SENATE BILL: Good Neighbor Resolution (Tabled)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Redalgo

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Redalgo, you have 24 hours to explain this measure.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

or even three Senators?

[Southern 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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

[Southern 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?

[Southern 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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ate? What the hell is that suppose to be Andy? I realize Tuesday was disconcerting for you with Shays and all, but it ain't my fault McMahon has a big purse. It certainly doesn't warrant the consumption of legislation.


Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on the motion to table the Good Neighbor Resolution:

Aye (5): Ben, NC Yankee, Redalgo, Scott and TJ in Cleve
Nay (0):
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (4): Clarence, sbane, Seatown and Wormyguy
Ate (1): AndrewPA

With two thirds of those voting, having voted in the affirmative, the bill has been tabled.