SB 106-19: Amendment to the Senate Rules (Failed)

[Joseph Cao]

Amendment to the Senate Rules

1. The Official Senate Procedures and Rules for Operation are hereby modified by striking Article 10 in its entirety.

Sponsor: FrancoAgo
Status: Debating

72 hours to debate.

[FrancoAgo]

the article 10 give too many power to the PPT and to the majority, democracy need minority protection and there is nothing to protect a minority in the article 10.

[WD]

Article 10 requires the consent of 2/3s of all sitting Senators to consent to the suspension of the rules or the PPT suspending the rules. I don’t particularly anticipate any single party getting 2/3s of seats in this chamber anytime soon (in fact, we will be swearing in an evenly divided Senate very soon), so I fail to see how this gives too much power to the majority at the expense of the minority. This rules change serves no purpose and I urge all Senators to vote no.

[FrancoAgo]

that one party don't get the 2/3 senate is not important, a majority can be of more of one party.

[WD]

that one party don't get the 2/3 senate is not important, a majority can be of more of one party.

Well, in that case if 2/3s is achieved for suspension of the rules, than it is likely bipartisan and therefore not a trampling of “minority rights”.

[FrancoAgo]

that one party don't get the 2/3 senate is not important, a majority can be of more of one party.

Well, in that case if 2/3s is achieved for suspension of the rules, than it is likely bipartisan and therefore not a trampling of “minority rights”.

you can call 2/3 like you want but put out the rules versus of 1/3 of the chamber is no a democracy

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Amendment to the Senate Rules

1. The Official Senate Procedures and Rules for Operation are hereby modified by striking Article 10 in its entirety.

Just so everyone knows the exact words of the text in question.

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 10: Rules Disputes

[Joseph Cao]

Yeah, I don't see myself supporting this.

Democracy is protected just fine by the Constitution. The Constitution sets limits for the Senate to work within, which we have done and are doing. The Constitution also gives us leeway within those limits to construct a system that actually functions for us, as a branch of government. The Constitution requires a two-thirds threshold for these things, so we have a two-thirds threshold.

If I am understanding Franco correctly the root problem he is arguing about could probably be solved by raising the threshold, if there is an appetite for that, but striking the entire section is stripping both a coequal branch of government and its presiding officer of their constitutionally mandated powers as well as the leeway needed for this Dave-forsaken body to function, and I would much rather not rip our accelerator and brake system off in this fashion.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I will be the first one to stake the banner for protection of minority rights in the chamber and I will stand by my party's record in that regards going back to the days of 2013/2014. However, I don't see us as having that kind of problem right now. Everyone has equal access to the floor, which is the primary battlefront here and historically it was the left that pushed to eliminate and reduce such equal access (TNF et al).

In the old OSPR, there was as I recall, since it was deleted and replaced by the 2015 version without concern for the historical nature of such a document (I do have it saved somewhere though on a flash drive), a broke equivalent of Article 10.

As such, being that it was broken, there were a number of conditional overrides populating virtually every article and every section of the document ballooning itself content. Some of this still exists today, with regards to amendment passage, but most of the rest was consolidated into one article with a functional, general override process.

[Dr. MB]

I'd like to motion fro a final vote here.

[WD]

I'd like to motion fro a final vote here.

Seconding this

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This rules change makes zero sense and, as PPT Cao said, would only deprive the PPT of constitutionally-enshrined powers, which are necessary as someone who's wielded the gavel many times, for functionality of the Senate. I for one have never seen a PPT that gave preferential treatment to any party or majority and I don't see what problem this amendment actually solves. Please vote it down.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Yeah, I don't see myself supporting this.

Democracy is protected just fine by the Constitution. The Constitution sets limits for the Senate to work within, which we have done and are doing. The Constitution also gives us leeway within those limits to construct a system that actually functions for us, as a branch of government. The Constitution requires a two-thirds threshold for these things, so we have a two-thirds threshold.

If I am understanding Franco correctly the root problem he is arguing about could probably be solved by raising the threshold, if there is an appetite for that, but striking the entire section is stripping both a coequal branch of government and its presiding officer of their constitutionally mandated powers as well as the leeway needed for this Dave-forsaken body to function, and I would much rather not rip our accelerator and brake system off in this fashion.

Yeah I propose raising the threshold, but not striking it out in its entirety.

[Joseph Cao]

24 hours to object to the motion for a final vote.

[Joseph Cao]

A final vote is now open on the following:

Amendment to the Senate Rules

1. The Official Senate Procedures and Rules for Operation are hereby modified by striking Article 10 in its entirety.

Muad'dib has kindly provided the text of Article 10 for reference.

72 hours to vote; please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Nay

[WD]

Nay

[S019]

NAY

[West_Midlander]

Present

[Saint Milei]

Nay

[Pericles]

Nay

[OBD]

Nay

[Kuumo]

Nay

[Former President tack50]

Nay

[DabbingSanta]

Nay