SB 2017-056 - Amendment to Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution (Failed)

[cinyc]

I always considered the minimum residency rule to be a "requirement for activity" (i.e. the poster must be an active citizen for a set period of time to be eligible to vote).

Even if that's true (and I beg to differ), the proposed amendment changes "requirement for activity" to "failing to meet such requirements for frequent posting as may be established by law".  So something needs to be changed.

[Leinad]

Since we apparently can't amend this legislation, I will open a final vote later today.

[LLR]

So we vote nay so that the house can add Clyde's amendment? Is that how this works?

[Leinad]

So we vote nay so that the house can add Clyde's amendment? Is that how this works?

I think so, although if anyone has an alternate interpretation I'm open to hearing it.

[Leinad]

I now open a 48-hour final vote.

[LLR]

Nay

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Nay

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Nay

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Nay.

[windjammer]

So we vote nay so that the house can add Clyde's amendment? Is that how this works?

I think so, although if anyone has an alternate interpretation I'm open to hearing it.

Well,
As I proposed new rules for both the senate and the House (that the House chose to pass btw) and that I made many changes to the current senate rules, if you want to send back something to the House, you should add your amendment, and then the other chamber will choose to adopt it or not.
-Basically, 3 scenarios:
1)  if a chamber adopts something then the other chamber chooses to adopt this too: it goes to the president's desk.
2) if a chamber adopts something then the other chamber chooses to reject it: end of the story for the bill.
3) if a chamber adopts something then the other chamber adopts something different from the original bill: it goes back on the floor on the first chamber etc etc until both chambers agree on something similar where then it goes to the president desk.

[Anna Komnene]

Aye

[Associate Justice PiT]

So we vote nay so that the house can add Clyde's amendment? Is that how this works?

I think so, although if anyone has an alternate interpretation I'm open to hearing it.

Well,
As I proposed new rules for both the senate and the House (that the House chose to pass btw) and that I made many changes to the current senate rules, if you want to send back something to the House, you should add your amendment, and then the other chamber will choose to adopt it or not.
-Basically, 3 scenarios:
1)  if a chamber adopts something then the other chamber chooses to adopt this too: it goes to the president's desk.
2) if a chamber adopts something then the other chamber chooses to reject it: end of the story for the bill.
3) if a chamber adopts something then the other chamber adopts something different from the original bill: it goes back on the floor on the first chamber etc etc until both chambers agree on something similar where then it goes to the president desk.

     When you note that the House chose to pass it, do you mean that the Senate never passed it? Or do you mean rather that it is in effect now and we actually need to not kill this?

[windjammer]

So we vote nay so that the house can add Clyde's amendment? Is that how this works?

I think so, although if anyone has an alternate interpretation I'm open to hearing it.

Well,
As I proposed new rules for both the senate and the House (that the House chose to pass btw) and that I made many changes to the current senate rules, if you want to send back something to the House, you should add your amendment, and then the other chamber will choose to adopt it or not.
-Basically, 3 scenarios:
1)  if a chamber adopts something then the other chamber chooses to adopt this too: it goes to the president's desk.
2) if a chamber adopts something then the other chamber chooses to reject it: end of the story for the bill.
3) if a chamber adopts something then the other chamber adopts something different from the original bill: it goes back on the floor on the first chamber etc etc until both chambers agree on something similar where then it goes to the president desk.

     When you note that the House chose to pass it, do you mean that the Senate never passed it? Or do you mean rather that it is in effect now and we actually need to not kill this?

I believe it is as well the best interpretation regarding the senate rules as well btw.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

3) if a chamber adopts something then the other chamber adopts something different from the original bill: it goes back on the floor on the first chamber etc etc until both chambers agree on something similar where then it goes to the president desk.

I'm a little confused by this; are you saying that the Senate and House would continue offering amendments to the bill until they can come to an agreement? Regardless of the merits of that proposal (if such is indeed your meaning), I don't believe such is compatible with the Constitution, which states:

(1) If one house passes a bill and the other house adopts it w/o amendment, it goes to the president
(2) If one house passes a bill and the other house rejects it, it fails
(3) If one house passes a bill and the other house adopts it w/ amendment, it returns to the first house for an up-or-down vote. If the first house then rejects the amended bill, the original (i.e. unamended) version returns to the other house for an up-or-down vote.

[windjammer]

3) if a chamber adopts something then the other chamber adopts something different from the original bill: it goes back on the floor on the first chamber etc etc until both chambers agree on something similar where then it goes to the president desk.

I'm a little confused by this; are you saying that the Senate and House would continue offering amendments to the bill until they can come to an agreement? Regardless of the merits of that proposal (if such is indeed your meaning), I don't believe such is compatible with the Constitution, which states:

(1) If one house passes a bill and the other house adopts it w/o amendment, it goes to the president
(2) If one house passes a bill and the other house rejects it, it fails
(3) If one house passes a bill and the other house adopts it w/ amendment, it returns to the first house for an up-or-down vote. If the first house then rejects the amended bill, the original (i.e. unamended) version returns to the other house for an up-or-down vote.

Wait, seriously, this is in the constitution?
Who the hell did that? Are the members of the Concon literally dumb to have adopted that? This king of things are senate/house rules matters, they shouldn't be a part of the constitution.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Wait, seriously, this is in the constitution?

I've been trying to tell people for months, but nobody listened.

[windjammer]

Wait, seriously, this is in the constitution?

I've been trying to tell people for months, but nobody listened.

It should honestly be repealed to be honest.

[LLR]

Wait, seriously, this is in the constitution?

I've been trying to tell people for months, but nobody listened.

It should honestly be repealed to be honest.

Let's just repeal the whole Constitution

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

3) if a chamber adopts something then the other chamber adopts something different from the original bill: it goes back on the floor on the first chamber etc etc until both chambers agree on something similar where then it goes to the president desk.

I'm a little confused by this; are you saying that the Senate and House would continue offering amendments to the bill until they can come to an agreement? Regardless of the merits of that proposal (if such is indeed your meaning), I don't believe such is compatible with the Constitution, which states:

(1) If one house passes a bill and the other house adopts it w/o amendment, it goes to the president
(2) If one house passes a bill and the other house rejects it, it fails
(3) If one house passes a bill and the other house adopts it w/ amendment, it returns to the first house for an up-or-down vote. If the first house then rejects the amended bill, the original (i.e. unamended) version returns to the other house for an up-or-down vote.

Wait, seriously, this is in the constitution?
Who the hell did that? Are the members of the Concon literally dumb to have adopted that? This king of things are senate/house rules matters, they shouldn't be a part of the constitution.

Wait, you are the Chief Justice and you haven't even read the Constitution?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Wait, seriously, this is in the constitution?

I've been trying to tell people for months, but nobody listened.

It should honestly be repealed to be honest.

Let's just repeal the whole Constitution

"Over my dead body sir!"

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Wait, seriously, this is in the constitution?

I've been trying to tell people for months, but nobody listened.

It should honestly be repealed to be honest.

The portion in question was meant as a means to prevent the Senate/House from cutting the VP out of the rules. Since the VP administers the process on the return trip.

OF course no one expected the House/Senate to go ahead and do that anyway and no one to stand up and say wait a minute, Constitution....

[Leinad]

This legislation fails.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Disappointing.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     *sigh*