The F-22 voting thread

[StevenNick]

Aye.

[Niles Caulder]

Don't bill proposals expire without an explicit extention?  Is this really a live bill any more?

[Peter]

If a bill is under consideration in one session in the real world, and that session expires, then the bill expires with it. Since the third Congress has expired, then any bills it was considering expire also, including the F22 bill. Senators from the previous session are not allowed to vote on bills in the next session if they were voted out of office, such a system is utterly ridiculous as it allows people who were chucked from office by the voters to be able to continue to discharge the office - clearly this violates the principles of a democracy.

The Attorney General considers that any action in the previous vote is hereby void and that the bill will not be considered constitutional if passed by the Third Congress in this, the Fourth Congress. Of course, the bill may be re-introduced into this Congress.

[The Duke]

Don't bill proposals expire without an explicit extention?  Is this really a live bill any more?

I didn't think so, but the Senate seemed to disagree so why resist.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I wonder why so many weddings are being bombed. Are there really that many getting married???

I hope this doesn't bode ill for the Fritz/Hughento wedding.

[The Duke]

Let's not allow this to drop from the page again, okay?

[Peter]

This Bill needs legislative language:
The F-22 Bill

$4,500 million per year for then next ten years will be allocated to the Department of Defense for the purpose of developing a naval version of the F-22 fighter and to accelerate the development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
This bill needs a Senator to adopt it and to take it into the Senate, it then needs to be given debate time by JFK or the VP. This actually came to a vote last time without legislative language, but since Ernest had left his post by then, I'm not at all surprised.

If anything is wrong with the above terminology, I apologise, I'm not good with military jargon (hence me being AG not SecDef). I would also like John Ford to confirm that the spending package I outline is correct, as it is not explicitly clear in his original post.

[The Duke]

This Bill needs legislative language:
The F-22 Bill

$4,500 million per year for then next ten (??) years will be allocated to the Department of Defense for the purpose of developing a naval version of the F-22 fighter and to accelerate the development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
This bill needs a Senator to adopt it and to take it into the Senate, it then needs to be given debate time by JFK or the VP. This actually came to a vote last time without legislative language, but since Ernest had left his post by then, I'm not at all surprised.

If anything is wrong with the above terminology, I apologise, I'm not good with military jargon (hence me being AG not SecDef). I would also like John Ford to confirm that the spending package I outline is correct, as it is not explicitly clear in his original post.

Language is fine.  I hope the Senators don't have to vote over again because of this procedural issue.

[Peter]

Language is fine.  I hope the Senators don't have to vote over again because of this procedural issue.

Of course they need to vote over again considering the fact that half of them are out of office now. Votes cannot be carried over into another Congress, which is what nearly happened here. I think there's actually a bill somewhere that got six votes for it, but since the PPT/VP never bothered to close the poll and send it to the President, it actually never passed. This bill had not been heavily voted on before anyway so its not that much of an issue to put it back through.

[Siege40]

I'll support this bill, when/if it comes to a vote. Does a Senator still need to bring it in?

Siege

[The Duke]

I'll support this bill, when/if it comes to a vote. Does a Senator still need to bring it in?

Siege

Yes, could you formally introduce the bill?