sitting Senators".

Art. I§2: This raises a question; do we want the Senate Dean to be the default operator of the PPT vote or would it be easier for the Vice President, who by their nature will be more accustomed to procedural work anyway? Also, if we are giving it to the Dean, it is a little bit weird that we are redefining it here again with continuous service etc. when the Senate Dean was already a defined term from Definitions§3. Would just be easier to say "The Dean of the Senate shall convene the Senate...", no?

Art. I§2(a) minor suggestion but maybe add "in the event of a vacancy" at the end just to be sure.

Art. I§5 again raises the question of if we instead want the VP to be presiding over VONC debates. This one I actually feel more strongly about; again, the VP is someone who is normally presiding/managing Senate debate; the Dean is not. Would rather the VP administer unless the VPship is vacant, in which case it'd fall to the Dean.


Art. II§1: the PPT should keep a separate thread to list sponsorships etc.? Surely this is currently already done within the (VP-posted) Noticeboard thread? In which case this section should merely say that the PPT should maintain a public record within the noticeboard. Unless I'm misunderstanding completely what this is referring to.

Art II§3(a): This is an interesting one. Given the number of Senators, do we want to reduce from 2 bills for a member to just 1? This would essentially mean: give precedence to any bills from members with the fewest bills currently on the floor. I don't think the current rule (that we treat people with only one bill on the floor the same as those without any) is necessarily terrible, but it is something that merits consideration.

Art II§5: Confused by what is meant by "next session". Does this mean that if a Senator were to vacate their seat now after having sponsored legislation, it can continue in the queue until August 27 (a week before the next session starts?) Can't really give a specific suggestion without knowing what exactly the intention here is.

Art II§8: Personal aesthetic comment here, but I really dislike the colon usage. In part because it causes thread title to have a double colon; for instance you'd have a thread labeled
SB 104:05: Free The Penguins Act
when I think either
SB 104-05: Free The Penguins Act or SB 10405: Free The Penguins Act
look a lot cleaner.

Art III§3 should open "If a senator has objected to a friendly amendment or if the sponsor has declared an amendment hostile or failed to respond. I don't see anywhere in the current text that explicitly says what to do with hostile amendments.

Art IV§2: minor nitpick, but better to make stuff like this full-day intervals for everyone's convenience. 36 feels arbitrary here; if you want to ensure it's longer than just a day go with 48.

Art IV§3: should probably clarify that "motion for a final vote" and "motion for cloture" are the same thing; or even just remove the cloture term entirely. This whole section is a bit clunky; for instance, it states two different times that "after 120 hours any member may motion for a final vote/cloture"

A potential suggestion:

3. Once a piece of legislation has been on the floor for 120 hours, any Senator may motion for a final vote. If no objection is made against such a motion within 24 hours, a final vote shall be opened. If an objection is made, then a vote shall be opened on ending debate. The concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate shall be required to end debate, unless the legislation had been on the floor for at least 336 hours or debate had ceased for at least 24 hours prior to the motion for a final vote. Should the Senate vote to end debate, a final vote shall be opened.

Also up to you guys if you want the early debate-end threshold to be 2/3 or 3/5 or what.

Art. VI§1(b): I think current precedent is that a vote can be ended if everyone has voted even if it isn't unanimous. I guess the Senate can change that (so that if all 18 members have voted you'd still have to wait out the 24 hours if it was called or the 96 otherwise), but it is a noteworthy change that is worth calling attention to.

Art.VI §2 and §3: why is it 24 hours to open an override if there's no redraft presented but then it becomes 120 hours to request an override if one is presented? I'd make it 120 for both.

Art. VII§4(a): I don't like the idea of one week inactivity causing automatic explusion procedures. Maybe lower the bar (so that only, say, two members need to initiate expulsion instead of six) but it shouldn't be zero either.

Art. X§3: BURN IT WITH FIRE. This is arguably unconstitutional and a blatant violation of the principle of separation of powers. The Supreme Court should not be interfering in the internal workings of the Senate for any reason. The Senate, constitutionally, has the absolute power to resolve its own rules disputes and should itself be voting on any disputes that it cannot otherwise resolve.

