S1, third time's a charm: Restoration of the IDS (Tabled)

[JustinTimeCuber]

This is stupid, and I'm pretty sure we have to do that through a constitutional amendment anyway.

I motion to suspend the rules and table this Act, the Go West Young Man Act, the Atheists are our Friends Act, the Leinad Appreciation Act, the Southern Heritage Act, the Charter Schools Act, the Free Range Prison Act, the Regional Tree Act, the Song of the South Act, the Official Beverage Act, the Southern Airport Renaming Act, and the Decorum of the Chamber of Delegates, on the grounds that these twelve pieces of legislation were introduced in rapid succession, one every 5 minutes, after Delegate Ben Kenobi realized that his political allies were not going to have a majority in the Chamber.

If and only if that motion is out of order, then I motion to table (only) this Act.

[JustinTimeCuber]

What is going on? What is this nonsense? We have more serious issues to address, for Heaven's sake.

Is that a second?

[JustinTimeCuber]

Oh come on, how is improving our name "ridiculous?!?"

And what is going on? The sponsored bills are being introduced. The frivolity of some of those bills does not change whether or not we should obey the rules of the Chamber and introduce bills sponsored by duly-elected Delegates.

We've got stuff to do, and he obviously only did that because of partisan hackery to slow down progress of our new government. He started 5 minutes after the election ended. It was already clear he'd be re-elected, he had like a 3 or 4 vote lead. It's not like this is a unilateral decision either, it would need to be backed by 3 of the 5 delegates like any other motion or legislation. If either of my Labor colleagues want any of these bills to pass, they would vote against the motion.

PS I don't understand why some Laborites hate the name IDS. I think we can do better, but come on, can we at least have a bit of fun??

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Motion to suspend requires unanimous agreement.

This motion fails.

Says who?

Also, you're not the Speaker anymore, just want to clear that up. Fhtagn is.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Motions to suspend the rules and bypass them require unanimous consent. As we did earlier in the session to do the revote and suspend the rules then.

I asked unanimous consent because there didn't seem to need to be a vote.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Motion to suspend requires unanimous agreement.

This motion fails.

Says who?

I mean if something requires unanimous consent literally any delegate can oppose it and it will fail. Hence "unanimous."

No, who says that I need unanimous consent? The rules don't say anything about it. I'd prefer if everyone stopped bickering. I'm willing to withdraw my motion if we can quickly get through these nonsense bills.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If a simple majority were sufficient to suspend the rules, we could have cancelled the election, Cuber.

It's really quite clear suspension of the rules can be done, as we did, with unanimous consent. Which - unfortunately, you don't have.

rules =/= the constitution

e: Actually you couldn't have anyway, you only had 2 partisan hacks in the Chamber back then.

okay, would everyone just calm down, so that we can vote on this and move on to the next one? I withdraw my motion because apparently it makes me a partisan hack or something.

[JustinTimeCuber]

NAY

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I file a motion to extend the debate on this bill.

I have 24 hours for a seconder.

Voting stops.

Dude, you are not the Speaker. Since I am equally as much the Speaker as you are, I hereby declare that voting resumes.

[JustinTimeCuber]

I just want to stop wasting time on this nonsense.

This bill is poorly written and questionably constitutional.

[JustinTimeCuber]

To my understanding, if fhtagn, JTC, and Jacobin American object to Ben and CE's motion, the motion gets shot down and voting can resume.

JA also seconded it.

I think this bill is horribly written, especially coming from someone who is supposedly concerned about us being a "deliberative body".

This just names us "the IDS". It doesn't make Nev become Emperor, it doesn't even make us the Imperial Dominion (which is a silly name to begin with). It might as well stand for "I Don't like corporatiSm or It Doesn't even Sh!t. I'd also prefer we have a referendum like a civilized society might.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Debate seems to have died down, I request a final vote

[JustinTimeCuber]

I move to table this Bill on the grounds that it is unspecific and unclear and is not worth any more serious consideration. Is there a second?

[JustinTimeCuber]

I call the question on the current motion on the floor.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Votey time! Fhtagn?

[JustinTimeCuber]

AYE

[JustinTimeCuber]

Actually, my motion for amendment came first.

The motion for Tabling is out of order.

Voting stops, as we cannot vote on a motion issued out of order.

Your motion was not seconded.

[JustinTimeCuber]

I second the motion.

That motion died after failing to find a second. We're currently voting on the motion to table. If the motion to table fails, one could move to amend again.

[JustinTimeCuber]

LMAO. 1-0 vote in favor to table, amirite?

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Active motion is to vote on the bill as amended.

This bill was tabled and therefore debate has ended, you can always bring it back up in the order paper you so dearly care about

[JustinTimeCuber]

My motion to vote on the amendment was sustained by Celtic Empire, which took precedence by virtue of being the first active motion.

So the tabling motion is wholly out of order.

My motion was seconded before yours, so it takes precedent.

We can make up rules like this all day.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you failed to close the active motion, rendering Cuber's motion to table out of order.

Motions don't fail until you close them, fhtagn. You did not close my motion, and so it remained the active motion.

If my motion to table had failed, your motion would have been in order. My motion was duly moved and seconded before yours was, so there is no reason yours should override, let alone stop the voting on, mine.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Fhtagn is the only one who can fail a motion, Cuber. Until she does, the motion was active. You can't pass a tabling motion until Fhtagn closes the motion for amendment, which she did not, before my motion was seconded.

Look back when I was speaker, I took the motions up and closed them if they failed.

That's not true. If less than a majority of voting delegates vote to table, the motion fails. That's how voting and democracy work, which I'm sure you have strong support for, after all, you wouldn't dream of filibustering every action of a democratically elected government you happen to disagree with.

Back when you were Speaker, NeverAgain and Spenstar had the decency not to inhibit any activity they could.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We have two votes for amending the bill and voting on the amendment and 2 votes for tabling. I'm not sure why you're arguing for majority rule here.

Why not let the bill come up for a vote, Cuber? You argued that I should amend it and I amended it in accordance to your requests.

Obviously I am listening to your criticisms in improving my bill.

You could have voted against my motion to table while the vote was going on. You didn't.

Also, I'm sure I don't have to say this, because I'm sure you are a mathematical wizard, but 1 is a majority of a group of size 1.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, I brought up a point of order regarding the active motions. That wasn't addressed until after my motion was seconded.

Oh, well I apologize that you were allowed to decide that your logic was automatically correct without waiting for verdict of the Speaker, and as such assumed that voting on the motion to table your own legislation was unnecessary.