Will somebody clarify the status of the exclusive slot, please?

[Adam Griffin]

I've asked this multiple times and to my knowledge, I've never received a response. On two different occasions, I've tried to introduce legislation and in both cases, a Senator has sponsored the legislation for me. It was my understanding that we created an executive slot some time ago, which allowed the President to introduce legislation without the need for sponsorship. I would like a definitive answer on whether I have such a slot available to me.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If you do, you should not.

[Adam Griffin]

If you do, you should not.

This is still not an answer. Jesus, if you don't know the answer...

[Adam Griffin]

Ugh, I'm looking back to last year...did Lumine destroy the concept of the executive slot, too? Everything he touches...or did he create it?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If you do, you should not.

This is still not an answer. Jesus, if you don't know the answer...

Of course I know the answer.

You do not:

According to TNF:

This is unconstitutional as it stands. Unless we want to amend the constitution to specifically allow the President to introduce legislation, we can't enact this.

Cranberry:

I guess if the Constitution prohibits the President from introducing legislation, it simply overlaps this here, enabling the President to post in the thread, but still needing a Senator to sponsor it? I don't know, but that would sound logical to me.

I like the part with the second emergency slot, it seems indeed very sensible to me.

bore:

I'm fine with amending it to include VPs as well.

If this were to pass if the president was to post in the legislation introduction thread and no senator sponsored it the bill would never reach the floor, so I don't see how this is unconstitutional.

And of course, myself:

I agree with bore and Cranberry on the constitutionality. It would still need a sponsor to actually be legislation considered on the floor.

[Adam Griffin]

OK, but that's just Senator chatter at the very beginning; it was later amended and the bill passed the Senate, so...

I'll just need to declare a state of emergency in order to use it.

[Adam Griffin]

Didn't the concept of the executive slot exist before that legislation, though? Seems like it was a lot longer than a year ago that I remember the executive slot being debated.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nope:

How would this harm the separation of powers, considering that one of the two objectives here is to merely legalize something that has been done for the past months? The process may be faster if the executive (President + VP, I certainly support that idea) can indeed post in the thread, but he is not taking any powers away from the Senate given that he still requires a sponsor.

The bills still require a Senate sponsor, Adam. That was the understanding throughout the whole debate and the basis on which it was passed. Windjammer, TNF, bore, Cranberry, all stated the same basic thing. THe President cannot sponsor a Senate bill without crossing the line of legislating and therefore, a Senator has to have his name on it as sponsor. And this is a pointless issue, if you cannot get a sponsor, you are obviously not going to get the six votes to pass the bill obviously.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Didn't the concept of the executive slot exist before that legislation, though? Seems like it was a lot longer than a year ago that I remember the executive slot being debated.

We had the executive slot under the old rules if you will recall dating back to I think 2011 or 2010. However, they also required Senate sponsorship of all bills.

The Senate rules cannot amend the Constitution.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

TNF, bore, Lief, Windjammer, Cranberry, Lumine and myself all posted in different ways that bills would still require a Senate sponsor regardless of slot changes or allowing the President to post directly into the legislation introduction thread. The main disagreement was whether or not the rule change could exist alongside the constitutional requirements without underming or subverting them and a majority said yes, hence the vote. The no voters, thought even that was too much and nearly all of them were Laborites if I recall correctly.

Why am I not surprised to see you completely out of the loop with more than half your Senators at that time.

[Adam Griffin]

OK, but unless there is missing and contradictory context somewhere else in the Senate rules themselves that wasn't posted in the thread, I don't see anything in the adopted changes that say that the informal discussion and agreement between 7 people that the President or Vice President needs sponsorship from a Senator is the actual process. What is the point of said changes referring to "states of emergency" and the like, then? Effectively, nothing was changed according to you.

Was all of that hoop-la literally over the fact that the President was not "allowed" to post in the thread, so a bunch of drivel had to be scribbled down to allow the President the privilege of making a post in a thread that literally anyone can post in if they so choose? What was the prior punishment for the President (or any non-Senator) for posting in the thread?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

From Article III, Section 5 of the Rules of Order:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Adam Griffin]

From Article III, Section 5 of the Rules of Order:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This was my point exactly. It doesn't make any mention of the informal agreements that Yankee and others discussed in the thread at that time, that Yankee is now saying is binding.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The constitution is neither informal nor unbinding!


Adam you are missing the point of the rules change here. Prior to this change of rules, Non-Senators were barred from posting at all in the thread in question.

The change made it so that bills could be posted in the thread by the President and VP, however it changed nothing with regards to the sponsorship requirements and it was the understanding of every Senator, especially most of your Senators at the time, that this rule change couldn't change anything with regards to the ability of the President or VP to actually sponsor the legislation.

[Adam Griffin]

The constitution is neither informal nor unbinding!


Adam you are missing the point of the rules change here. Prior to this change of rules, Non-Senators were barred from posting at all in the thread in question.

The change made it so that bills could be posted in the thread by the President and VP, however it changed nothing with regards to the sponsorship requirements and it was the understanding of every Senator, especially most of your Senators at the time, that this rule change couldn't change anything with regards to the ability of the President or VP to actually sponsor the legislation.

I didn't miss the point: I clearly asked (with incredulity) if that's why it was done.

Was all of that hoop-la literally over the fact that the President was not "allowed" to post in the thread, so a bunch of drivel had to be scribbled down to allow the President the privilege of making a post in a thread that literally anyone can post in if they so choose? What was the prior punishment for the President (or any non-Senator) for posting in the thread?

Which yes, still seems silly as all get-out.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I missed your post on the 30th.


There was no enforcement mechanism.