Art. XI§3: the bit about the "chamber it most recently passed" is vestigal now and can be removed.


Also one final note. I hate to be the one to bring this up but the pronoun usage for members, the PPT, the VP, etc. is very inconsistent; sometimes "he or she", sometimes "they", and sometimes just "he". The precedent federally has been to use singlular they (which has been standardized in the Constitution since 2017), and I'd suggest that be followed here.

[Blair]

FYI in my view the Dean doing it has always been strange as it’s a position that’s based purely on length of service and means you can have someone entrusted with an important job who isn’t that active or involved.

[wxtransit]

FYI in my view the Dean doing it has always been strange as it’s a position that’s based purely on length of service and means you can have someone entrusted with an important job who isn’t that active or involved.

Generally, though, would the person elected to the most terms not have a good amount of experience with Senate rules and be at least somewhat involved? Personally, I find it a bit hard to believe that such a person could glide through without knowing how to hold a vote for PPT, though my absence from Atlasian politics for the last two years may prevent me from making an accurate assessment of this issue.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Art II§8: Personal aesthetic comment here, but I really dislike the colon usage. In part because it causes thread title to have a double colon; for instance you'd have a thread labeled
SB 104:05: Free The Penguins Act
when I think either
SB 104-05: Free The Penguins Act or SB 10405: Free The Penguins Act
look a lot cleaner.

That is because the colon usage one would not have appeared at the beginning of the bill title.


There actually isn't double colon usage, colon and the dash switch places and the placement of the number is at the end.  Of course I never put them in the bill title anyway, and instead just put them in the OP and in the Noticeboard. This allowed for quick identification of a VP administered thread versus a PPT administered thread b/c the VP always did.


Examples:
SB 30-01: Fair Play in Gaming Act - Passed 5-0
SR 30-10: FGPA Act 2021 6-0
Lady Liberty Refugee Act - SB30:08 - Passed 4-0
Repeal of the Mask Mandate Act - SB30:17 - Passed 6-0

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

FYI in my view the Dean doing it has always been strange as it’s a position that’s based purely on length of service and means you can have someone entrusted with an important job who isn’t that active or involved.

Generally, though, would the person elected to the most terms not have a good amount of experience with Senate rules and be at least somewhat involved? Personally, I find it a bit hard to believe that such a person could glide through without knowing how to hold a vote for PPT, though my absence from Atlasian politics for the last two years may prevent me from making an accurate assessment of this issue.

Well if you guys are starting over seniority - which MB seemed to imply is the intent of the language - the most senior individual would be AGA, who with all due respect, is newer to the game and has not presided over debate before.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Art. X§3: BURN IT WITH FIRE. This is arguably unconstitutional and a blatant violation of the principle of separation of powers. The Supreme Court should not be interfering in the internal workings of the Senate for any reason. The Senate, constitutionally, has the absolute power to resolve its own rules disputes and should itself be voting on any disputes that it cannot otherwise resolve.

This probably dates to the mid 2000s and the Second constitution, which may or may not have allowed for this.

Art. XI§3: the bit about the "chamber it most recently passed" is vestigal now and can be removed.

I highlighted this on a previous page, Scott might have overlooked it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Art II§8: Personal aesthetic comment here, but I really dislike the colon usage. In part because it causes thread title to have a double colon; for instance you'd have a thread labeled
SB 104:05: Free The Penguins Act
when I think either
SB 104-05: Free The Penguins Act or SB 10405: Free The Penguins Act
look a lot cleaner.

That is because the colon usage one would not have appeared at the beginning of the bill title.


There actually isn't double colon usage, colon and the dash switch places and the placement of the number is at the end.  Of course I never put them in the bill title anyway, and instead just put them in the OP and in the Noticeboard. This allowed for quick identification of a VP administered thread versus a PPT administered thread b/c the VP always did.


Examples:
SB 30-01: Fair Play in Gaming Act - Passed 5-0
SR 30-10: FGPA Act 2021 6-0
Lady Liberty Refugee Act - SB30:08 - Passed 4-0
Repeal of the Mask Mandate Act - SB30:17 - Passed 6-0

Also putting colon between the Senate number and bill number is consistent with how amendments are also numbered.

