SR 107-04: Anti-Filibuster Senate Rules Change (Rejected)

[West_Midlander]

I agree with Sestak's and Cao's comments. I don't mind waiting on a final vote as long as it does happen eventually.

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

Surely this need to be implemented in 10 years

[Pericles]

Surely this need to be implemented in 10 years

You won't be in the majority before then so you better hope we go for that

[Senator-elect Spark]

This legislation is spurious and dangerous. The bill will do nothing but hamper the minority and bend them to the will of the PPT and the President's agenda. We need to preserve separation of powers, and  not undermine it, especially with the current state of the game. I stand opposed to this legislation in its current form.

[WD]

The resolution as it currently stands:

A RESOLUTION
To prevent Senate procedural abuse

Be it resolved by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia

Section 1. Title

This resolution may be cited as the Anti-Filibuster Senate Rules Change.

Section 2. Amendment to Senate Rules

Section 3.1 of the Official Senate Procedures and Rules for Operation is hereby amended:

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 40% of present and voting Senators. Unless stated otherwise in the amendment, components of the underlying legislation not referenced in an amendment will remain unchanged.

Senators, any thoughts?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

40% rounds to 7/18 members (with full turnout) so that's fine.

[WD]

Offering another amendment:

A RESOLUTION
To prevent Senate procedural abuse

Be it resolved by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia

Section 1. Title

This resolution may be cited as the Anti-Filibuster Senate Rules Change.

Section 2. Amendment to Senate Rules

Section 3.1 of the Official Senate Procedures and Rules for Operation is hereby amended:

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 45%, rounded down, of present and voting Senators. Unless stated otherwise in the amendment, components of the underlying legislation not referenced in an amendment will remain unchanged.

[WD]

24 hours to object

[OBD]

Objecting. I lean in favor of the amendment but I think the rest of Congress should give input for the exact number we're going to use.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I just love walking into firestorms, which is in part why it ended up being seven days instead of say five. Expectations of unneeded stress factors.

I am just rather amazed that we can go from having dead Senates to one that is so active little known provision is enough to provoke a crisis that needs to be changed.

We have spent years pining for engaged debates and discussions and then in the space of days, suddenly, "filibustering is a crisis in Atlasia".

It kind of gets back to the budget process issue of restricting the debate period of budgets, wouldn't you want to at least see the debate sustained before we start entertaining ideas of curtailing the debate?

As for processing of motions, generally speaking they go in order with perhaps the one exception being something like a cloture motion as that would conceivably make sense to function as an interrupt. I guess I agree with Cao and Sestak to a point though.

[WD]

Objection being raised, a vote is now open on the amendment. Senators, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

A RESOLUTION
To prevent Senate procedural abuse

Be it resolved by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia

Section 1. Title

This resolution may be cited as the Anti-Filibuster Senate Rules Change.

Section 2. Amendment to Senate Rules

Section 3.1 of the Official Senate Procedures and Rules for Operation is hereby amended:

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 45%, rounded down, of present and voting Senators. Unless stated otherwise in the amendment, components of the underlying legislation not referenced in an amendment will remain unchanged.

[WD]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think the PPT should be as impartial as possible, and while I understand the concerns about abuse here in terms of delaying things, I worry more about the slide this could manifest going forward in terms of who the PPT caters to and thus becomes less of an impartial administration as a result.

Nay

[Joseph Cao]

Nay.

[Saint Milei]

Pericles pretty much killed the gun bill. He wasn't trying to make it better. We know this. However, I think a rules change for that alone might set a bad precedent. Additionally, I have an issue with a PPT acting this way. If the PPT was Yankee for life, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Maybe we should add something that allows the senate to block a PPT's unjust blocking of amendments that's stronger than a simple objection



Nay btw

[OBD]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Pericles pretty much killed the gun bill. He wasn't trying to make it better. We know this. However, I think a rules change for that alone might set a bad precedent. Additionally, I have an issue with a PPT acting this way. If the PPT was Yankee for life, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Maybe we should add something that allows the senate to block a PPT's unjust blocking of amendments that's stronger than a simple objection



Nay btw

When they created the office of President IRL, they created it in the image of George Washington who was presiding over the convention, but they also knew that George Washington would not be around forever.

You have to set the standards that will hold up down the line. It is the same point I made during the whole January 6th debacle and it is the angle that was unfortunately lost in the usual RL political bs. That of do you really want the President to potentially see as an option sending a mob or the Army to force Congress to bend to will and how do you want that scenario to be perceived by future Presidents regardless of political orientation, but possessing a lust for executive authority.

I am not here to say that WD will be the PPT that breaks the Senate, but what matters is how does the process work down the line.

[Pericles]

The amendment itself seems fine, people should not read anything more into this.

Aye

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

Nay.

Any Implementation should be in 50 years time.

[West_Midlander]

Nay

[Senator-elect Spark]

Nay

[DabbingSanta]

Nay

[Continential]

Aye, reluctantly.

[Schiff for Senate]

Present. 40% is all right but not sure about 45%.

[Dr. MB]

Aye