OK, with the absents of the speaker, I think that we should make the time a bit shorter, like about 60 hours instead.

I myself prefer the 72 hour standard as it just seems neater and a bit easier, but I could see a 60 hour standard working as well. Is there any reason in particular you think 72 hours doesn't cut it?

When are we going to get rid of our silly names? I asked that earlier and was ignored by our legislature.

If I remember correctly, you asked right before we were swallowed up by procedures. I don't know how the other legislators feel, but at this point I'm sitting back and letting the new Emperor propose any constitutional changes. One of the big issues he ran on was constitutional change and I thought he might like to be the one to have first crack at how and what should be changed.

I thought it was amazing. Good job.

[1] Dereich (FED-FL) (i)
[2] Hashemite (NMM-FL) (i)
[3] write-in: Pingvin99
[4] Alfred F. Jones (LAB-PR)
[5] write-in: Seatown

This is the worst election ever. NONE of the main candidates support free trade and I don't want to be a fool and vote for the libertarian. I guess I'll just have to abstain.

And anyone who believes that forum leftists WEREN'T the ones who made Buchanan the nominee are either lying or aren't very smart.

The Northeast and Mideast continue to pull their own legislative weight while the other three regions lag behind. Get stuff done, IDS!

You will see soon how dull it is to argue procedural issues. It takes a very special kind of person to enjoy debating them.

On another note, looking at Zanas's old docket what seems to be remaining is:

-Consolidated IDS Legislature Rules and Procedures
-Safe and Inclusive Schools Act
-Annexation of the states of Coahuila and Tamaulipas : kept in the back of the queue
(As sponsor of the Creating Job Opportunities Act of 2013 I'm removing it from the docket)


So if you have a new bill to put forward we don't have that much remaining to discuss. Also, Sjoyce has a few proposed amendments that are looking for a sponsor if anyone wants to do it.

Yes, it has been a bit slow and dull here. Procedure issues don't exactly make for lively debate. Amendments are just as you think, submitted in a quote box like so:

Amendment Text

Which can either be accepted by Hashemite as friendly or treated as hostile in which case it is voted on by the legislature. I could have a detail or two wrong, I haven't really checked the current procedures, but if you're intent is clear it'll be accepted.

I still like the idea of giving the option to the legislature to object instead of requiring it, but I don't think that any more assurances are necessary. We won't get "3 seatowns" in the legislature anytime soon and I'm sure we can always count on one or two to not inject unnecessary partisanship into an appointment like this. So, other then that and an amendment clarifying the length of a speaker's absence do we have anything else we want to amend?

Anyways, if Jeb Bush had a different name, he'd be up there with Christie as a candidate.

He's only a candidate because of his name.

What? He's the most popular living former Florida Governor and is still seen within the state as the Republican party's intellectual leader. Elsewhere his reputation may be based on his name, but in his home state he's got a lot of goodwill left over, especially among state Republicans. Being popular and experienced in the largest swing state would put anyone on the map as a top candidate.

An overly partisan legislature nixing an Emperor's suggestion on partisan grounds is just as bad as an Emperor appointing someone on partisan grounds. As for suggestions, perhaps change it to allow the appointment to go through automatically unless the legislature voluntarily rejects it? I just don't want to add unnecessary extra votes to a legislature that already takes time to get things moving.

As for the time period, since legislation under this bill is required to be discussed for at least 72 hours maybe that should be the timeframe? If a speaker introduces something and is away for longer then that the problems would really start.

I think I agree with Sjoyce on this. Getting legislative approval for appointments seems time consuming and mostly pointless when elections are so frequent anyway. As long as future Emperors continue to appoint people who are more or less similar ideologically to the legislator who is leaving I don't think its necessary. The only problem is if some future Emperor decides to throw that precedent out.

I agree with Velasco that a clarification of 8.1.4 is in order, voting for a new speaker seems a bit excessive for, say, a two day absence.


My biggest problem with the bill is that it forces too many formal procedures on what has always been a less formal process. It'll be difficult to adapt to using motions and introducing cloture and I'm not sure if the benefits from the change are worth it.

Uhh...can you introduce that? Aren't only legislators able to introduce something like that?

Voted Paul but it left a bad taste in my mouth. I hope I never have to choose between so many terrible candidates.

Ok then, I'll bring up the rest of the bill for debate:

SECTION 6: FINAL VOTES

6.1 If debate on the legislation under consideration has halted for longer than twenty-four (24) hours, the amount of debate time that the legislation has been given exceeds seventy-two (72) hours and there are no amendments pending, any Legislator may call for a final vote on said legislation.

6.2 At any time after the first seventy-two (72) hours of debate that are mandated, a motion for cloture passed with the concurrence of a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the Legislature shall end the debate, and the Speaker shall open a vote on the legislation under consideration. If the Legislature is presently voting on any legislative amendments, or if there are any Amendments pending, then the Legislature shall not vote on the motion for cloture until said amendments have been disposed of.
 
(6.2.1) After a motion for cloture has been made, no amendments to the legislation under consideration may be introduced unless said motion is rejected by the Legislature.

(6.2.1) If there is a consensus that work on the bill is finished, the Speaker may ask unanimous consent to waive the cloture vote requirement and proceed immediately to a final vote, on a piece of legislation. Legislators shall have 24 hours to object to the request, after which with no Legislator having objected, the Legislature shall proceed to a final vote on the legislation.