Examples
May 19, 2021, 10:25:20 AM s30:01 NC Yankee amendment to the Fifth Constitution...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

FYI in my view the Dean doing it has always been strange as it’s a position that’s based purely on length of service and means you can have someone entrusted with an important job who isn’t that active or involved.

Generally, though, would the person elected to the most terms not have a good amount of experience with Senate rules and be at least somewhat involved? Personally, I find it a bit hard to believe that such a person could glide through without knowing how to hold a vote for PPT, though my absence from Atlasian politics for the last two years may prevent me from making an accurate assessment of this issue.

Well if you guys are starting over seniority - which MB seemed to imply is the intent of the language - the most senior individual would be AGA, who with all due respect, is newer to the game and has not presided over debate before.

I did everything I could to be first, but seeing as AGA was in at 12:00:00, it was actually impossible for me to beat that.

Imagine if we tied?

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I suppose having a Dean sort of makes sense, but they should only be needed on very rare occasions. Otherwise, basically everything the Dean is responsible for should just go to the PPT, Deputy PPT, or Vice President.

I'm sort of rushing everything from Sestak's suggestions on, but here's where we are now:

Official Senate Procedures and Rules for Operation (OSPR)

Definitions

1.) Legislation is defined as any Bill, Amendment, or Resolution to a current Act, Procedural Resolution, or Constitutional Amendment.

2.) In all past, present and future instances of the terms, a Bill is defined as a piece of legislation that is awaiting or is presently in debate on the Senate floor. An Act is defined as a Bill that has achieved passage into Law.

3.) The Dean of the Senate is defined as the serving Senator, who is not the President Pro Tempore, with the longest continuous service in the Senate in their present stint of service. For the purposes of this clause, continuous service begins at the moment of swearing-in in the first term of the stint of service. The Dean of the Senate may pass the title, powers and responsibilities of the Dean of the Senate, to the next longest serving Senator for any reason whatsoever.

4.) A quorum is defined as the minimum number of members of the Senate that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid, which must be no fewer than ten members.

Article 1: Officers of the Senate

1) The Vice President shall be the President of the Senate.

a.) The President of the Senate shall keep a Senate Noticeboard, where the PPT shall update this board with recent events on their respective chamber’s legislation.

b.) The President of the Senate shall also track the activity of legislation of the Senate by posting an ‘Activity Tracker’ detailing the Senate slots, Rejected and Passed Legislation, along with the current Senatorial queue.

2.) The Vice President shall convene the Senate to elect a President Pro Tempore on the first day of each legislative session and when the office of President Pro Tempore is vacant. Otherwise, the most senior Senator (seniority shall be determined by length of continuous service) who isn't on Leave of Absence and has posted on the forum in the preceding 168 hours, or the Senator chosen by the most senior Senator if they are on a leave of absence, shall carry out this duty as Dean of the Senate. The Senate shall elect a President Pro Tempore from among its members by majority consent with the Vice President being the tiebreaker. The Vice President shall retain the powers and prerogatives as the President Pro Tempore until the election of the President Pro Tempore. If all of the Vice President, President Pro Tempore, and Deputy President Pro Tempore are either vacant or unavailable, these powers shall be absorbed by the Dean of the Senate until the election of the President Pro Tempore.

a) If there is a serving Deputy President Pro Tempore, appointed during the same session of the Senate, they shall instead maintain the powers and prerogatives of the President Pro Tempore and shall be responsible for administering the vote for President Pro Tempore in the event of a vacancy.

b) If the official responsible for the vote falls behind by over 24 hours, the President of the Senate shall take over administration in their stead.

3.) The PPT, after taking their oath of office, must appoint a successor should they become inactive. This successor shall be named the Deputy PPT, and will retain all of the powers of the PPT, if the PPT becomes inactive for over 120 hours or is on an LOA. In case of the PPT resigning or being deposed, the Deputy PPT (or, should none currently exist, the President of the Senate) will serve as Acting PPT with full powers until a new PPT is elected.

