Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Ebowed]

It's neither frivolous nor for personal gain (and I don't appreciate the latter being suggested).  I simply don't think it's fair that Senators have no term limits, but the President does.

[Ebowed]

Fairness to the Children Act

1. F.L. 14-16 is hereby repealed

The fourteenth Senate passed only nine acts.

[King]

Fairness to the Children Act

1. F.L. 14-16 is hereby repealed

The fourteenth Senate passed only nine acts.

Shhh...too much logic over here!

[DownWithTheLeft]

Fairness to the Children Act

1. F.L. 14-16 is hereby repealed

The fourteenth Senate passed only nine acts.

Shhh...too much logic over here!

It was 13-14, I must have done something strange to find 14-16.

However, I must express how displeased I am that Ebowed has crowded up about 1-2 months worth of legislation that will probably be withdraw once hitting the floor

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Agreed.  When I was last in the Senate, I staggered the introduction of the bills I wished to propose so as to avoid monopolizing the time of the Senate.  Looks like it may be time to amend the OPSR so as to limit the number of slots that bills sponsored by a single Senator can occupy.  Since I am not at present a Senator I present the following for any interested Senator to introduce.


OPSR Courtesy Resolution

1. Article 3 Section 2 Clause 1 of the OPSR is amended by inserting before the period, ", subject to such limitations on available debate slots contained in this section".

2. Article 3 Section 2 of the OPSR is amended by adding the following as Clause 7:
"7. Notwithstanding Clause 1 of this Section, unless no other bills are available for debate, a Senator may not be the sponsor of more than two pieces of legislation that are on the floor at any one time."


The first clause is to recognize the fact that because of the different types of slots, the Senate already does not follow the strict letter of Article 3 Section 2 Clause 1 by debating legislation in the strict order of introduction.

The second clause prevents a Senator from clogging the calendar with his bills to the exclusion of all others.  If we had more Senators introducing legislation I could see changing that limit from two down to one.

[Ebowed]

However, I must express how displeased I am that Ebowed has crowded up about 1-2 months worth of legislation that will probably be withdraw once hitting the floor

I already withdrew the nonserious ones (like the holiday thing).  Everything else is serious proposals, and if you have problems with them, you can make some suggestions now or propose amendments later.

FWIW, I don't support Ernest's OSPR amendment.  If only 2 Senators are introducing legislation, why would we stop them from being debated in a reasonable fashion?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

FWIW, I don't support Ernest's OSPR amendment.  If only 2 Senators are introducing legislation, why would we stop them from being debated in a reasonable fashion?

If that is the case, then my proposal would have no effect as written, since if there are no other bills to be debated than bills in excess of the per Senator limit are in order if teh alternative is an empty slot.  It would mean that if there was a queue of 50 or so bills proposed by only 2 Senators than if another Senator happened to propose a bill for a change, it would go to the front of the queue.  Frankly, the long queue that is presently in place acts as a deterrent to Senators who might wish to submit occasional bills from doing so because of the length of time between proposal and debate.  The proposal will provide an encouragement for occasional authors to write bills (or at least to sponsor them) since they can count on timely debate.

[Ebowed]

That, to me, discriminates against active Senators.  If you want the Senate to consider new legislation faster, support increasing the amount of legislation that can be on the floor-- I've introduced an amendment to the OSPR to do just that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I prefer rules changes that would encourage quality over quantity.  However if you feel you;d be hanpered by the two slot limit, there's always the obvious tactic of getting another Senator to sponsor some of your bills.  That's another plus for this proposal in my view as it gives the Senate an incentive to organize instead of continuing to go  in ten separate disjointed paths.

[Ebowed]

Fairness to the Children Act

1. F.L. 14-16 is hereby repealed

The fourteenth Senate passed only nine acts.

Shhh...too much logic over here!

It was 13-14, I must have done something strange to find 14-16.

OMG, you want to repeal the gay adoption bill?  What the hell is wrong with you?

If you want a real 'fairness to the children' act, make the adoption process completely free (as it is in the Pacific region).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OMG, you want to repeal the gay adoption bill?  What the hell is wrong with you?

