SR 116-29: Tabling is a Tool of Racial Conquest Resolution - WITHDRAWN

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Changes to Senate Rules

Tabling is a Tool of Racial Conquest Resolution

1. The naming of the resolution is done because of the following quote

The motion to table is a tool of racial conquest.

2. The following change shall be done to the senate rules

(...)

Article 5: Motions to Table
1.) Any Senator Only the Sponsor and the President Pro Tempore can, during a period of debate, with the support of one other Senator, introduce a motion to table the legislation.

2.) The presiding officer shall open a vote on the motion to table. This vote shall last for a maximum of four (4) days during which time the Senators must vote. Voting may be declared final at any time if the motion to table has been approved or rejected, and if a majority of Senators have voted.

3.) For the motion to table to pass, two-thirds half of those voting (excluding abstentions) must support the motion.

4.) Tabled legislation shall be taken off the Senate floor by the President Pro Tempore.

(...)

3. The change will take effect immediately

Sponsor: Laki
Occupying: Slot 14

[NewYorkExpress]

I think Laki's only introducing this as part of a hissy fit because multiple Senators, myself included have been trying to table his legislation.

It's not tabling that's broken, it's the fact that it's being done for political purposes, rather than on the merits of the bill being discussed.

As such, I can't support a change to the Senate rules here.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I think Laki's only introducing this as part of a hissy fit because multiple Senators, myself included have been trying to table his legislation.

It's not tabling that's broken, it's the fact that it's being done for political purposes, rather than on the merits of the bill being discussed.

As such, I can't support a change to the Senate rules here.

There are final votes that can be rejected. Tabling is mostly done for filibustering given rarely one gets to 2/3rd majority unless there's unanimous agreement or when the sponsor feels he wants to table it himself.

[NewYorkExpress]

I think Laki's only introducing this as part of a hissy fit because multiple Senators, myself included have been trying to table his legislation.

It's not tabling that's broken, it's the fact that it's being done for political purposes, rather than on the merits of the bill being discussed.

As such, I can't support a change to the Senate rules here.

There are final votes that can be rejected. Tabling is mostly done for filibustering given rarely one gets to 2/3rd majority unless there's unanimous agreement or when the sponsor feels he wants to table it himself.

I'm sorry Laki, but you are literally introducing this because you are having a hissy fit that your legislation is being specifically targeted. I'm not supporting this.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I think Laki's only introducing this as part of a hissy fit because multiple Senators, myself included have been trying to table his legislation.

It's not tabling that's broken, it's the fact that it's being done for political purposes, rather than on the merits of the bill being discussed.

As such, I can't support a change to the Senate rules here.

There are final votes that can be rejected. Tabling is mostly done for filibustering given rarely one gets to 2/3rd majority unless there's unanimous agreement or when the sponsor feels he wants to table it himself.

I'm sorry Laki, but you are literally introducing this because you are having a hissy fit that your legislation is being specifically targeted. I'm not supporting this.

Tabling doesn't stimulate debating and i don't think anyone else other than myself (sponsor) or PPT should be able to motion to table a bill.

As i say, it's pointless. Not a single motion to table has passed, because you need two thirds of the senate voting for it to pass.

It's better to reject a bill on a final vote if you disagree with.

[NewYorkExpress]

I think Laki's only introducing this as part of a hissy fit because multiple Senators, myself included have been trying to table his legislation.

It's not tabling that's broken, it's the fact that it's being done for political purposes, rather than on the merits of the bill being discussed.

As such, I can't support a change to the Senate rules here.

There are final votes that can be rejected. Tabling is mostly done for filibustering given rarely one gets to 2/3rd majority unless there's unanimous agreement or when the sponsor feels he wants to table it himself.

I'm sorry Laki, but you are literally introducing this because you are having a hissy fit that your legislation is being specifically targeted. I'm not supporting this.

Tabling doesn't stimulate debating and i don't think anyone else other than myself (sponsor) or PPT should be able to motion to table a bill.

As i say, it's pointless. Not a single motion to table has passed, because you need two thirds of the senate voting for it to pass.

It's better to reject a bill on a final vote if you disagree with.

That doesn't change the fact that this wouldn't have been introduced if you hadn't had a hissy fit over your bills being targeted.

[West_Midlander]

I oppose this.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Motioning to table this bill.

[NewYorkExpress]

Seconded.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I will recognize this as a withdrawal by the Sponsor. The bill is withdrawn.