4.) The President Pro Tempore will be subject to a Motion of No Confidence should his peers decide it, said proceeding being initiated if at least six Senators have sponsored a Motion of No Confidence, introduced in the Legislative Introduction Thread, against the PPT, citing the motives of why the PPT should be removed from his office.

5.) The Dean of the Senate shall open a thread and commence the debates. Debates shall last at least for 96 hours. After the debates have elapsed, the Dean of the Senate shall open a vote, which shall last for 96 hours. A two-thirds majority of the sitting Senators is needed for the motion to succeed, at which point the concerned Senator will immediately cease to be PPT. Only one Motion of No Confidence can be introduced against a given PPT per legislative session.

6.) The President Pro Tempore shall retain the powers and prerogatives as the President of the Senate under the following circumstances:

-A publicly announced absence by the President of the Senate from the Atlas Forum.

- If the President of the Senate has not posted on the Atlas/Talk Elections Forum for seven consecutive days.

- During any period of time when no person is presently holding the office of President of the Senate

-The President of the Senate should be absent by reason of exercising responsibility as Acting President under the Constitution.

-A publicly announced conferral of such powers by the President of the Senate.

Article 2: Introducing Legislation

1.) The President of the Senate shall keep a thread on the Fantasy Government board for introducing legislation. This thread shall be known as the Senate Legislation Introduction Thread. Sitting Senators may post in this thread. The President Pro Tempore shall maintain a record listing all sponsored legislation in the Legislation Introduction Thread.

2.) If the PPT determines that a piece of legislation is functionally impractical, frivolous, or is directly unconstitutional, they may, in a public post on the Legislation Introduction thread, remove said legislation from the Senate floor. The sponsoring Senator of the legislation shall have ninety-six (96) hours to challenge this action in a public post, and with the concurrence of one-third (1/3) of office-holding Senators in the affirmative (excluding the PPT), may override the actions of the PPT. (Nasolation clause)

3.) 20 threads about legislation may be open for voting and debate simultaneously.

a.) The first 15 open threads shall be open to all legislation initially regarding bills, resolutions or constitutional amendments. If the sponsor already has two or more pieces of legislation on the Senate floor, legislation from Senators who do not shall take priority until all such other legislation is completed. The PPT shall be the Presiding Officer for these open threads.

b.) The sixteenth slot shall be reserved for national emergencies and administered by either the President of the Senate or the PPT.

c.) The seventeenth slot shall be reserved for budgetary legislation and administered by either the President of the Senate or the PPT.

d.) The eighteenth and nineteenth slots shall be reserved for the President of the Republic of Atlasia and administered by either the President of the Senate or the PPT.

e.) The twentieth slot shall be reserved for public submissions and shall be introduced by the President of the Senate.

4.) A legislation is no longer on the Senate Floor when it has been tabled, rejected, or passed by the members of the Senate.

5.) If at any time the original sponsor vacates his office as Senator, all legislation introduced in the Legislation Introduction Thread shall, within a week of the vacancy, be declared withdrawn by the PPT by public post, if no Senator sponsors the legislation. If a piece of legislation has been introduced on the Senate floor, any office-holding Senator may assume sponsorship.

6.) Co-sponsors of legislation under consideration shall have no power to withdraw legislation nor contest withdrawal of legislation by the original sponsor. Any office-holding Senator may assume sponsorship of the legislation within 96 hours after the original sponsor has motioned to withdraw. Once a motion to assume sponsorship has been filed by a Senator, Senators shall have 24 hours to object to this motion. If any Senator objects, the PPT shall open a vote on the motion lasting until a majority has voted for or against the motion, but not more than 96 hours. If the motion is rejected, the bill shall be removed from the floor.

7.) All resolutions seeking to amend the constitution must be introduced along with a passage detailing what is being changed in the Constitution and why, called the Amendment Explanation. All amendments to the resolution, must change the explanation if they change the resolution so as to be inconsistent with it. This shall not infringe on the presiding officer's ability to correct for grammar and formatting issues, nor impede the presiding officer's ability to update and maintain a mission statement in the outer quote box of a given bill or resolution.

