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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 20, 2022, 09:40:17 AM

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  SR 107-04: Anti-Filibuster Senate Rules Change (Debating)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: SR 107-04: Anti-Filibuster Senate Rules Change (Debating)  (Read 514 times)
Senator WD, PPT
Western Democrat
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,006
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: 2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 14, 2022, 07:29:03 PM »
« edited: Today at 02:06:34 AM by Senator WD, PPT »

Quote
A RESOLUTION
To prevent Senate procedural abuse

Be it resolved by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia

Quote
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:

Quote
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 8 of his fellow Senators. Unless stated otherwise in the amendment, components of the underlying legislation not referenced in an amendment will remain unchanged.

Sponsor: Scott

The President is invited to advocate.
Logged
President Scott☀️
Scott
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 39,262
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2022, 07:37:08 PM »
« Edited: January 14, 2022, 09:32:38 PM by President Scott☀️ »

Needless to say, I didn't want to have to introduce a rule change, but given that it appears at least some senators intend to abuse our procedures to stop one of the bills on the floor, it is necessary so that we don't allow a minority of the chamber simply to stall legislation it opposes. The Atlasian Senate stands head-and-shoulders above the OTL US Senate, for the simple reason that we, at least ought to, have no rules which can be abused in favor of one party or viewpoint as is the case OTL. That should never be the case in Atlasia, irrespective of the bill's subject matter. And those who intend to continue abusing the rules for short-term legislative gain do so at the expense of the integrity of the legislative process.

If you oppose game-killing rules tricks in the name of sending a message, if you honestly and consistently oppose the filibuster and bringing the filibuster to the Atlasian Senate, I hope you will vote for this rule change so that legislation cannot be held hostage.
Logged
Senator WD, PPT
Western Democrat
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,006
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: 2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2022, 07:54:17 PM »

The gross abuse of the rules weíve seen on the floor today is simply unacceptable. Section 3.1 is not meant for a minority of Senators to spam silly, frivolous, unserious amendments and then overrule the PPT over and over again so they can block and forever draw out the passage of a bill they donít like. A minority of the chamber does not get to overrule the wishes of the majority. That is not right, and that is not how it should work in the Atlasian Senate.

I would hope that no Senator would want to replicate the poisonous, toxic mess that is the United States Senate; yet apparently some are hell bent on doing so. This change is reasonable, (although I would like to amend it to 1/2); and ensures a vocal minority cannot derail the Senate agenda. Anyone who opposes the RL filibuster should support this rule change.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,929



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2022, 08:00:40 PM »

This is designed to block debate on bills, enable abuses of power by the PPT, and pass a bill that the President and PPT personally support but many Senators have grave concerns about. I am not comfortable with any changes that weaken the rights of the minority in this Congress and I believe that most Senators want the integrity of the branch preserved first and foremost. With so few checks and balances left in Atlasia, the people need nothing less.
Logged
President Scott☀️
Scott
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 39,262
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2022, 08:04:08 PM »
« Edited: January 14, 2022, 08:28:12 PM by President Scott☀️ »

The gross abuse of the rules we’ve seen on the floor today is simply unacceptable. Section 3.1 is not meant for a minority of Senators to spam silly, frivolous, unserious amendments and then overrule the PPT over and over again so they can block and forever draw out the passage of a bill they don’t like. A minority of the chamber does not get to overrule the wishes of the majority. That is not right, and that is not how it should work in the Atlasian Senate.

I would hope that no Senator would want to replicate the poisonous, toxic mess that is the United States Senate; yet apparently some are hell bent on doing so. This change is reasonable, (although I would like to amend it to 1/2); and ensures a vocal minority cannot derail the Senate agenda. Anyone who opposes the RL filibuster should support this rule change.

Well, one senator's motion plus eight yes votes, so one-half.

This is designed to block debate on bills, enable abuses of power by the PPT, and pass a bill that the President and PPT personally support but many Senators have grave concerns about. I am not comfortable with any changes that weaken the rights of the minority in this Congress and I believe that most Senators want the integrity of the branch preserved first and foremost. With so few checks and balances left in Atlasia, the people need nothing less.

I'm glad that I can finally and confidently say publicly that you are a liar. Unfortunately for you, constantly repeating that the proposed rule change pertains to this bill or that bill doesn't make it so. After all, you are the one with the inconsistent position on the filibuster.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,929



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2022, 08:09:31 PM »

Do we need to evict the President from the Senate? Personal insults and threats are entirely unhelpful.
Logged
Fmr. Lincoln Speaker Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,846
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 0.35

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2022, 08:13:07 PM »

Let's be real, the President can espouse what he wants to, but the need for this rules change is only being brought up because people are daring to seek to protect our children and oppose his darling AWB repeal. If that wasn't happening, this would not be on the floor right now.

I agree with Senator Pericles.
Logged
President Scott☀️
Scott
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 39,262
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2022, 08:24:43 PM »

Do we need to evict the President from the Senate? Personal insults and threats are entirely unhelpful.

lol

Let's be real, the President can espouse what he wants to, but the need for this rules change is only being brought up because people are daring to seek to protect our children and oppose his darling AWB repeal. If that wasn't happening, this would not be on the floor right now.