If you want a real 'fairness to the children' act, make the adoption process completely free (as it is in the Pacific region).

Perhaps he's offended by the circumlocutions it goes through, so much so that it has to include a section outlining that it doesn't mean pedophilia or hebephilia when it refers to sexual orientation.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Affirmative Action Reform Bill of 2007

1. F.L. 8-14 is repealed.

Why are you in favor of discrimination?

[Ebowed]

Affirmative Action Reform Bill of 2007

1. F.L. 8-14 is repealed.

Why are you in favor of discrimination?

You voted against a Regional bill saying exactly what the federal version does in the Southeast.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There are certain limited situations in which I would favor such distinctions to be made, such as in the gender of phys ed teachers.  As new law, a total ban on such measures is overbroad, but as existing law it serves as an important statement of principle which should be struck only in particular cases where there is a job-related reason for making such a distinction.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I think we need to address the issue of jury selection and juries, but I am asking someone else to help draft a bill

[Јas]

I think we need to address the issue of jury selection and juries, but I am asking someone else to help draft a bill

You an like the Jury Selection Act?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

2nd Immigration Reform Bill of 2007

1. The Illegal Immigrant Act (F.L. 18-8) is hereby repealed.

2. Illegal aliens who have been convicted of a state or federal offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment less than 12 months in duration within the last 5 years of their application shall be denied citizenship in all instances, even if their application is presently pending under the auspices of F.L. 18-8.  This shall not apply to persons imprisoned for actions which have since become decriminalized.

3. Illegal aliens who have been convicted of a state or federal offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment less than 12 months in duration not within the last 5 years of their application whose application is presently pending under the auspices of F.L. 18-8 shall be allowed to become citizens, if meeting the separate requirements of all other relevant legislation.

4. Illegal or legal aliens who have become citizens because of changes in the law effectuated by F.L. 18-8 shall not have their citizenship revoked.

Is it too much to ask that you wait until the start of a new Senate before you reintroduce a bill defeated by the current Senate?  (I realize it's unlikely to come up before this Senate, given the length of the queue, but...)

[Sam Spade]

I would be happy to do that, Ernest, if Porce will likewise withdraw the HIV/AIDS bill and his renaming of the Acceptance of Science bill

[Ebowed]

I would be happy to do that, Ernest, if Porce will likewise withdraw the HIV/AIDS bill and his renaming of the Acceptance of Science bill

They are different than the versions defeated by the Senate.  I have, erm, improved the bills to appeal to moderates more.

[Sam Spade]

I would be happy to do that, Ernest, if Porce will likewise withdraw the HIV/AIDS bill and his renaming of the Acceptance of Science bill

They are different than the versions defeated by the Senate.  I have, erm, improved the bills to appeal to moderates more.

Ok, then I will do likewise.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It would seem that this "immediately re-introduce my dead pet-bill once it's been killed" thing has become quite a trend.

Yay.

[King]

DWTL isn't going to quit until he can get a hit!

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I actually find myself in agreement with DWTL over something here: The Judicial Term Limits Amendment needs to be amended such that the terms of the existing Justices would come up for reappointment in staggered, four-month intervals.

(As stated previously, I am supportive of this bill in general.)

[Јas]

I actually find myself in agreement with DWTL over something here: The Judicial Term Limits Amendment needs to be amended such that the terms of the existing Justices would come up for reappointment in staggered, four-month intervals.

(As stated previously, I am supportive of this bill in general.)

You should feel free to contribute this to the actual thread on the amendment (and indeed to any of the matters currently before the Senate).

[Brandon H]

I actually find myself in agreement with DWTL over something here: The Judicial Term Limits Amendment needs to be amended such that the terms of the existing Justices would come up for reappointment in staggered, four-month intervals.

(As stated previously, I am supportive of this bill in general.)

You should feel free to contribute this to the actual thread on the amendment (and indeed to any of the matters currently before the Senate).

I was thinking about that, but if a Justice resigns in the middle of the year, everything gets screwed up.