Amendment to Article 2 of the OSPR (Passed)

[Fritz]

If you want a "flexible system", Max, then you should be all in favor of this.    Flexible is exactly what it is.

Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution has this to say on the matter:

3.The Vice President of the Republic of Atlasia shall be the President of the Senate, but shall have no vote unless they be equally divided.
4.The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, who shall act as President of the Senate in the absence of the Vice President.

There is no other mention of the President of the Senate, or the President Pro Tempore, in the Constitution that I have found (if there is one that I missed, I'm sure someone will tell me    ).  Their powers and duties are defined by the document I am attempting to amend.  What we really have, under the current rules, is a Vice-President who acts as President of the Senate only in the absence of the PPT.  I think the current rules are unconstitutional.  The Constitution states the PPT "shall act as President of the Senate in the absence of the Vice President."  But the rules have this process in reverse!  What is a President of the Senate?  Shouldn't a President actually preside over the body he is President of?  Under the current rules, the President of the Senate is really the Vice-President of the Senate, and the PPT is the real President.  This seems contrary to the language in the Constitution.

This proposal does allow for flexibility! At any time, the VP may confer upon the PPT the powers and duties of the Presiding Officer.  (He can also take them back.)  It is up to the VP to decide whether he wants to actively preside, or let the PPT do it.

         

[Fritz]

1.  This proposal follows the Constitution, the current system does not.

2.  This proposal is more flexible than the current system.

[Fritz]

I've been wondering ever since I joined the Senate, what is OSPR?  Isn't this CSRRP?

Anyways, with this in effect, BK could have jumped in quicker when MJ went inactive last fall.  Also he could have just retained the leadership (it was not long until the end of the session) rather than scrambling to get a PPT elected.  The same is true for when Franzl was promoted to SoFA.

[Fritz]

Is there any citizen out there who was involved in the actual drafting of these rules- that which is being referred to as OSPR- who could comment on why the Constitution is so blatantly contradicted?

[Fritz]

Aye

[Fritz]

Afleitch? Mint?

[Fritz]

Since this appears to be headed for failure, I would like to hear from my fellow Senators- and in particular, from those who voted nay- regarding how we will address the constitutionality issue.  The Senate rules are in direct conflict with the constitution.  Since you don't appear to want the rules changed, I must presume a constitutional amendment is forthcoming from one of you?

[Fritz]

The Constitution also states: "The Senate may establish rules for its own proceedings..."

True, but this does not give the Senate the power to establish rules that contradict the Constitution.

[Fritz]

First off, Yankee, I have no problem with your performance as PPT.  I think you have been doing a fine job.

As you recall, my original bill was to abolish the PPT altogether.  My intent was to make an improvement to game play, not to address any constitutional issues.  The office of PPT has been in a state of severe flux over the past two Senates.  I believed this change would provide more stability to the leadership.  Also, my feeling is that this change gives some purpose to the office of Vice-President: a basically useless office, except when the President or PPT is absent.

Then, Peter pointed out that the PPT is a constitutional office, and that an amendment would be required.  In my review of the constitution, I found this glaring inconsistency between the constitution and the rules.  So I abandoned my original bill, and moved instead to bring the rules into compliance with the constitution.  I added the clause about the VP being allowed to confer the leadership upon the PPT as a sort of compromise, to give this some fleeting chance of passage.  And as Bacon King correctly points out, that is how it is done in real life.

I contend that this bill provides superior efficiency and practicality than the current rules.  There have been two instances in recent history when a PPT resigned near the end of a session.  Both times, it was suggested that Bacon King just retain the leadership until the end of the session.  Both times he declined, because of the rules.

If this passes, I expect that due to long-standing tradition, the VP will often confer presiding powers to the PPT.  I also expect there might be times when that is not done- and, as President of the Senate, that should be the VP's prerogative.  This bill allows some flexibility regarding who is in the leadership role,  but puts the President of the Senate in the drivers seat.  I can even envision the VP and PPT working as a team, with the VP presiding over bills that are particularly important to the administration.

If this fails, I do expect the constitutional issues to be addressed.