SENATE BILL: Good Neighbor Resolution (Tabled)

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A RESOLUTION

For promoting Comity between Nations, regulating commerce with foreign nations, and providing the Senate with detailed . . . rules for parliamentary procedure.

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled.

SECTION I - TITLE

This bill may be cited as the "Good Neighbor Resolution," or "GNR," for short.


SECTION II - DESCRIPTION

An Act to amend the OSPR, installing an institutional check against Senators whose proposed legislation threatens to unduly compromise the Freedom, Security, and/or Peace of Nations.


SECTION III - DECLARATION

Being that all states are made legitimate by their respective peoples according to their abilities to advance the common interest, and that common interest relies upon a delicate, yet ever-changing balance of power betwixt diversely-interested actors, the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia hereby declares that none among its number shall be permitted to vote on any legislation which is construed by its members to unreasonably imperil either the sovereignty reserved or general welfare sought by the whole of those persons residing in another country, other countries, or any extraterritorial jurisdiction in which the Senate wields no authority, except as necessitated for providing for the common defense.


SECTION IV - PROVISIONS

(a) Article 4, Section 1 - Subsection 11 of the OSPR, which reads, "For the purposes of Articles 3, 4 and 5, the original sponsor shall be defined as the Senator who introduced the legislation in the Legislation Introduction Thread," shall become Article 4, Section 1 - Subsection 12 of the OSPR.

(b) Filling its original place, the new Article 4, Section 1 - Subsection 11 of the OSPR shall read, "A Senator may at any time after a piece of legislation is introduced on the Senate floor, but prior to a final vote, declare its violation of sentiments expressed in Section III of the GNR. If another Senator opts to second this declaration the PPT is to suspend all debate for 48 hours, during which time the original sponsor must express hostility to the declaration, unilaterally withdraw the legislation, or unilaterally amend it in such a way as to resolve the violation. If the original sponsor does not act or fails to alleviate the GNR-pertinent concerns of the declaring Senators, the PPT shall immediately begin a 72 hour vote on the question of the legislation’s compliance to the resolution in question. The aforementioned legislation shall be tabled if at vote's end no fewer than 1/3 of all Senators say nay. Otherwise, debate on the legislation shall resume."


SECTION V - EFFECTIVENESS

The provisions listed herein shall take effect immediately upon passage of this resolution by the Senate.

Sponsor: Redalgo

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Redalgo, you have 24 hours to explain this measure.

[Senator Ben]

I cannot support this.  It makes it to easy for a small group of Senators to hold up the Senate and attack their political opponents.

[Redalgo]

I intended to extensively amend this prior to its introduction to the floor, and then was going to get rid of it altogether if my other amendment could pass but it has been debated long enough that this came up in the queue before the other legislation could be finished with. This is a fairly horrid mess and to be perfectly honest I have no clue how to promptly do away with it without risking a bad outcome in either case. If my constitutional amendment fails I will need this bill in an extensively modified form to revisit my foreign policy agenda, and if the amendment succeeds this resolution will be entirely superfluous, not to mention unnecessarily obstructive and flawed in ways previously brought to my attention by Senators in the protest thread.

Advice on how to proceed is warmly welcomed. I have been terribly disorganized, planned out my legislation in a rather poor fashion thus far in my first term, and have nothing at all to show for it - which, needless to say, is extremely frustrating and demotivational at the same time aside from quite possibly making me the most incompetent Senator who has served here in years. Unless I can get some good feedback within twenty-four hours, I may be inclined to simply withdraw this legislation (which I currently oppose despite being its sponsor) like one of my previous bills and become more passive - responding to others' bills instead of introducing anything in upcoming months. I am getting way too many negative experiences here in too quick of a procession. :p

[Senator Napoleon]

Redalgo, you are far from incompetent. There is more to being an effective Senator than passing bills, I think you have been a great representative for the Midwest region and this resolution deserves an honest debate free from bombthrowing.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The aforementioned legislation shall be tabled if at vote's end no fewer than 1/3 of all Senators say nay. Otherwise, debate on the legislation shall resume."

Does this mean that four Senators are enough to table a piece of legislation?

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

or even three Senators?

[Redalgo]

Under the current language, four Senators could table a bill.