8.) All legislation on the Senate floor shall be given a distinct designation. The format of this designation shall denote in the following order "S" for the Senate chamber, followed by "B" for a bill or "R" for a Resolution. Immediately following the second letter will be number of the present senate at the time of introduction, followed by a dash and then a number displaying at least two digits beginning with "01" and increasing until the end of the session.

Article 3: Amendments

1.) During the course of debate on legislation, any sitting Senator may offer amendments to the legislation. The President Pro Tempore may remove amendments from consideration that are functionally impractical, frivolous, directly unconstitutional, or lack clear intent regarding the changes to be made. The amendment sponsor shall have 24 hours to object to the decision and may overturn the action with the concurrence of 1/3rd of his fellow Senators. Unless stated otherwise in the amendment, components of the underlying legislation not referenced in an amendment will remain unchanged.

2.) The legislation's primary sponsor shall judge the amendment(s) in relation to their intent with the legislation. If judged friendly by the sponsor, the PPT shall give twenty four hours for objections to the amendment, after which, with no objections having been entered the amendment shall be considered as passed.

3.) If judged hostile by the sponsor, or if a Senator has objected, a vote shall be started by the PPT once the amendment has been on the floor twenty four hours. The vote shall last for three days or until a majority has voted in favor or against the amendment, at which point Senators who have voted shall be prohibited from changing their votes and the vote shall be declared final.

4.) The PPT shall number and track all amendments offered during the course of each Senate session. The designated number shall begin an with S for the Senate Chamber followed by the number of the present Senate, followed by a dash and then a number displaying at least two digits beginning with "01" and increasing until the end of the session.

5.) The PPT shall have authority to correct grammar and formatting of legislation, provided that such technical changes do not alter the intended meaning of the legislation.

Article 4: Debate

1.) After a piece of legislation is introduced to the Senate floor, debate shall begin immediately. Debate on the legislation shall last for no less than 120 hours. The Senate may waive the 120-hour requirement on non-controversial legislation by unanimous consent. To waive the 120-hour requirement, the presiding officer must request unanimous consent to waive the minimum debate time requirement and provide 24 hours for a Senator to object to this request. If the 120-hour requirement is waived, the presiding officer shall immediately open a final vote.

2.) The sponsor of a piece of legislation may at any time withdraw their her sponsorship. In addition, when the sponsor is no longer a Senator, their sponsorship shall be revoked automatically. If no member of the Senate moves to assume sponsorship of the legislation within 48 hours, the legislation shall be tabled automatically.

3.) Once a piece of legislation has been on the floor for 120 hours, any Senator may motion for a final vote. If no objection is made against such a motion within 24 hours, a final vote shall be opened. If an objection is made, then a vote shall be opened on ending debate. The concurrence of three-fourths of the Senate shall be required to end debate, unless the legislation had been on the floor for at least 336 hours or debate had ceased for at least 24 hours prior to the motion for a final vote. Should the Senate vote to end debate, a final vote shall be opened.

4.) When debate on legislation has halted for longer than 24 hours and the legislation has been on the floor for more than 120 hours, any Senator may call for a vote on said legislation. The presiding officer shall open a vote if no other member of the Senate objects within 24 hours of the call for a vote. When the legislation has been on the floor for more than 120 hours, any Senator may motion for cloture. Upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate, the Senate shall end debate, and proceed to a final vote. If the legislation has been on the floor for more than 336 hours, or debate has ceased for 24 hours, a simple majority is needed in order to end the debates. The presiding officer shall then open a final vote.

Article 5: Motions to Table

1.) Any Senator can, during a period of debate, with the support of one other Senator, introduce a motion to table the legislation.

2.) The presiding officer shall open a vote on the motion to table. This vote shall last for a maximum of four (4) days during which time the Senators must vote. Voting may be declared final at any time if the motion to table has been approved or rejected.

3.) For the motion to table to pass, two-thirds of those voting (excluding abstentions) must support the motion.

4.) Tabled legislation shall be taken off the Senate floor by the President Pro Tempore.

