vote to override the Marijuana Legalization Veto

[Bono]

I may loose it, but I still want to give it a shot.

[A18]

As Senator of the Atlantic Ocean, I support this legislation.

[Defarge]

Abstain. 

[Peter]

Its actions like these by certain Senators that really wind me up.

Bono, you knew full well that this bill does not have anything approaching broad support and that if it achieved passage it would cause a legal crisis, and yet you have persisted in pushing this bill. You have just lost my respect.

As information to Senators:

Before casting your vote, bear this in mind: If the override passes by the same majority, i.e. 3-1-5, then that will constitute a two-thirds majority under the precedent that JFK has set on my advice. There is no doubt that this will then end in Court (something I would prefer to avoid) if this bill makes it into Law.

[A18]

There is no reasonable challenge to be made. If 5 abstain and 4 vote, and 3 of the 4 vote in favor of it, that is a two thirds majority.

I applaud Bono for standing up for liberty in Atlasia.

[Peter]

I've thought (and read) about this some more, and I hereby rescind my previous advice in this thread. Fortunately the wording of the Constitution is skewed in our favour this time:

Article I, Section 5, Clause 5:
"...But if he or she shall veto it, the bill or resolution shall be of no effect unless the Senate shall vote, two-thirds of the Senators concurring, to override the President's veto."

Effectively out of the ten senators present, seven must vote to override the veto for the bill to become law.

[minionofmidas]

Its actions like these by certain Senators that really wind me up.

Bono, you knew full well that this bill does not have anything approaching broad support and that if it achieved passage it would cause a legal crisis, and yet you have persisted in pushing this bill. You have just lost my respect.

As information to Senators:

Before casting your vote, bear this in mind: If the override passes by the same majority, i.e. 3-1-5, then that will constitute a two-thirds majority under the precedent that JFK has set on my advice. There is no doubt that this will then end in Court (something I would prefer to avoid) if this bill makes it into Law.

Would Senators be able to state that they won't vote, or would that be counted as a blank vote?
We of the Pacific region administration have determined just a few days back - also on the matter of a marijuana vote - that abstentions do not count as votes, and that 5-3 with one abstention was a veto-proof majority (this requires 60% consent, according to the Pacific constitution.) Not that this mattered in this case, since the governor wouldn't have vetoed the bill anyways.


Ah - Pete's comment has just come in. Yes, that is what we had in mind when the Constitution was new.

[Bono]

Its actions like these by certain Senators that really wind me up.

Bono, you knew full well that this bill does not have anything approaching broad support and that if it achieved passage it would cause a legal crisis, and yet you have persisted in pushing this bill. You have just lost my respect.

As information to Senators:

Before casting your vote, bear this in mind: If the override passes by the same majority, i.e. 3-1-5, then that will constitute a two-thirds majority under the precedent that JFK has set on my advice. There is no doubt that this will then end in Court (something I would prefer to avoid) if this bill makes it into Law.

This was one of my biggest campaign promises. I'll still try to convince more senators to vote in favor, but I feel very strongly about this, and I'm not letting this go lightly. I would be defrauding all the people who voted for me, including you, if I'd let this go without trying to overturn it.

[A18]

Article I, Section 5, Clause 5:
"...But if he or she shall veto it, the bill or resolution shall be of no effect unless the Senate shall vote, two-thirds of the Senators concurring, to override the President's veto."

Two thirds of the Senators that exist or two thirds of the Senators voting? I think the latter makes more sense. If they disagree with the bill so much, they'll vote against it. An "abstain" vote is basically saying, let the vote go on without me.

[Peter]

Article I, Section 5, Clause 5:
"...But if he or she shall veto it, the bill or resolution shall be of no effect unless the Senate shall vote, two-thirds of the Senators concurring, to override the President's veto."

Two thirds of the Senators that exist or two thirds of the Senators voting? I think the latter makes more sense. If they disagree with the bill so much, they'll vote against it. An "abstain" vote is basically saying, let the vote go on without me.