[Senator Sbane]

Well that is completely unacceptable. I am not a big fan of the filibuster and this is basically the same but only for foreign policy.

[Governor Scott]

Well that is completely unacceptable. I am not a big fan of the filibuster and this is basically the same but only for foreign policy.

This is precisely why I cannot support this bill.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

My suggestion would be to just use the existing procedures for tabling bills. Otherwise, a discontented minority of three or four on the expectation of not being able to vote a bill down, will just invoke this standard which is loosely defined and vague and use it to defeat everything from bills on airport naming to the national flower.

Also the use of the term "unilaterally" is problematic under the rules. Especially on withdrawing legislation. There is no unilateralism to be had as it is basically a procedure to replace the sponsor, upon which a failure to attain a replacement results in it being pulled from the floor.

As for amending, some PPTs have allowed sponsors to alter legislation on a whim outside the amendment process. However, during my various tenures I have typically required the use of the procedures for "sponsor originated amendments" unless it is a very mundane change like a spelling or a format error. The reason for this is once on the floor, the sponsor cedes control of the legislation to the collective will of the Senate and a sponsor shouldn't be able to overide the decision of a majority to amend the text through "extra-procedural" means that aren't even in the OSPR.

[Redalgo]

As I implied earlier on in the thread, I do not really support this legislation anymore. It's just that it came to the floor of the Senate before I could decide what to do with it, and now that it's here I am not sure how to change or get rid of it in a fashion I won't regret in a week or two's time. :<

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

First lesson every Senator should know, "nothing ever goes as planned or on time".

[Senator Napoleon]

I cannot support this.  It makes it to easy for a small group of Senators to hold up the Senate and attack their political opponents.

It is already easy for a single Senator to do that. There are solutions for that.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I cannot support this.  It makes it to easy for a small group of Senators to hold up the Senate and attack their political opponents.

It is already easy for a single Senator to do that. There are solutions for that.

Uh, would you care to elaborate on just how a single Senator under current rules may do that in any fashion similar to what this proposal risks unleashing?

[Senator Napoleon]

I cannot support this.  It makes it to easy for a small group of Senators to hold up the Senate and attack their political opponents.

It is already easy for a single Senator to do that. There are solutions for that.

Uh, would you care to elaborate on just how a single Senator under current rules may do that in any fashion similar to what this proposal risks unleashing?

Of course not. I don't want to give anyone any "ideas".

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I cannot support this.  It makes it to easy for a small group of Senators to hold up the Senate and attack their political opponents.

It is already easy for a single Senator to do that. There are solutions for that.

Uh, would you care to elaborate on just how a single Senator under current rules may do that in any fashion similar to what this proposal risks unleashing?

Of course not. I don't want to give anyone any "ideas".

I served in the Senate with some of the greatest lone-wolf, discontented malcontents of all time and none of them have disrupted Senate proceedings to that extent.

Not to mention I have ways of dealing with such "inconveniences" should they arise.

[Senator Clarence]

I am sorry it's taken me so long to comment....

Redalgo, I respect you and your intentions here- but I believe we disagree in values slightly. I believe we must consider our nation's interests first and foremoest....even if they are not aligned with other nations. We must consider legislation based most importantly upon how it affects our nation.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Redalgo, have you made any decisions yet on how you want to pursue this?

[Redalgo]

If my associates here in the Senate would be so kind as to oblige, I want to table it.

[Senator Ben]

Agreed.  I'll second if necessary.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Section 5: Rules on Motions to Table
1. Any Senator can, during a period of debate, with the support of one other Senator, introduce a motion to table the legislation.

2. The PPT shall open a vote on the motion to table. This vote shall last for a maximum of two (2) days during which time the Senators must vote. Voting may be declared final at any time if the motion to table has been approved or rejected.

3. For the motion to table to pass, two thirds of those voting (excluding abstentions) must support the motion.

4. Tabled legislation shall be taken off the Senate floor.

Senators, a motion to table this legislation has been filed and has the second of another sitting Senator. A vote is thus open on the question of whether or not to table the underlying legislation, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain. This is a 48 hour vote.

[Governor Scott]

Aye.

[Senator Ben]

Aye

[Redalgo]

Aye