6.3 Final votes shall be open for forty-eight (48) hours, or until all Legislators have voted, if earlier. An amendment shall pass if a majority of Legislators vote in favour (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes). The Speaker shall certify the results of any vote within twenty-four (24) hours of the end of the voting period.

(6.3.1) The Speaker may halt a final vote only if proposed amendment to a piece of legislation has been missed.

(6.3.2) Until a piece of legislation under consideration has garnered enough votes either to pass or fail, no Legislator shall be prohibited from changing his or her vote on the legislation. Following the garnering of enough votes to either pass or fail, the Speaker shall announce this fact publicly in the appropriate thread. All Legislators shall have a period of time lasting twenty-four (24) hours after this announcement during which they may change their votes on the legislation. Following the expiration of this twenty-four (24) hour time period, the Speaker shall publicly declare the vote total to be final and shall apply said vote total to the legislation. All Legislators shall be prohibited from changing their votes on the legislation after this time.

SECTION 7: VETO OVERRIDE

7.1 The Emperor's veto on any piece of legislation duly approved by the Legislature may be overridden in accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the IDS Constitution.

SECTION 8: SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATURE

8.1 The IDS Legislature shall elect a Speaker from within its membership at the start of every legislative session as specified by Article II, Section 3 of the IDS Constitution.

(8.1.1) After all Legislators have sworn in, Legislators who wish to run for Speaker will have forty-eight (48) hours to declare in "The Imperial Dominion of the South's Legislature" thread or a new thread as specified by later legislation.

(8.1.2) Once this time has elapsed, a vote on the election of the new Speaker will be opened in the same thread as specified in Subsection 1.1 above. This vote shall be opened for forty-eight (48) hours, or until all Legislators have voted, if earlier.

(8.1.3) Procedures to be followed in the case of an absence of a majority in the election of a Speaker or a vacancy in the position are specified in Article II, Sections 4 and 5 of the IDS Constitution.

(8.1.3.1) If "the Legislator with the longest continuous service" is the same as the Speaker who has vacated the position, the Legislator will the second-longest continuous service shall serve as Speaker.

(8.1.3.2) If the Legislator designated to serve as Speaker under the conditions specified in Subsections 1.3 and 1.3.1 publicly indicates that he/she does not wish to serve as Speaker, a new election must be held under the regular procedures.

(8.1.4) In the event that a Speaker publicly declares a leave of absence for a period longer than twenty-four (24) hours, he/she will be temporarily replaced until his/her return by the person designated according to Subsections 1.3 and 1.3.1 above.

3.3 It shall be the responsibility of the Speaker of the Legislature to maintain a schedule of upcoming bills, in "The Imperial Dominion of the South's Legislature" thread or a new thread as specified by later legislation.

3.4 The Speaker shall conduct and direct all other tasks as specified in this resolution.

SECTION 9: AUTOMATIC VACANCIES AND EXPULSION OF MEMBERS

9.1 Any Legislators which fails or neglects to post on any matter of legislative business for a period of not less than 15 days, except if the Legislator in question has publicly posted a leave of absence with intent to return, the seat shall be automatically deemed vacant.

9.2 A Legislator may be expelled according to the procedure specified in Article II, Section 9 of the IDS Constitution.

SECTION 10: OATHS OF OFFICE

10.1 The new Legislators shall be inaugurated by an oath of office. The oath is: "I, (name of Legislator), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Imperial Dominion of the South against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me Dave"

Is there any objection? Hash? Jerry?

Aye

I will run for reelection to the IDS legislature.

If we pass this I think we'd need a new main thread as well as any change we make to the legislation introduction thread. I'm not entirely sure how it works, but I don't THINK anyone but the thread's creator can change its title. If we keep this (entirely sensible) provision in we'd either need to create a new thread or bring back someone who has been gone for a long time. Its kind of sad to abandon this old, long thread but if we're going through with lots of changes I suppose this is a good place to start. I think Sjoyce's idea of having the stickied almanac be the legislation introduction thread is a good idea and I'll sponsor his proposed amendment. I really like this bill and again see nothing I object to.


Also, as Speaker Zanas is stepping down, I guess I'll throw my hat in the ring and run for the speakership. If elected I'd try to keep us going without too many delays and I'd do my best to work in a fair and unbiased manner.

Its sad to see you step down from the speakership. Whatever your personal beliefs, you always conducted business in the legislature in an unbiased and professional manner. I'm glad that I got to work with you in the legislature.

President Barack Obama (D): C+
Vice President Joe Biden (D): C
Senator Bill Nelson (D): B-
Senator Marco Rubio (R): B
Representative Ander Crenshaw (R): A+

Governor Rick Scott (R): C+
State Senator Aaron Bean (R): A
State Representative Janet Adkins (R): B-
Mayor Alvin Brown (D): A-

Bacon King, we're just all glad you're alright.

I think taking the strategy to a larger scale would backfire. Yes (O)

I don't think ANYONE in the IDS could beat Yankee. The seat is his as long as he wants it. Yankee, Yankee, Yankee, Yankee for me.

Something I just saw that really applies to this: BVA poll: Sarkozy 29%, Le Pen 24%, Hollande 20%