I read it as two-thirds of the Senators that exist. If we assume your interpretation of abstain, an interpretation I have rejected, then the Bill never passed in the first place because only four Senators actually voted, and a majority is necessary for a vote to be valid.

[A18]

Then pass an amendment to abolish such a silly rule. All that does is make "abstain" another way of saying "no." What else is the difference?

[minionofmidas]

Then pass an amendment to abolish such a silly rule. All that does is make "abstain" another way of saying "no." What else is the difference?

On an overrride, that is indeed the case, in the real US too IIRC.

[Peter]

Then pass an amendment to abolish such a silly rule. All that does is make "abstain" another way of saying "no." What else is the difference?

Only in override votes though, not in standard votes, as was evidenced in this bill getting passed 3-1-5 in the first place.

[Nym90]

I vote yea to override.

I would urge all Senators to take a position on this one way or another, if that is at all possible. I feel that having half the Senate abstain is not a good situation for our country.

If you can't make up your mind one way or another, I would advise voting no. Although I support the bill, I do feel that there should be a bias in favor of current law and against change if a Senator is undecided about the worthiness of this legislation.

[A18]

Better to be too free than not free enough. The bias should be on the side of freedom.

[7,052,770]

I'm going to have to vote AYE on this.

[ilikeverin]

LSMLL (Minnesota Squadron) has arrived to picket outside the capital building, with signs reading, 'Yay, PBrunsel did something right!', 'JUST SAY NAY!', and 'Caffeine is a way better drug!  Drink lattes!'

[JohnFKennedy]

A firm and determined Nay.

[StevenNick]

Nay.

[True Democrat]

Nay

This bill does not help drug users stay free or give the government any long term investments.

[Akno21]

LSMLL (Minnesota Squadron) has arrived to picket outside the capital building, with signs reading, 'Yay, PBrunsel did something right!', 'JUST SAY NAY!', and 'Caffeine is a way better drug!  Drink lattes!'

The Maryland squadron stands with Nym and Harry. We have to start somewhere, although we like True Democrat's bill better.

[The Dowager Mod]

I vote yea to override.

I would urge all Senators to take a position on this one way or another, if that is at all possible. I feel that having half the Senate abstain is not a good situation for our country.

If you can't make up your mind one way or another, I would advise voting no. Although I support the bill, I do feel that there should be a bias in favor of current law and against change if a Senator is undecided about the worthiness of this legislation.

Nay.
I abstained on the first vote as a professional courtesy to bono because i knew it wouldn't pass anyway.

[ilikeverin]

LSMLL (Minnesota Squadron) has arrived to picket outside the capital building, with signs reading, 'Yay, PBrunsel did something right!', 'JUST SAY NAY!', and 'Caffeine is a way better drug!  Drink lattes!'

The Maryland squadron stands with Nym and Harry. We have to start somewhere, although we like True Democrat's bill better.

The Minnesota Squadron considered fighting, then realized that we don't want to fight our fellow Suburban Liberals.  The Minnesota squadron proposes starting a joint-latte-dispensing booth for all protestors involved

[Akno21]

LSMLL (Minnesota Squadron) has arrived to picket outside the capital building, with signs reading, 'Yay, PBrunsel did something right!', 'JUST SAY NAY!', and 'Caffeine is a way better drug!  Drink lattes!'

The Maryland squadron stands with Nym and Harry. We have to start somewhere, although we like True Democrat's bill better.

The Minnesota Squadron considered fighting, then realized that we don't want to fight our fellow Suburban Liberals.  The Minnesota squadron proposes starting a joint-latte-dispensing booth for all protestors involved

Us Marylanders agree. We will not fight you, we will share a latte booth with you

Now let's shut up and let the Senate deliberate.

[King]

4-2-1 NAY, I believe a 2/3 majority is required, so unless 4 of the 3 Senators vote Aye, motion to override is denied.