Article 6: Final Votes

1.) Final Votes and veto overrides votes shall last for a maximum of 4 days (i.e. 96 hours). A final vote may be ended earlier than 96 hours:

a. If the vote has a majority to pass or fail, then the Presiding officer may call 24 hours for Senators to vote or change their votes.
 
b. If all Senators have voted and the result is unanimous for or against, then the Presiding Officer may end the vote immediately.

2.) If a bill has been vetoed, a Senator has 96 hours to motion for a veto override. A two-thirds majority of the members of the Senate is needed in order to override a veto.

3.) If a redraft is presented, the original sponsor shall have 96 hours after it is offered to accept the redraft or reject it and request an override. If the redraft is rejected by the Senate, the sponsor may than either motion to resume debate on the bill or withdraw the bill from the floor. If the original sponsor shall have left the chamber, the presiding officer shall allow for someone to assume sponsorship as with a normal bill, with the 96 hours commencing after it is completed.

4.) Veto Override and Redraft proceedings shall not be conducted in a slot and thus not subjected to any limits on the amount of legislation on the floor, but shall be conducted in their original threads.

Article 7: Confirmation Hearing

1.) Once a nomination is made by the President, it shall be brought to the floor immediately by the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall then open a confirmation hearing for presidential nominees immediately following the president's announcement of the nomination.

2.) Each hearing shall last for at least four days (i.e. 96 hours). The hearing may be abbreviated according to the unanimous consent rules outlined in Article III: Debate.

3.) The vote shall last for a maximum of four days (96 hours). No Senator shall be prohibited from voting until after the nominee has received enough votes to pass or fail confirmation, at which point vote changes shall be prohibited.

Article 8: Expulsion and Censure of a sitting Senator

1.) Senators can be subject to either Censure (formal statement of disapproval) or Expulsion by their peers, so long as reasonable justification exists in the form of unethical or corrupt behavior, inactivity, treason and such other offenses or behavior.

2.) Censure proceedings shall be initiated if at least nine Senators have sponsored a motion of Censure, introduced in the Legislative Introduction Thread, against one of their Senate colleagues, citing the motives of why said Senator should be censored.

3.) The President Pro Tempore, or, if he is the subject of the motion, the Deputy President Pro Tempore shall open a thread and commence the debates. Debates shall last for no less than 96 hours. After the debates have elapsed, the President Pro Tempore or Deputy President Pro Tempore shall open a vote, which shall last for 96 hours. The assent of two-thirds of the Senate is required for the Senator to be censored, in which case they will lose their seniority.

4.) Expulsion proceedings shall be initiated if:

a.) a Senator has not posted anything on the Atlas Fantasy Government board for 336 consecutive hours and has not posted a valid Leave of Absence (then the time covered by that LOA shall not count toward those 336 hours, but periods of inactivity before and after the LOA shall count as a continuous period, provided there are no interceding posts).

b.) Two Senators have sponsored an article of expulsion, introduced in the Legislative Introduction Thread, against one of their Senate colleagues

5.) The President Pro Tempore shall open a thread and commence the debates. Debates shall last at least 96 hours. After the debates have elapsed, the President Pro Tempore shall open a vote, which shall last for a maximum of 3 days. When the articles of expulsion have enough votes to pass or fail, the President Pro Tempore shall announce that he or she will close the vote in 24 hours and that any Senator who wishes to change their vote must do so during that interval. In order to expel the Senator, a two-third majority of the sitting Senators is needed.

Article 9: Impeachment Trials

1.) After the Senate has passed an article of impeachment by three-fifths of the voting Senators, the Chief Justice shall convene the Senate to try the impeached official.

2.) A two-thirds majority of the members of the Senate is needed in order to convict any impeached executive or judicial officer of the federal government.

3.) If a Senator objects to the proceedings to a final vote, they may object and require a three-fifths majority before moving to a Final Vote.

Article 10: Rules Disputes

1.) The Senate may elect to suspend any section of these rules at any time with the consent of two-thirds of sitting Senators.

2.) The presiding officer may unilaterally suspend any section of these rules at any time, unless another Senator objects. If a Senator objects, suspending the rules shall require the consent of two-thirds of sitting Senators.

Article 11: Relationship within the Senate

1.) The President of the Senate shall be in charge of overseeing the Senate.

