Return to September 10th Bill [Final passage at vote]

[Colin]

Just a bump for Senator Meeker to decide whether he would like to vote on the approval of the Presidential redraft or seek a veto overide.

[Meeker]

My apologies.

I would like to seek a veto override. Just because the government tells you to violate the Constitution does not make it acceptable.

[Colin]

Actually my reading of the Amendment was in error. You can either have the Senate vote on the approval of the President's draft or you may withdraw your bill. You can promote a voting down of the redrafted bill if you wish however your two choices at this stage are putting the redraft up to an approval vote or withdrawing the bill.

[Meeker]

So if we vote down the redraft than the bill is just done?

[Colin]

So if we vote down the redraft than the bill is just done?

This is what Amendment XIX says on the issue, "If the Senate rejects the President's redraft, the original sponsor shall either file a motion to send the original draft of the bill back to the President for his signature or veto, or shall direct the Senate to resume debate on the bill as presented to the President." So if the Senate votes down the redraft you can either resume debate on the bill or send the bill back to the President for his signature or veto. However if the President vetos the bill a second time he cannot use his power of redraft. It would have to be a full veto and would be treated as a normal Presidential veto, allowing the Senate to override it with a 2/3rds majority.

[Meeker]

So, just to be clear, if we vote down the redraft than we can re-pass the original bill and then he has to either sign or veto that in full?

[Colin]

So, just to be clear, if we vote down the redraft than we can re-pass the original bill and then he has to either sign or veto that in full?

If the Senate votes down the redraft then you, as sponsor, have the choice to either begin debate on the bill again or send it back to the President for his signature or veto. If he vetos the bill again then you, as sponsor, can ask the Senate to proceed with normal veto override procedures.

[Meeker]

So, just to be clear, if we vote down the redraft than we can re-pass the original bill and then he has to either sign or veto that in full?

If you vote down the redraft then you, as sponsor, have the choice to either begin debate on the bill again or send it back to the President for his signature or veto. If he vetos the bill again then you, as sponsor, can ask the Senate to proceed with normal veto override procedures.

And so when I just automatically send it back to the President after the Senate votes down the redraft, it's the bill that was originally passed by the Senate?

[Colin]

So, just to be clear, if we vote down the redraft than we can re-pass the original bill and then he has to either sign or veto that in full?

If you vote down the redraft then you, as sponsor, have the choice to either begin debate on the bill again or send it back to the President for his signature or veto. If he vetos the bill again then you, as sponsor, can ask the Senate to proceed with normal veto override procedures.

And so when I just automatically send it back to the President after the Senate votes down the redraft, it's the bill that was originally passed by the Senate?

Yep. The original bill, passed by the Senate. If the redraft is rejected by the Senate it, for all intents and purposes, no longer exists.

[Meeker]

Alright. Then I would like the Senate to vote, and preferably reject, the President's redraft.

[Colin]

Alright, we are now voting on the approval of the Presidential redraft of the Return to September 10th Act.

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Torie]

It would be nice to have a debate on this. What is  F.L. 22-7?  I am worried about ex post facto application. Absent that, it is a close question, but I would tend to favor. But if forced to rush without discussion, I will vote Nay.

[Meeker]

Nay

[Colin]

It would be nice to have a debate on this.

We've had five pages of debate on this bill, I would suggest you go look at them. The decision to open this up again for debate is the sponsors choice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

FL 22-7: Cruel and Inhumane Treatment Act

F.L stands for Forum Law. 22-7 means that it was the 7th bill passed in the 22nd Senate. The full text is on the Wiki at the link provided.


I vote Nay on the approval of the redraft.

[minionofmidas]

I propose the following amendment.

Section 5: Guantanamo Bay
1. The prison camp located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is to be closed within six months after this act becomes law.

2.
a. All those presently detained without due charge or detained though any other process of the law shall be released to their country of origin.
b. All those detained with due charge or detained though any other process of the law shall be put on trial.
c. All those who have been formally found guilty of charges brought before the court shall be transferred to a maximum security prison in Atlasia as per instructions of the judge.
d. All those found not guilty shall be released to their country of origin.

That doesn't solve anything.

