SR 109-01: End the Power Creep Resolution (Debating)

[Joseph Cao]

SENATE RESOLUTION

To curtail the powers of the Senate PPT to pre-April wreck norms

SECTION I. SHORT TITLE.

This resolution shall be referred to as the End The Power Creep Resolution

SECTION II. AMENDMENTS TO THE SENATE RULES

The Senate Rules are amended as follows:

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.

2.) If the PPT determines that a piece of legislation is functionally impractical, frivolous in a manner which maliciously hinders the regular proceeding of the Senate or is directly prima facie unconstitutional on the basis of its methods of implementations alone and not its policy outcomes, 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, may override the actions of the PPT.

1.) During the course of debate on legislation, any sitting Senator may offer amendments to the legislation. The President Pro Tempore may in good-faith remove amendments from consideration that are functionally impractical, frivolous in a manner which maliciously hinders the regular proceeding of the Senate, directly prima facie unconstitutional on the basis of its methods of implementations alone and not its policy outcomes,  entirely non-germane to the broader subject of the bill, or lack clear intent regarding the changes to be made. The amendment sponsor shall have 2496 hours to object to the decision by the PPT and may overturn the action with the concurrence of 21/3rd of his fellow Senators. Unless stated otherwise in the amendment, components of the underlying legislation not referenced in an amendment will remain unchanged.

Sponsor: Sestak
Status: Debating

The gentleman from Montana is recognized.

[WD]

So....?

[Joseph Cao]

I PMed Sestak some time ago, hopefully he’ll be on hand soon because there are some things we do need to tease out here.

[Joseph Cao]

So....?

I’ve been told to expect advocacy this weekend as the sponsor needs a bit of time to properly get his thoughts in order.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Why is it taking Sestak so long to figure out which lies to tell to the Senate? What is he afraid of? Being in the minority in the senate?

[Sestak]

Right, hello. So, when I first tuned in during the coup attempt (and, to a degree, in the few months before it) the one thing that did strike me is how much more power the PPT was using than I'd been used to throughout my time in the game. The frivolity power, for one, went from something only used in extreme cases to something that seemed to be used for the PPT to essentially get rid of legislation they didn't like, with a number of Senators seemingly demanding to the PPT (whether it was WD or Cao or someone else) to use the frivolity power against bills they opposed.

The PPT is supposed to be an administrator and that only. They aren't supposed to be making policy judgements about bills and determining which ones make the floor that way. Ditto with the "germane" nonsense, that allows so much abuse it might as well be a rule stating that no amendments may be submitted without the PPT's support. Amendments ,and bills in general, should be left to the Senate to discuss; that is kind of the point of this body.


Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the 2/3 majority needed to remove the PPT is ridiculous. First of all, it's not enforceable anyway, as it limits the Senate's constitutional prerogative to elect the PPT and set the rules for its own proceedings. And secondly, a PPT with the current powers could easily control the Senate with a minority faction; seven senators are enough to lock down the floors to bills and amendments, and I hope we can all agree at least that that's a ridiculous loophole to keep; we've just seen the drastic possible effects.

A number of things will have to be reexamined in the aftermath of the coup, but the Senate rules struck me as particularly abusable when compared to other formal pillars of the game as it was ongoing. Hopefully we can come to a consensus that prevents a single individual from exercising as much power over the Senate going forward.

[Joseph Cao]

I get the argument for two-thirds to remove to an extent, that for the sake of administrative ease if nothing else it should be harder to remove a PPT partway through a session than to put them there. Broadly agree that the main problem is enforcing proper administration (and am therefore more or less on board with the changes to Articles II and III), not necessarily jeopardizing this particular advantage of a more consistent PPT.

Have more thoughts on the bill in general but this stands out as the first that came to mind.