2.) When a bill passes the Senate, the PPT shall notify the President of the Senate of its passage.

3.) A bill shall be sent to the president after it has been approved by the Senate.

[AGA]

2.) If the PPT determines that a piece of legislation is functionally impractical, frivolous, or is directly unconstitutional, they may, in a public post on the Legislation Introduction thread, remove said legislation from the Senate floor. The sponsoring Senator of the legislation shall have ninety-six (96) hours to challenge this action in a public post, and with the concurrence of one-third (1/3) of office-holding Senators in the affirmative (excluding the PPT), may override the actions of the PPT. (Nasolation clause)

1.) During the course of debate on legislation, any sitting Senator may offer amendments to the legislation. The President Pro Tempore may remove amendments from consideration that are functionally impractical, frivolous, directly unconstitutional, or lack clear intent regarding the changes to be made. The amendment sponsor shall have 24 hours to object to the decision and may overturn the action with the concurrence of 1/3rd of his fellow Senators. Unless stated otherwise in the amendment, components of the underlying legislation not referenced in an amendment will remain unchanged.

Why does the vote in the first except exclude the PPT, but not the second?

Also, would it be possible to edit the OP with each change of the rules instead of posting the whole thing every time?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Pre-reset the PPT election was administered by the Vice President.

Rather wished you hadn't gone with the dash between the chamber and bill numbers, as I stated in my previous post on the matter. I find this setup ugly.

Sestak said we need to discuss how to handle cloture votes and what threshold for that is appropriate.

[wxtransit]

2.) If the PPT determines that a piece of legislation is functionally impractical, frivolous, or is directly unconstitutional, they may, in a public post on the Legislation Introduction thread, remove said legislation from the Senate floor. The sponsoring Senator of the legislation shall have ninety-six (96) hours to challenge this action in a public post, and with the concurrence of one-third (1/3) of office-holding Senators in the affirmative (excluding the PPT), may override the actions of the PPT. (Nasolation clause)

1.) During the course of debate on legislation, any sitting Senator may offer amendments to the legislation. The President Pro Tempore may remove amendments from consideration that are functionally impractical, frivolous, directly unconstitutional, or lack clear intent regarding the changes to be made. The amendment sponsor shall have 24 hours to object to the decision and may overturn the action with the concurrence of 1/3rd of his fellow Senators. Unless stated otherwise in the amendment, components of the underlying legislation not referenced in an amendment will remain unchanged.

Why does the vote in the first except exclude the PPT, but not the second?

Also, would it be possible to edit the OP with each change of the rules instead of posting the whole thing every time?

Personally, I find it helpful to see the progression of text as amendments are added, though that's just a personal preference

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

2.) If the PPT determines that a piece of legislation is functionally impractical, frivolous, or is directly unconstitutional, they may, in a public post on the Legislation Introduction thread, remove said legislation from the Senate floor. The sponsoring Senator of the legislation shall have ninety-six (96) hours to challenge this action in a public post, and with the concurrence of one-third (1/3) of office-holding Senators in the affirmative (excluding the PPT), may override the actions of the PPT. (Nasolation clause)

1.) During the course of debate on legislation, any sitting Senator may offer amendments to the legislation. The President Pro Tempore may remove amendments from consideration that are functionally impractical, frivolous, directly unconstitutional, or lack clear intent regarding the changes to be made. The amendment sponsor shall have 24 hours to object to the decision and may overturn the action with the concurrence of 1/3rd of his fellow Senators. Unless stated otherwise in the amendment, components of the underlying legislation not referenced in an amendment will remain unchanged.

Why does the vote in the first except exclude the PPT, but not the second?

Also, would it be possible to edit the OP with each change of the rules instead of posting the whole thing every time?

Standard practice for going on a decade plus now has been to maintain the evolution of a piece of legislation over the course of a debate thread, for accessibility and transparency reasons. Also, many people don't refer back to prior pages of debate and only look at the current one so many would not see an updated OP if such were to be done there.

[wxtransit]

Pre-reset the PPT election was administered by the Vice President.

Rather wished you hadn't gone with the dash between the chamber and bill numbers, as I stated in my previous post on the matter. I find this setup ugly.

