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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Third, and most important, the Senate no longer has power to make amendments to this bill. According to the Constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Senate already passed an earlier version of this bill; it was subsequently adopted with amendments by the House of Representatives, and the amended version has now returned to this, the original house, for an up-or-down vote. If the Senate feels strongly that the aforementioned change ought to be made, the best strategy is to pass the bill as it stands now and introduce and quickly pass an amended version before it is brought up for ratification (doing so would require swift action on the part of the Congressional leadership, but it is technically possible).

Whew, that was long. I ought to be named "Wall of Text Truman."

Wow, we should really amend the Senate rules to be consistent with that then.

Been saying that for months. But like Truman often finds, its like talking to a wall.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If there are no objections to this I'll call a vote later today, so Yankee can sign it in time for the election.

I do plan to sign it as a resolution yes (but that is merely ceremonial*), but it won't take effect until ratified by the regions.


* Something I picked up from the Lincoln movie was that he "signed" the thirteenth amendment after it passed the House. I am not sure if that happens always in RL and it is not something that can be vetoed obviously.

Edit:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Truman, if we're going to pass an amended version of this anyway, why should we vote for passage?

Because then we have to start completely over for one.

[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....

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Disappointing.