SENATE BILL: OSPR Amendment (Passed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Napoleon

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The sponsor expressed a desire to include other amendments to the OSPR in with this one and that he had several. I am not sure what they are, so we may have some overlap, but I would like to kick it off by offering the following friendly amendment as an addition to the current text, not in place of it :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feeback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object to passage of the amendment

It basically lets the PPT end votes for reasons other then a missed amendment and also provide a check on that to prevent abuse (Which is the same used in other parts of the OSPR regarding overturning PPT actions).

Also before we forget, we might want to add which Article is being amended for the sake of clarity in the initial text. It is faily easy to deduce with the section title "Rules on Motions to Title", but it it's best to be clear as possible so as to not have a "free hanging section"

[Napoleon]

I would like to include other amendments so long as they would not impact the bill's chance of passing.

However, I will deem this amendment friendly. 72 hours may be too long for objections though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would like to include other amendments so long as they would not impact the bill's chance of passing.

However, I will deem this amendment friendly. 72 hours may be too long for objections though.

I can see your point about the length. I just used the time length that is used in other areas of the OSPR for overturning the PPT's actions. If we were to reduce it, we probably need to reduce it throughout to ensure a uniform result.

I have either 9 minutes left to do this or I am 49 minutes too late, but,

Senators have 24 hours to object to the amendment.

[bgwah]

With no objections, the amendment has passed.

[Bacon King]

72 hours isn't a big deal because in practice the Senate can do other things while the objection period elapses. Also, isn't it normally only a one-third vote required to override PPT actions?

I'm posting on my phone but I'll have more suggested amendments when I get to my computer.

[Napoleon]

So, if the Senate feels it is appropriate, there are other OSPR amendments I would like to make. Should they be included in this and just make all the changes at once?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

72 hours isn't a big deal because in practice the Senate can do other things while the objection period elapses. Also, isn't it normally only a one-third vote required to override PPT actions?

I'm posting on my phone but I'll have more suggested amendments when I get to my computer.

Lol, it varies by section even within the same Article.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So, if the Senate feels it is appropriate, there are other OSPR amendments I would like to make. Should they be included in this and just make all the changes at once?

I don't see why not. There are tons of issues in the OSPR that need to be addressed. Doing them in seperate bills would be innefficient.


One of these is the restoration of the anti-clogging rule, which should be accompanied by some change to ensure uniformity regarding "unincluded text" in amendments and bills amending previously passed items. Does it leave it alone, or does it delete it? Lack of clarity on this, is what caused the Anti-Clogging rule to be removed. In my opinion, if you want to delete text, it should be include and then struck through, as demonstrated.

[Napoleon]

I do not support the Anti-clogging rule.

Ok, so I will I introduce two amendments within a few hours.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I do not support the Anti-clogging rule.

Ok, so I will I introduce two amendments within a few hours.

Why do you not support the anti-clogging rule? You work for a company that manufactures drain cleaner or something?
 

[Napoleon]

What I would support is some mechanism that would give the PPT the power to determine what legislation meets the floor and win. People talk about reform but their ideas are tired. This would be something that actually leads to debates over a more concentrated legislative agenda. That being said, I doubt we would find support for such a measure at this time.

[tmthforu94]

What I would support is some mechanism that would give the PPT the power to determine what legislation meets the floor and win. People talk about reform but their ideas are tired. This would be something that actually leads to debates over a more concentrated legislative agenda. That being said, I doubt we would find support for such a measure at this time.

Like they do in the real world. It'd make the PPT position more partisan, possibly, but sometimes there are certain bills that need to be passed before other bills. I scratch my head often when I see something pretty irrelevant (such as the currency bill) being debated when there are much more important bills waiting in queue.

[Napoleon]

What I would support is some mechanism that would give the PPT the power to determine what legislation meets the floor and win. People talk about reform but their ideas are tired. This would be something that actually leads to debates over a more concentrated legislative agenda. That being said, I doubt we would find support for such a measure at this time.

Like they do in the real world. It'd make the PPT position more partisan, possibly, but sometimes there are certain bills that need to be passed before other bills. I scratch my head often when I see something pretty irrelevant (such as the currency bill) being debated when there are much more important bills waiting in queue.

It would also change the dynamics between the executive and the Senate. My SOAP for the Northeast Assembly actually does something similar, called Priority. In Legislative Slot 2, the Speaker gets Priority and would determine the legislation reaching the floor there.

Under this proposal, the PPT would become more of a majority leader type of position. People are already saying PPT elections are partisan, why not make the position more partisan? And by that I mean giving the PPT more tools, a PPT wouldn't necessarily have to use those tools to their extreme and arguably shouldn't. This would be balanced by the VP being well positioned to perform administrative duties when necessary.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We also have a slot where the PPT can determine what comes up and what doesn't. We could also give control of one of the top five slots to the PPT as well to increase flexibility in what comes up. However, I think each Senator should have a right to get a bill on the floor regardless of who has the most seats in a session and who happens to be PPT. To change that would be a step in the wrong direction, and would discourage activity amongst the minority party members in the Senate if they have no hope of even getting a bill on the floor. I think there is more to representing the interest of one's constituents then just voting on bills. 

[tmthforu94]

We also have a slot where the PPT can determine what comes up and what doesn't. We could also give control of one of the top five slots to the PPT as well to increase flexibility in what comes up. However, I think each Senator should have a right to get a bill on the floor regardless of who has the most seats in a session and who happens to be PPT. To change that would be a step in the wrong direction, and would discourage activity amongst the minority party members in the Senate if they have no hope of even getting a bill on the floor. I think there is more to representing the interest of one's constituents then just voting on bills. 

There are 9 slots, correct? Perhaps something like this:
1 Slot for Forum Affairs/Emergency
1 Slot for Constitutional Amendments
3 General Slots where you'd go in order
3 General Slots for PPT Discretion

1 slot left. Is it really necessary to have a slot dedicated to Veto Ovverride's and another slot for Investigative Hearings? When's the last time we've even had one of those?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Veto overides maybe necessary because it is a final step in the process for some bills.


Non legislative slots like the Investigative hearings can be removed for certain. Instead it should be placed on the noticeboard like a confirmation hearing, if it is ever necessary. There are many Senate functions that don't have slots like the PPT elections, Foreign Policy Reviews, and expulsions.

[bgwah]

Will this be ready for a final vote anytime soon?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It would be incredibly wastefully to pass up this opportunity to make some clearly needed changes.  

I realize the sponsor opposes it, but since it appears there is no desire to move toward a different structure, in the meantime we should atleast ensure that this provision is in place, it technically should still be in effect and never should have been removed from the OSPR. It can always be changed or removed later, at such time as a broad reform of the introduction guidelines shall be preposed. Which is what would have to be done had this "mistake" not occurred.

I offer the following amendment as an addition to the current text of the underlying legislation:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bgwah]

Does the sponsor (Napoleon) accept the amendment as friendly? Or hostile?

[Napoleon]

Very hostile.

[bgwah]

We are voting on the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[Napoleon]

Nay

[Bacon King]

Repeal Article 3, Section 3, so that the intent of Article 10, Section 1 is actually followed.