Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Peter]

Referring to Senator Spade's new SPR:

A Bill is something that is in (or awaiting) debate in the Senate; A Bill becomes an Act when it achieves passage into Law (e.g. when the President signs the Bill after Senate approval). At least this is the technical definitions that are generally used, though people here seem to introduce "Acts" into the Senate. Maybe we ought to codify this relationship at some point.

In Section 3 Clause 1, I would also point out that the Senate does debate Resolutions, and these have been counted against the limits for legislation on the floor.

[Gabu]

A Bill is something that is in (or awaiting) debate in the Senate; A Bill becomes an Act when it achieves passage into Law (e.g. when the President signs the Bill after Senate approval). At least this is the technical definitions that are generally used, though people here seem to introduce "Acts" into the Senate. Maybe we ought to codify this relationship at some point.

This has always bugged me, so I certainly wouldn't mind it if we did something on it, although I'm afraid it might confuse or scare off people if we yell at them every time they introduce an "act" to the Senate.

[Sam Spade]

Referring to Senator Spade's new SPR:

A Bill is something that is in (or awaiting) debate in the Senate; A Bill becomes an Act when it achieves passage into Law (e.g. when the President signs the Bill after Senate approval). At least this is the technical definitions that are generally used, though people here seem to introduce "Acts" into the Senate. Maybe we ought to codify this relationship at some point.

In Section 3 Clause 1, I would also point out that the Senate does debate Resolutions, and these have been counted against the limits for legislation on the floor.

These are good points.  I will amend the following proposed resolution to take care of them.

[Peter]

This has always bugged me, so I certainly wouldn't mind it if we did something on it, although I'm afraid it might confuse or scare off people if we yell at them every time they introduce an "act" to the Senate.

I don't suggest anything so harsh, perhaps the PPT is of the understanding that when he starts the new thread, he starts it as a Bill regardless of what it was in the Introduction thread.

[Sam Spade]

Bill has been changed to deal with Peter's suggestions.

[King]

The New Mexico - Montana Regional Bill

Clause I

The State of New Mexico shall henceforth be located in the Pacific Region.

Clause II

The State of Montana shall henceforth be located in the Midwest Region.

Clause III

This bill shall take effect following the next Regional election upon approval by the Senate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Y'all knew it had to appear sometime.

You need the consent from both regions and everybody in the states affected before a change can become official.  Also, nothing says there has to be 10 states for each region...you could just pay the Governor of the Midwest for New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming without giving them any land.

[KEmperor]

The New Mexico - Montana Regional Bill

Clause I

The State of New Mexico shall henceforth be located in the Pacific Region.

Clause II

The State of Montana shall henceforth be located in the Midwest Region.

Clause III

This bill shall take effect following the next Regional election upon approval by the Senate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Y'all knew it had to appear sometime.

You need the consent from both regions and everybody in the states affected before a change can become official.  Also, nothing says there has to be 10 states for each region...you could just pay the Governor of the Midwest for New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming without giving them any land.

Actually, it DOES say that there have to be 10 states per region.  At least it did in the old Constitution, I don't know if the new one says that.

[Peter]

Actually, it DOES say that there have to be 10 states per region.  At least it did in the old Constitution, I don't know if the new one says that.

That was a ridiculous requirement that we removed.

[WMS]

The New Mexico - Montana Regional Bill

Clause I

The State of New Mexico shall henceforth be located in the Pacific Region.

Clause II

The State of Montana shall henceforth be located in the Midwest Region.

Clause III

This bill shall take effect following the next Regional election upon approval by the Senate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Y'all knew it had to appear sometime.

You need the consent from both regions and everybody in the states affected before a change can become official.  Also, nothing says there has to be 10 states for each region...you could just pay the Governor of the Midwest for New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming without giving them any land.

Actually, it DOES say that there have to be 10 states per region.  At least it did in the old Constitution, I don't know if the new one says that.

I DO have the approval of both Midwest Governor Ilikeverin and Pacific Governor Wildcard. If they don't post here themselves, I can provide the necessary documentation. But I'll bug them to post here as I asked.

