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

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Motion to suspend requires unanimous agreement.

This motion fails.

[Wisconsin+17]

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.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed. But Speakers cannot introduce bills out of order. And your motion just failed to suspend the rules to take them out of order.

This is why you should have taken up my agreement to pass your rule changes first, rather than what you actually chose to do with the constitutional committee and taking it to the people of the South.

Now, the rules are unchanged and you have to play by them.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Wisconsin+17]

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.

[Wisconsin+17]

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.

[Wisconsin+17]

Perhaps we should actually be debating the content of the bill here? Since we are, supposedly a deliberative body, no?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My motion is in order, Mr. Cuber

Are you seconding it?

[Wisconsin+17]

Also, ftaghn, you are supposed to contact ALL delegates whenever a vote is called.

[Wisconsin+17]

My motion to extend debate 48 hours is upheld. The vote stops.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are a chamber of deliberation, Mr. Cuber. I get that you don't like the legislation but that is hardly outside the scope of this body to discuss matters of great comport.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How so? This region has been called the IDS before. Why would it be unconstitutional for the region to change it's name?

It's entirely within the scope of the delegates to decide this issue. Names have been changed, Fremont did the same. Why can't we?

[Wisconsin+17]

Hi guys. Sorry. Been away the last few days kicking the ass out of school assignments.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's a bit of swagger, yes. But we're the South. Why shouldn't we have a bit of swagger? After all, we are the best region.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have worked with Never Again in the past. I actually like him. My issues with him stemmed from overstepping his authority as Governor. Nothing more nor less. I believe it's my obligation as a delegate to protect the privileges of the chamber, not just for me, but for delegates of the future.

I have no issues with calling Governor Never Again "Emperor". Or whomever bears that title.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that's what we're here for! Discussion!

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, this bill was on the order paper long before Nev proposed the SIRC. Discussions on restoring the IDS have occurred since I was elected to the delegates 6 months ago.  I think this particular issue is worthy of individual discussion apart from the SIRC.

As for Imperialism, would you regard Napoleonic Europe as bad imperialism? Much of the existing power structure of Europe was reformed into the nation states that we are familiar with today.

[Wisconsin+17]

I'm proposing an amendment to the bill, in response to JTC's criticisms

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Wisconsin+17]

I move we vote on the proposed amendment.

[Wisconsin+17]

Oppose the motion to table the bill.

[Wisconsin+17]

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.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are two motions, Mr. Cuber.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your exact words:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You did not specify *which* motion, Mr. Cuber. Technically this counts as seconding my motion.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Motion to second, sustained.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Active motion is to vote on the bill as amended.

[Wisconsin+17]

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.

[Wisconsin+17]

Tough, the motion to vote on the amendment was the active motion, fhtagn. It was seconded and so takes precedence over the 'tabling'.

Anyways, I call the question on the vote on the amendment since I started the motion vote on the amended bill and Celtic seconded it.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, yeah it was.

Sorry, you can't just dismiss a seconded motion, fhtagn by pretending that it wasn't seconded.

[Wisconsin+17]

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.