I agree with Senator Pericles.

Nope. If a small group of senators was trying to do this to any other bill, I would still be forced to step in and request this rules change. Because there should not be a filibuster.
Logged
Senator CentristRepublican
CentristRepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,276
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2022, 08:40:04 PM »

I honestly don't know much about the senate rules in Atlasia, and President Scott's rule seemed fair as portrayed by him and WD. Pericles's comment and subsequent replies, however, have conflicted me. If this is indeed politically motivated (and particularly if it is to support the AWB repeal) then I will oppose it. Honestly, though, I believe Scott inthat this isn't politically motivated. Still, I desperately want the AWB repeal to fail, and if the passage of this rule would undermine this effort, I'd oppose this rule even though I support it in theory, since killing the AWB repeal once and for all is more important.
Logged
President Scott☀️
Scott
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 39,262
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2022, 08:51:14 PM »

I honestly don't know much about the senate rules in Atlasia, and President Scott's rule seemed fair as portrayed by him and WD. Pericles's comment and subsequent replies, however, have conflicted me. If this is indeed politically motivated (and particularly if it is to support the AWB repeal) then I will oppose it. Honestly, though, I believe Scott inthat this isn't politically motivated. Still, I desperately want the AWB repeal to fail, and if the passage of this rule would undermine this effort, I'd oppose this rule even though I support it in theory, since killing the AWB repeal once and for all is more important.

You can either be honest, and say that you support the filibuster for bills you don't like, or you can oppose it entirely. There's no middle ground here, there's no exceptions to be carved out.

But I will reiterate that I would support the rules change even if the bill being filibustered was one I didn't support - whether it was one repealing the vaccine mandate, banning abortion, rolling back the NGSA, or otherwise, because the Senate is not meant to function this way.
Logged
Fmr. Lincoln Speaker Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,846
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 0.35

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2022, 08:58:26 PM »

I honestly don't know much about the senate rules in Atlasia, and President Scott's rule seemed fair as portrayed by him and WD. Pericles's comment and subsequent replies, however, have conflicted me. If this is indeed politically motivated (and particularly if it is to support the AWB repeal) then I will oppose it. Honestly, though, I believe Scott inthat this isn't politically motivated. Still, I desperately want the AWB repeal to fail, and if the passage of this rule would undermine this effort, I'd oppose this rule even though I support it in theory, since killing the AWB repeal once and for all is more important.

Indeed it would, in the event the AWB repeal is still being debated when this passes.
Logged
Senator OBD
OBD
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,985
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.74


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2022, 09:05:58 PM »

Quote
A RESOLUTION
To prevent Senate procedural abuse

Be it resolved by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia

Quote
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:

Quote
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 8 of his fellow 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.

Proposing an amendment (for real this time). This accounts for the absences that frequently plague this body. Under this amendment, at least 40% of the override votes must be 'Aye' for the PPT's action to be overridden.
Logged
President Scott☀️
Scott
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 39,262
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2022, 09:08:50 PM »

I would support the threshold at 50%.
Logged
Senator OBD
OBD
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,985
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.74


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2022, 01:57:51 AM »

I think 40% is reasonable. We need to balance the need to prevent a small portion of the body from exercising complete dominance over Senate business with the need to prevent the PPT from exercising complete dominance over Senate business - the more inactive the Senate is sans my amendment, the more easily the PPT can simply exercise control even with a majority of active members in opposition (adding that this is by no means an attack on Western, a good friend of mine.- this is purely a hypothetical for a future PPT). Would be willing to go up to 44% though, which matches the 8/18 ratio in the original bill more exactly.

Ofc more than open to hear feedback from the President and other Senators to get a consensus on this number.
Logged
Senator WD, PPT
Western Democrat
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,006
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: 2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 15, 2022, 03:02:23 AM »

Frankly, I believe it should be 50% of present and voting Senators. Under no circumstances should a minority of Senators be able to dictate the Senate agenda.
Logged
The Golden Girls-The Golden Palace-Empty Nest-Nurses Fan
West_Midlander
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,968
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 15, 2022, 09:49:09 AM »

Question: If a motion for a final vote is made before an amendment is proposed after enough time has elapsed for a final vote to be motioned for, can a vote on cloture be opened, assuming that the Senator(s) supporting the amendment oppose a final vote?

Or will all amendments be voted on before a final vote motion is recognized for objection and/or cloture is voted on?
Logged
Senator CentristRepublican
CentristRepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,276
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 15, 2022, 12:58:08 PM »

I'd support OBD's amendment to the rule change, and if it were to pass, I'd probably be likelier to support the bill.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,869


Political Matrix
E: 3.23, S: 0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 15, 2022, 02:52:20 PM »

Why is this rule change needed. Like we can call for a motion to take the bill to a final vote with only 50% support of the senate.


