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"

[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.

[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.

[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?
 

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Third times the charm on changing that topic line, by the way. Stupid connection.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

This is the reintroduction, correct? Yea, I have often wondered why 10:1 was the anti 3:3. It is also an incredible nuisance, at the beginning of each Senate term.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I offer the following amendment as an addition to the current text.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I like Napoleon's amendment on the slots. We need a foreign policy slot and second Emergency slot for sure.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Since this is the last leftover from my Reign of terror and bgwah can't update OP to reflect text changes, here is the current text.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We have included quite a bit in this one and adding further might be too much. We also have another OSPR amendment in the queue that shouldn't be that far away from coming up that we chould always attach five or six more changes to. Half of it has been included in this one, so it has plenty of room. But I think Napoleon should have final say over how much is overload here, since it is his amendment.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless Snowguy's motion for cloture is rescinded, no new amendments maybe entered/considered, till cloture is voted down.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay


This is why I hate the cloture procedure in most circumstances. In my opinion, we should only use it to stop the rogue amender/filibusterer.  Also, I think it would be respectfull to defer to the bill sponsor as to whether such is necessary, unless he is the rogue.

Other then that, if you think it is time to call it quits and start a vote, just call for a final vote. If no debate has occured for 24 hours the PPT can open a vote. If debate has occured, the PPT can use the UC get around (if someone disagrees, they can object during the 24 period). Either is much cleaner then having debate get interrupted by a failed to launch cloture motion (2 or 3 posts dealing with procedural administration, rather than 10-12 and a possibly page change). In this instance, I think debate had been occuring so the UC would have been necessary. Napoleon could have entered a pre-objection when he posted his amendment (or a defacto one just be posting the amendment itself), which would allow the PPT to proceed with the amendment in question and ignore the call for a final vote. Since the debate rule is triggered, the motion for a final vote is not a procedural motion, as such would be barred by said debate rule. It is thus instead, an informal request of the PPT to use UC.

It only sounds confusing.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

I support using cloture in such cases because oftentimes someone will just chime in with "Oh I think this bill is great!" at 23 hours and 40 minutes and reset the clock for another 24 hours and it goes on for days and days at a time.

So I call for a cloture vote, which is what cloture votes are designed for... to close debate.  They can also be used to end filibusters, etc.

But when I was PPT I got tired of having people chime in every 23 hours or so and then the bill, which is due for a vote, would languish and take up a slot.  So I'd call for a cloture vote.  Fairly simple.

But yes, I understand your concerns, and I mean no disrespect to the bill sponsor.

A vote can take days as well. With the UC get around we enacted in July, the PPT can have a final vote open in 24 hours, regardless of who chimes in what.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

I support using cloture in such cases because oftentimes someone will just chime in with "Oh I think this bill is great!" at 23 hours and 40 minutes and reset the clock for another 24 hours and it goes on for days and days at a time.

So I call for a cloture vote, which is what cloture votes are designed for... to close debate.  They can also be used to end filibusters, etc.

But when I was PPT I got tired of having people chime in every 23 hours or so and then the bill, which is due for a vote, would languish and take up a slot.  So I'd call for a cloture vote.  Fairly simple.

But yes, I understand your concerns, and I mean no disrespect to the bill sponsor.

A vote can take days as well. With the UC get around we enacted in July, the PPT can have a final vote open in 24 hours, regardless of who chimes in what.

And not every bill is going to have unanimous consent.. in fact, I'd say most bills will not.  UC is used for non-controversial bills, especially emergency ones.  I'd say we should avoid using UC except in those cases and use cloture to end debate in any bill that might garner opposition.

Ah! Snowguy, but you are confusing the two different UC procedures. You are thinking of the one for minimum debate times. The one for avoiding cloture votes is for "when there is a consensus that work is done". Only a RowanBrandon type would oppose going to a final vote on a bill they oppose.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am afraid I will have to object to the removal of this clause

I would support upping the concurrence requirement to 2/3rds which is in line with similar passages elsewhere in the OSPR. I don't recall ever seeing this actually invoked and should the standard be increased, I doubt it would ever be, unless it is being thoroughly abused to the point of motivating a super majority to use it. Thus it hardly hinders the actions of the PPT.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay, retain the leash, but increase the length.

[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.

[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.