-There is nobody charged as of right now irl, and only one convicted - and he's not at Gitmo anymore. (He made a bargain according to which both he and his home country - Australia - accepted the validity of the current legal setup - he was officially sentenced, and he could go home. He spent a couple of months in an Australian prison, and was released this december.)
Two more people were charged under the current setup, but these charges were dismissed. They nonetheless remain at Gitmo.

-I am not prepared to accept Bush's kangaroo court's verdicts - now Congress' kangaroo court, sorry bout that - as valid sentences by a legitimate court of law, due largely to judicial independence issues.
The US Supreme Court will rule on the issue again in Summer.

-Because the framework that set them up was set up well after Atlasia was founded, it can be safely considered not to exist in Atlasia (even if Atlasia does have a base at Gitmo, something I'm not too sure about.) Therefore, in Atlasia at any rate, Sections 2b and 2c are meaningless.

-Some of the people at Gitmo are (still) there only because releasing them to their country of origin would mean their certain death. A number of Chinese citizens, for instance. We'd need an asylum provision for these people. Even though they are, of course, Islamists, and potentially violent ones at that.
Approximately 70 of the approximately 355 at Gitmo are there either because of that or because their home country refuses to take them back. Approximately 420 additional people have passed through Gitmo's gates during the term of its existence.

Afleitch's well-intentioned but in effect half contentless, half potentially murderous amendment having been passed by the 25th Senate after being voted down by the 26th, with none of the points addressed here clarified (sorry Porce, the

existing ban on extraditing people who have a risk of facing death or torture

is not enough to satisfy my qualms. Not with any alternative allowed by the law) I'll do anything necessary to reopen debate in order to fix the problem, and everything possible to stop this monstrosity from becoming law.

As to the lesser-relevancy opening sections, I prefer the bill passed by the Senate to the presidential redraft, but don't particularly care.

I am therefore voting nay on the presidential redraft, and urging Meeker to reopen debate in case the nays have it, or failing that, urging Moderate to veto the bill.

[Torie]

Nay. The whole thing is a mess, unfortunately. The original bill might be worse, but I will cross that bridge when we come to it. Maybe amendments will fix it.

[CultureKing]

aye

[Colin]

Current Tally on Redraft

Aye: 1 (CultureKing)
Nay: 3 (Meeker, Colin Wixted, Torie)
Abstain: 0
Yet to Vote: 6 (Lewis Trondheim, Conor Flynn, Verily, afleitch, EarlAW, DWTL)

Voting ends on 20 July at 11:59 PM.

[minionofmidas]

Current Tally on Redraft

Aye: 1 (CultureKing)
Nay: 3 (Meeker, Colin Wixted, Torie)
Abstain: 0
Yet to Vote: 6 (Lewis Trondheim, Conor Flynn, Verily, afleitch, EarlAW, DWTL)

Voting ends on 20 July at 11:59 PM.

I voted:

(snip)

I am therefore voting nay on the presidential redraft, (...)

I admit it was hidden in a jungle of text, but I thought highlighting it would take care of that.

[Colin]

Current Tally on Redraft

Aye: 1 (CultureKing)
Nay: 3 (Meeker, Colin Wixted, Torie)
Abstain: 0
Yet to Vote: 6 (Lewis Trondheim, Conor Flynn, Verily, afleitch, EarlAW, DWTL)

Voting ends on 20 July at 11:59 PM.

I voted:

(snip)

I am therefore voting nay on the presidential redraft, (...)

I admit it was hidden in a jungle of text, but I thought highlighting it would take care of that.

Thanks Lewis. I thought I remember counting your vote somewhere, maybe for the count on the noticeboard, I just forgot it here.

[Verily]

Nay.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Nay, that should put this one to rest

[Colin]

The Presidential redraft now has enough votes to fail. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[afleitch]

Nay ftr

[Colin]

Final Tally

Aye: 1 (CultureKing)
Nay: 7 (Meeker, Colin Wixted, Lewis Trondheim, Torie, Verily, DWTL, afleitch)
Abstain: 0
Not Voting: 1 (Conor Flynn)


With 1 for with 7 against the Presidential redraft is hereby rejected. The original bill is submitted again to the President for his signature or veto.