Logged
Senator WD, PPT
Western Democrat
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,006
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: 2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 15, 2022, 03:18:41 PM »

Why is this rule change needed. Like we can call for a motion to take the bill to a final vote with only 50% support of the senate.




Senators, if they choose can introduce amendment after amendment after amendment, with the sole purpose of delaying and obstructing, and a minority of Senators can overrule to PPT to force votes on those amendments. Itís an unofficial filibuster.
Logged
The Golden Girls-The Golden Palace-Empty Nest-Nurses Fan
West_Midlander
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,968
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: January 15, 2022, 03:38:48 PM »

Question: If a motion for a final vote is made before an amendment is proposed after enough time has elapsed for a final vote to be motioned for, can a vote on cloture be opened, assuming that the Senator(s) supporting the amendment oppose a final vote?

Or will all amendments be voted on before a final vote motion is recognized for objection and/or cloture is voted on?

If anyone can answer this question it would be greatly appreciated. The answer to these two questions will inform my stance on the amendment and the proposal as a whole.
Logged
Senator WD, PPT
Western Democrat
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,006
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: 2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 15, 2022, 03:42:19 PM »

Question: If a motion for a final vote is made before an amendment is proposed after enough time has elapsed for a final vote to be motioned for, can a vote on cloture be opened, assuming that the Senator(s) supporting the amendment oppose a final vote?

Or will all amendments be voted on before a final vote motion is recognized for objection and/or cloture is voted on?

If anyone can answer this question it would be greatly appreciated. The answer to these two questions will inform my stance on the amendment and the proposal as a whole.

I believe that all amendments will and should be voted on before moving to a final vote.
Logged
Sestak
jk2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,608



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: January 15, 2022, 08:55:13 PM »

The correct way to deal with this is simple;  if a motion for a final vote is presented and other amdendments are presented afterward, once the motion for vote has been on the floor for a certain period of time (say, a week) the person making a final vote can call for a vote on whether or not to move the final vote ahead of the proposed amendments; if the side in favor succeeds then final vote is immediate. This way any amendments proposed before the final vote motion is made still can get guaranteed consideration but you also just canít block bills forever.

In fact, you can even allow amendments proposed, say, in the 48 hours after the final vote motion to get guaranteed consideration as well, so long as you canít keep proposing things forever.
Logged
Lincoln Senator Joseph Cao
Rep. Joseph Cao
Atlas Politician
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 2,464


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: January 16, 2022, 12:11:18 AM »

While this is obviously somewhat intended as a counter to recent events, and therefore I'm going to need a bit of time to evaluate this rules change in full, I think OBD has the right of it here broadly speaking.

Question: If a motion for a final vote is made before an amendment is proposed after enough time has elapsed for a final vote to be motioned for, can a vote on cloture be opened, assuming that the Senator(s) supporting the amendment oppose a final vote?

Or will all amendments be voted on before a final vote motion is recognized for objection and/or cloture is voted on?

Question: If a motion for a final vote is made before an amendment is proposed after enough time has elapsed for a final vote to be motioned for, can a vote on cloture be opened, assuming that the Senator(s) supporting the amendment oppose a final vote?

Or will all amendments be voted on before a final vote motion is recognized for objection and/or cloture is voted on?

If anyone can answer this question it would be greatly appreciated. The answer to these two questions will inform my stance on the amendment and the proposal as a whole.

I believe that all amendments will and should be voted on before moving to a final vote.

Re: Westy's question. As far as the PPT is concerned these amendments, motions for final votes, and so on are simply a queue of motions to be processed. Pushing these motions into consideration according to their placement in the queue should be the bulk of the PPT's actions outside of discretion in dumping frivolous amendments and the like. Under existing rules, if cloture is invoked based on a motion made before an amendment was offered, then that amendment won't be considered since it came second in the queue.

The correct way to deal with this is simple;  if a motion for a final vote is presented and other amdendments are presented afterward, once the motion for vote has been on the floor for a certain period of time (say, a week) the person making a final vote can call for a vote on whether or not to move the final vote ahead of the proposed amendments; if the side in favor succeeds then final vote is immediate. This way any amendments proposed before the final vote motion is made still can get guaranteed consideration but you also just canít block bills forever.

In fact, you can even allow amendments proposed, say, in the 48 hours after the final vote motion to get guaranteed consideration as well, so long as you canít keep proposing things forever.

Aside from the part about a week elapsing, isn't this basically what we already have? Functionally an objection to a motion for a final vote has the same effect, just with the two sides swapped, and doesn't require the PPT to sit on their hands for a week or however long the period is.
Logged
Sestak
jk2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,608



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: January 16, 2022, 01:46:25 AM »

If the rules are already like that then I donít see why this is needed. Ofc the current senate rules are the government metagame document Iíve touched the least and know the least about, so not exactly sure if thatís clearly there or not. But in any case, thatís how it should be resolved; not by giving the PPT such rights to give amendments here.
Logged
Senator WD, PPT
Western Democrat
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,006
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: 2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: January 16, 2022, 03:53:36 AM »

OBDís amendment is adopted.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
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 0.069 seconds with 13 queries.