SENATE BILL: OSPR Amendment (Passed)

[Napoleon]

Aye

[bgwah]

aye

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Aye

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Nay

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Aye

[bgwah]

Current tally: 4-2

[Ban my account ffs!]

Aye

[bgwah]

The amendment has passed 5-2.

[Napoleon]

I call for a final vote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ah, I must object to a final vote on the grounds that my amendment has not yet been dispensed with.

[bgwah]

^ Correct. Now that the previous amendment has passed, we move onto the below amendment which has been accepted as friendly. Senators have 24 hours to object.

I offer this amendment to Article 3, Section 2, Clause 3:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Friendly

[bgwah]

The amendment has passed.

[bgwah]

I am bringing this to a final vote. Hopefully I got the current text correct! Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Aye

[Napoleon]

AMENDMENT

Article 3, Section 2.3 is removed.

Again we passed this amendment. Please reflect it in the text.

[bgwah]

Apparently there has been some confusion about what the above amendment was amending; the current version of the bill, or the current version of the OSPR. I'm stopping the final vote to have a more clear amendment vote:

Senators, please vote aye, nay, or abstain on the following amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Napoleon, the amendment you offered removes this from the current OSPR:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All of these are amendments to the OSPR, so by not specificing, you create an amendment to the current OSPR, not the underlying bill.

I even posted that this was what your amendment removed while we were debating it. And you never gave an indication that it wasn't the case.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay

[Napoleon]

Napoleon, the amendment you offered removes this from the current OSPR:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All of these are amendments to the OSPR, so by not specificing, you create an amendment to the current OSPR, not the underlying bill.

I even posted that this was what your amendment removed while we were debating it. And you never gave an indication that it wasn't the case.

No don't even go there. If I offer an amendment, is to the text we are debating. That is the only relevant text concerning amendments. Furthermore I am not seeing where the power to stop this vote came from.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

NAy

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Napoleon, the amendment you offered removes this from the current OSPR:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All of these are amendments to the OSPR, so by not specificing, you create an amendment to the current OSPR, not the underlying bill.

I even posted that this was what your amendment removed while we were debating it. And you never gave an indication that it wasn't the case.

No don't even go there. If I offer an amendment, is to the text we are debating. That is the only relevant text concerning amendments. Furthermore I am not seeing where the power to stop this vote came from.

I am not going anywhere Napoleon. This whole bill is a collection of combined amendments to the OSPR, meaning everything is relative to the current OSPR. There is no bill specific numbering system in this bill.  So in this case, the lack of clarity means it likely refers to the current OSPR's text. 

He has the authority as long as he claims your amendment was missed. 

[Napoleon]

Aye

[Ban my account ffs!]

Abstain.  I honestly cannot vote one way or the other on this. 

I understand wanting to be fair and allow senators to see their bills get to the floor, but if a senator proposes 3 bills and then a day or so later authors a disaster relief bill, for example, the PPT would have to overlook the time-sensitive disaster relief bill in order to fulfill the requirements of this amendment.

I think bills are on a "first come, first serve" basis for the most part for a good reason.

At the same time, I get the whole "fairness" part.  New senators often have a bunch of bills to throw in right at the beginning of their term and it's not really fair to everyone else when they clutter up the queue. (MAROKAI I'M TALKING TO YOU)

So I'll abstain.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Abstain.  I honestly cannot vote one way or the other on this. 

I understand wanting to be fair and allow senators to see their bills get to the floor, but if a senator proposes 3 bills and then a day or so later authors a disaster relief bill, for example, the PPT would have to overlook the time-sensitive disaster relief bill in order to fulfill the requirements of this amendment.

I think bills are on a "first come, first serve" basis for the most part for a good reason.

At the same time, I get the whole "fairness" part.  New senators often have a bunch of bills to throw in right at the beginning of their term and it's not really fair to everyone else when they clutter up the queue. (MAROKAI I'M TALKING TO YOU)

So I'll abstain.

We could exempt the emergency and PPT slots from the rule, as that is likely where such would be placed. Napoleon's slot amendment may have already served to provide the flexibility for this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How is this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.