SR 113-36: Domestic Tranquility Amendment for Atlasia (Amendment Vote)

[Sirius_]

Does this mean that YT could still be registered? Not that there would be any real benefit to it, but I think it's unclear.

[Sirius_]

I will sponsor the WB amendment

[Sirius_]

Nay

[Sirius_]

Lol.

Objecting.

Which amendment do you object to?

[Sirius_]

A vote is now open on the WM amendment

[Sirius_]

Nay

[Sirius_]

Nay

Aye.

Why do you believe treason should have no punishment for some? Is there a statute of limitations for treason?

I don't recall WD's actions being on the same level as the others listed, and I don't believe that this is a list we should be adding people to liberally.

[Sirius_]

A vote is now open on the WM amendment

Why is WM's amended vote first when My amendment was brought to the floor first?

Anyway, I clearly object to both the Muaddib and WM amendments as it's a bad faith filibuster at this point.

If anyone is doing arguing in bad faith it's the Honorable senator for the Upper South. The amendment I've proposed simply makes the punishments for treason in line with each other. It is clear to me that arguing otherwise is simply a case of not having equal justice for equal crimes. Anything additional beyond treason would be a separate charge.

The other amendment received objection first, and I did not notice LT's objection because it was in the middle of a diatribe. I will open the vote on the Muaddib amendment now, and, for simplicity, I will leave the other vote open until this one ends.

[Sirius_]

The vote on my previous amendment was not closed ftr.

That amendment fails

[Sirius_]

The point of this is for extraordinary circumstances. It isn't supposed to replace impeachment or criminal trial. Everyone who did something wrong isn't supposed to be on this list, otherwise we'd have put several other secessionists on it.

[Sirius_]

Muaddib amendment fails
West_Midlander amendment fails

[Sirius_]

The voting statement was included in a three sentence post and voting was open for five days. At that point senators are responsible for their own missed votes, I can not overturn the rules over an inability to read three sentences (all of which were about the same topic) and post an aye or nay within five days. If anything buried the announcement, it was the persistent argument during the voting period.

[Sirius_]

The voting statement was included in a three sentence post and voting was open for five days. At that point senators are responsible for their own missed votes, I can not overturn the rules over an inability to read three sentences (all of which were about the same topic) and post an aye or nay within five days. If anything buried the announcement, it was the persistent argument during the voting period.

You have bent the rules to prevent the tabling of bills twice before when you saw fit and also failed to close an amendment vote for days while another vote was started on this bill. You also further saw fit to unilaterally assume the office of "President pro tempore" when the rules said that you could only assume the Acting position without being elected.

Furthermore, what you consider argument, I consider debate. Or should this body only post votes without debate in your view?

You're allowed to debate at any point, but I am simply stating that doing it during the voting periods can lead to confusion. I can not stop you, but maybe you should keep that in mind. And frankly, you're flip flopping on the interpretation of the rules. I did not take this position with the intention of regularly bending the rules, I had a frankly sh**t situation at the start that I wanted to clean up, and now that has been done. But now you're complaining that I'm following the rules. I am not responsible if senators don't show up to vote. I am not responsible if they don't pay attention to what I say. I have never complained and demanded a redo when I have missed votes before. And the "acting" thing is just ridiculous, styling myself without that qualifier does not change what my actual position is.

[Sirius_]

If you had a problem with both votes being held concurrently, you should have raised that objection when I opened the vote and not after I closed it. Multiple concurrent amendment votes is definitely something that has occurred in recent memory. And do I need to announce everything in big colorful letters now?

Earlier today I had it in my head that West_Dem's vote was not crucial, I was wrong about that. I will invite the Vice President to break the tie, but it doesn't look like it will matter as your latest amendment has received no objection.

[Sirius_]

The objection has been heard, we are currently awaiting the tiebreaker

[Sirius_]

The vote on the West Midlander amendment is now open, please vote aye, nay, or abstain

[Sirius_]

The amendment is adopted

[Sirius_]

Abstain