Efficient Referenda Amendment (Failed)

[bore]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsored by: Windjammer

[bore]

Proposing an amendment to address the IDS  concern:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[bore]

Senators have 36 hours to object to bore's amendment


That's intended as an exemption

[bore]

Bore's amendment has passed


Are we ready for a final vote?

[bore]

Senators a final vote is now open on this amendment, please vote aye nay or abstain

[bore]

Aye

[bore]

This has enough votes to pass, senators have 24 hours to change their votes

[bore]

By a vote of 6-0-1 this amendment has passed the senate and is sent to the regions for ratification

Aye: Bore, Cranberry, TNF, Lief, Cris, Windjammer,

Abstain: Yankee

Not Voting: Polnut, Bacon King, SWE

[bore]

Using the powers to suspend the rules granted to me by the senate rules, I hereby count Bacon King's vote as valid and declare this amendment to have passed 7-1

[bore]

Since senator windjammer has objected a vote is now open on whether to override the speaker, 1/3rd of the vote is needed to do so. Senators may vote aye nay or abstain

[bore]

Good point. Aye is overriding the speaker's decision

[bore]

Nay

Don't worry windjammer, there are no hard feelings, and i completely understand why you are doing this.

Basically I would not have done this if the vote was 5-3 and Bacon King then voted after the deadline, because then the bill has failed because the vote was not at the right time. I am doing this on the advice of the supreme court to avoid a legal debate over whether a 2/3rds majority of voting senators or a 2/3rds majority of all sitting senators  is needed to pass an amendment. I think it is a majority of voting senators because of what I believe the constitution says and what I think is the most equitable solution, the one our founders will have intended, namely that given this reading, abstentions are not no votes by another name but actual abstentions.

[bore]

Aye

That interpretation bore is contrary to past interpretations regarding abstentions and the effect. The basic understanding was that you needed 2/3rds and if you are denied the two-thirds it has not passed the Senate.

Perhaps, but it's not contrary to my interpretation of the constitution, and, as speaker, I have to interpret the rules and guidelines in the way I believe them to be written. If other senators disagree, which I think they clearly do, then we will all follow the court's interpretation.

[bore]

This override has enough votes to pass, senators have 24 hours to change their votes

[bore]

By a vote of 4-4 the speaker's decision has been overruled:

Aye: Windjammer, Lief, Cris, Yankee

Nay: Bore, Cranberry, TNF, SWE

Not Voting: Bacon King, Polnut

After much thought I've decided that it is easier for all involved to certify this amendment as failed, both on the courts and on the senate. I, personally, am still not convinced that the constitution means 7, but will respect the will of the senate here.