Sestak said we need to discuss how to handle cloture votes and what threshold for that is appropriate.

Agreed, I think the dash for VP/colon for PPT setup makes sense to me.

[wxtransit]

Concerning the threshold for cloture, hasn't the standard been 2/3 for some time? If there is rationale for changing it to 3/5 I am fully willing to hear it; otherwise, I do not see much of a need to lower it by a minimal amount.

Also, 2/3 of 18 comes out to a nice even 12, while 3/5 of 18 comes to a more annoying 10.8

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Pre-reset the PPT election was administered by the Vice President.

Rather wished you hadn't gone with the dash between the chamber and bill numbers, as I stated in my previous post on the matter. I find this setup ugly.

Sestak said we need to discuss how to handle cloture votes and what threshold for that is appropriate.

Agreed, I think the dash for VP/colon for PPT setup makes sense to me.

Okay we'll split it France gets the colon and Sweden gets the Dash.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Concerning the threshold for cloture, hasn't the standard been 2/3 for some time? If there is rationale for changing it to 3/5 I am fully willing to hear it; otherwise, I do not see much of a need to lower it by a minimal amount.

Also, 2/3 of 18 comes out to a nice even 12, while 3/5 of 18 comes to a more annoying 10.8

2/3rds of 10 in the pre-reset Senate was 6.66667, but we always just rounded up to the nearest whole number.

That is why 4 became the magic number for the Regionalist movement.

[wxtransit]

Concerning the threshold for cloture, hasn't the standard been 2/3 for some time? If there is rationale for changing it to 3/5 I am fully willing to hear it; otherwise, I do not see much of a need to lower it by a minimal amount.

Also, 2/3 of 18 comes out to a nice even 12, while 3/5 of 18 comes to a more annoying 10.8

2/3rds of 10 in the pre-reset Senate was 6.66667, but we always just rounded up to the nearest whole number.

That is why 4 became the magic number for the Regionalist movement.

Guess the new magic number will be either 6 or 7, depending on what happens here.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Concerning the threshold for cloture, hasn't the standard been 2/3 for some time? If there is rationale for changing it to 3/5 I am fully willing to hear it; otherwise, I do not see much of a need to lower it by a minimal amount.

Also, 2/3 of 18 comes out to a nice even 12, while 3/5 of 18 comes to a more annoying 10.8

2/3rds of 10 in the pre-reset Senate was 6.66667, but we always just rounded up to the nearest whole number.

That is why 4 became the magic number for the Regionalist movement.

Guess the new magic number will be either 6 or 7, depending on what happens here.

Well not really, because that was based on threshold for failing amendments (decided in constitution), not ability to filibuster.

[wxtransit]

Concerning the threshold for cloture, hasn't the standard been 2/3 for some time? If there is rationale for changing it to 3/5 I am fully willing to hear it; otherwise, I do not see much of a need to lower it by a minimal amount.

Also, 2/3 of 18 comes out to a nice even 12, while 3/5 of 18 comes to a more annoying 10.8

2/3rds of 10 in the pre-reset Senate was 6.66667, but we always just rounded up to the nearest whole number.

That is why 4 became the magic number for the Regionalist movement.

Guess the new magic number will be either 6 or 7, depending on what happens here.

Well not really, because that was based on threshold for failing amendments (decided in constitution), not ability to filibuster.

Ah, that makes sense. So 6 it is then

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Concerning the threshold for cloture, hasn't the standard been 2/3 for some time? If there is rationale for changing it to 3/5 I am fully willing to hear it; otherwise, I do not see much of a need to lower it by a minimal amount.

Also, 2/3 of 18 comes out to a nice even 12, while 3/5 of 18 comes to a more annoying 10.8

2/3rds of 10 in the pre-reset Senate was 6.66667, but we always just rounded up to the nearest whole number.

That is why 4 became the magic number for the Regionalist movement.

Guess the new magic number will be either 6 or 7, depending on what happens here.

Well not really, because that was based on threshold for failing amendments (decided in constitution), not ability to filibuster.

Ah, that makes sense. So 6 it is then

So you want to make cloture require the same as amending the constitution?