And from my discussion with Peter Bell, the mechanics of the trade are for the two Regions to decide, with the Senate approving or disapproving as a whole. I did run this by him to ensure that it is Constitutional...I'm not too proud to ask for assistance in such matters.

[ilikeverin]

I HAFF KONSENTEED

[Peter]

How much more legislation are we going to be bothering with considering that we have just over 10 days left in the legislative session, and we have a number of vacancies (or effective vacancies): Nym90, Naso, NixonNow.

[Sam Spade]

How much more legislation are we going to be bothering with considering that we have just over 10 days left in the legislative session, and we have a number of vacancies (or effective vacancies): Nym90, Naso, NixonNow.

If legislation does not get voted on or considered, I will re-introduce it next session if need be.

[Gabu]

How much more legislation are we going to be bothering with considering that we have just over 10 days left in the legislative session, and we have a number of vacancies (or effective vacancies): Nym90, Naso, NixonNow.

I plan to get through as much as we can; I don't see why having only 10 days left is a reason to simply halt everything.  Obviously we're not going to get through everything, but we might as well see what we can do.

[MAS117]

How much more legislation are we going to be bothering with considering that we have just over 10 days left in the legislative session, and we have a number of vacancies (or effective vacancies): Nym90, Naso, NixonNow.

I plan to get through as much as we can; I don't see why having only 10 days left is a reason to simply halt everything.  Obviously we're not going to get through everything, but we might as well see what we can do.

I agree.

[Jake]

Which is why you're currently stalling legislation and wasting space.

[MAS117]

Which is why you're currently stalling legislation and wasting space.

I like to say filibustering Jake.

[Sam Spade]

Which is why you're currently stalling legislation and wasting space.

I like to say filibustering Jake.

If you're going to filibuster, please be a little more creative, MAS, that's all I ask.

[WMS]

I would like to actually vote on the NM-MT Bill, if possible. We'll see if it happens...

[Sam Spade]

I would like to actually vote on the NM-MT Bill, if possible. We'll see if it happens...

It will be reintroduced, regardless.

[MAS117]

Which is why you're currently stalling legislation and wasting space.

I like to say filibustering Jake.

If you're going to filibuster, please be a little more creative, MAS, that's all I ask.

give me some stuff then sammy:)

[Sam Spade]

Which is why you're currently stalling legislation and wasting space.

I like to say filibustering Jake.

If you're going to filibuster, please be a little more creative, MAS, that's all I ask.

give me some stuff then sammy:)

I'm not writing your own filibustering amendments like King wrote Naso's legislation.  Sorry, MAS.

[WMS]

I would like to actually vote on the NM-MT Bill, if possible. We'll see if it happens...

It will be reintroduced, regardless.

Thanks, Senator. Good to see something will be done.

[Gabu]

I would like to actually vote on the NM-MT Bill, if possible. We'll see if it happens...

It will be reintroduced, regardless.

Thanks, Senator. Good to see something will be done.

I'd reintroduce it if no one else did.  The Pacific welcomes New Mexico!

[King]

I would like to actually vote on the NM-MT Bill, if possible. We'll see if it happens...

It will be reintroduced, regardless.

Thanks, Senator. Good to see something will be done.

I'd reintroduce it if no one else did.  The Pacific welcomes New Mexico!

Reintroduce it as the The New Mexico - Montana SCREW THE MIDWEST Regional Bill with the necessary modifications.

[WMS]

I would like to actually vote on the NM-MT Bill, if possible. We'll see if it happens...

It will be reintroduced, regardless.

Thanks, Senator. Good to see something will be done.

I'd reintroduce it if no one else did.  The Pacific welcomes New Mexico!

Reintroduce it as the The New Mexico - Montana SCREW THE MIDWEST Regional Bill with the necessary modifications.

Thanks Gabu!

And King, I still think I'd need the Midwest's approval, even under the new Constitution...but at the new phrasing.