SR 113-67: Adequate Consideration Resolution (Passed)

[Mr. Reactionary]

Nay on WB
Aye on R

[Enduro]

Nay on WB
Aye on Reactionary

[Senator Spiral]

Aye on Reactionary's amendment

[fhtagn]

Aye on Reactionary's amendment

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Aye on Reactionary's amendment.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Aye on R's amendment

[West_Midlander]

Aye

[Liminal Trans Girl]

Wait, Aye then

[Pyro]

Proposed amendment. 24 hours to object.

...


5. ) Any bill that seeks to repeal two (2) or more federal laws adopted after June 1, 2016 in the same bill shall not be able to be brought to a final vote without a two-thirds vote of the whole Senate. Any bill that seeks to amend two (2) or more federal laws adopted after June 1, 2016 in the same bill shall not be able to be brought to a final vote without a two-thirds vote of the whole Senate. This rule shall expire ninety (90) days after the date of enactment.

You've just confirmed this is literally designed to stall reform efforts in the next session, and only the next session, of the Senate. I see no legitimate reason why the next class of democratically elected officials should be denied the same open-ended freedom to legislate enjoyed by this session.

[Liminal Trans Girl]

Switch to Nay

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Proposed amendment. 24 hours to object.

...


5. ) Any bill that seeks to repeal two (2) or more federal laws adopted after June 1, 2016 in the same bill shall not be able to be brought to a final vote without a two-thirds vote of the whole Senate. Any bill that seeks to amend two (2) or more federal laws adopted after June 1, 2016 in the same bill shall not be able to be brought to a final vote without a two-thirds vote of the whole Senate. This rule shall expire ninety (90) days after the date of enactment.

You've just confirmed this is literally designed to stall reform efforts in the next session, and only the next session, of the Senate. I see no legitimate reason why the next class of democratically elected officials should be denied the same open-ended freedom to legislate enjoyed by this session.

I don't think theoretically the possibility to repeal everything from 2016 until today should be there.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

Wait, Aye then

on which amendment?


Also, Nay on R's amendment. What is the point of this other than hamstringing the next senate? Either we do this all the way or we don't do it at all.

[Liminal Trans Girl]

Aye on WBs

Nay on Reactionarys

[Mr. Reactionary]

Proposed amendment. 24 hours to object.

...


5. ) Any bill that seeks to repeal two (2) or more federal laws adopted after June 1, 2016 in the same bill shall not be able to be brought to a final vote without a two-thirds vote of the whole Senate. Any bill that seeks to amend two (2) or more federal laws adopted after June 1, 2016 in the same bill shall not be able to be brought to a final vote without a two-thirds vote of the whole Senate. This rule shall expire ninety (90) days after the date of enactment.

You've just confirmed this is literally designed to stall reform efforts in the next session, and only the next session, of the Senate. I see no legitimate reason why the next class of democratically elected officials should be denied the same open-ended freedom to legislate enjoyed by this session.

I don't think theoretically the possibility to repeal everything from 2016 until today should be there.

Yeah, having a stated goal of just mindlessly mass repealing 31 laws from last year as quickly as possible for bad-faith partisan reasons is not healthy for the game or good policy. Cao was President for 8 months, signed over 150 laws, and there were probably fewer than 10 in-game laws repealed or amended, 2 of which were then repassed with reforms. Weve had a very healthy senate lately with lots of compromise and lots of multipartisan laws designed to get broad appeal. Partisan mass repeals will just turn the Senate into a toilet and ruin the game.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

The thing about it is that the right can also mass repeal laws that were passed during a left wing majority.

The act does not outlaw repealing, it just limits mass repealing in one act.

Any bill that seeks to repeal two (2) or more federal laws adopted after June 1, 2016 in the same bill

shall not be brought to a final vote without a two-thirds vote of the whole Senate

I personally don't see the issue, get the two thirds vote i guess if they are common sense repealing?

[Liminal Trans Girl]

Switching to Aye on Reactionarys Admendment

[OSR stands with Israel]

Aye on Mr R amendment

[Liminal Trans Girl]

Screw it, I'll abstain on Reactionarys Amendment

[Utah Neolib]

Switching to abstain on the first one and voting abstain on Mr. R’s amendment

[Liminal Trans Girl]

Switching to abstain on the first one and voting abstain on Mr. R’s amendment

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Switching to abstain on the first one and voting abstain on Mr. R’s amendment

[Pyro]

Yeah, having a stated goal of just mindlessly mass repealing 31 laws from last year as quickly as possible for bad-faith partisan reasons is not healthy for the game or good policy. Cao was President for 8 months, signed over 150 laws, and there were probably fewer than 10 in-game laws repealed or amended, 2 of which were then repassed with reforms. Weve had a very healthy senate lately with lots of compromise and lots of multipartisan laws designed to get broad appeal. Partisan mass repeals will just turn the Senate into a toilet and ruin the game.

This legislation would prohibit the introduction of more than one repeal at a time. Do you understand the difference between a mass repeal of dozens of laws and restricting the Senate to one proposal per bill?

Legislation sometimes affects, or contradicts, existing statute. Often it can render old legislation obsolete, or it will require us to amend the language of several previously-passed laws to keep everything coherent. The incoming session will be ideologically split, and would obviously reject any partisan "mass repeal" bill proposed by any party. If a majority of the new session agrees with a proposal to alter two or more laws, that must be sufficient for passage.

More to the point, it is absurd for a lame-duck Senate to advance an arbitrary handicap on future legislation out of fear that it may interrupt a former President's legacy. No previous legislative body in Atlasia, to my knowledge, has sought to introduce such a blatant assault on the freedom of lawmakers to do their job.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Yeah, having a stated goal of just mindlessly mass repealing 31 laws from last year as quickly as possible for bad-faith partisan reasons is not healthy for the game or good policy. Cao was President for 8 months, signed over 150 laws, and there were probably fewer than 10 in-game laws repealed or amended, 2 of which were then repassed with reforms. Weve had a very healthy senate lately with lots of compromise and lots of multipartisan laws designed to get broad appeal. Partisan mass repeals will just turn the Senate into a toilet and ruin the game.

This legislation would prohibit the introduction of more than one repeal at a time. Do you understand the difference between a mass repeal of dozens of laws and restricting the Senate to one proposal per bill?

Legislation sometimes affects, or contradicts, existing statute. Often it can render old legislation obsolete, or it will require us to amend the language of several previously-passed laws to keep everything coherent. The incoming session will be ideologically split, and would obviously reject any partisan "mass repeal" bill proposed by any party. If a majority of the new session agrees with a proposal to alter two or more laws, that must be sufficient for passage.

More to the point, it is absurd for a lame-duck Senate to advance an arbitrary handicap on future legislation out of fear that it may interrupt a former President's legacy. No previous legislative body in Atlasia, to my knowledge, has sought to introduce such a blatant assault on the freedom of lawmakers to do their job.

No previous Senate had a bunch of partisan yahoos post a document listing 31 laws passed over the previous year that they intended to mass repeal, largely for dumb partisan reasons. You literally called for repealing the expanded net neutrality law, most of the regulations on big tech and large corporations, the limitations on martial law, the law to comply with Shurtleff v. Boston, the laws prohibiting racism, the bill that funds the National Parks bill we passed last month, anti-inflation bills, worker protections, and gun owner protections. You also want to ban 61% of Atlasian energy. None of what you and Pericles conspired about is reasonable.

[SevenEleven]

Aye on the WB amendment.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Changing to Nay on WB's amendment and Aye on R's amendment.