S2: Rules and Procedure of the Southern Legislature (passed)

[fhtagn]

Considering all the BS, arguing about the rules, and useless bickering going on the last few days, I am now opening up this proposal in an emergency slot so that we can restore order in the Chamber and get things moving again.


Rules and Procedure of the Southern Legislature:

Definitions:
1.) Legislation is defined as any Bill, Amendment, or Resolution to a current Act, Procedural Resolution, or Constitutional Amendment.
2.) In all past, present and future instances of the terms, a Bill is defined as a piece of legislation that is awaiting or is presently in debate on the Chamber floor. An Act is defined as a Bill that has achieved passage into Law.
3.) The Dean of the Chamber is defined as the serving Delegate, who is not the Speaker, with the longest continuous service in the Delegate in his or her present stint of service. For the purposes of this clause, continuous service begins at the moment of swearing-in in the first term of the stint of service. The Chamber may, by a two-thirds majority vote on an ordinary resolution, pass the title, powers and responsibilities of the Dean of the Chamber, to the next longest serving Delegate (not having been removed from the position by the Chamber previously), for any reason whatsoever.
4.) A quorum is defined as the minimum number of members of the Chamber that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid, which is defined as a majority of the sitting Chamber.
5.) The Southern Legislature is defined as the ‘Chamber of Delegates’.

Section I: Officers of the Chamber of Delegates
1.) The Chamber shall entrust the position of enforcing these rules with a Speaker who shall defend and protect both our constitution and these rules to the best of his or her ability. Any citizen of the Southern Region shall be eligible to serve as Speaker.
2.) On the Monday before the Friday after a legislative election, the Dean of the Chamber shall start a 24-hour nominating period for Speaker and Deputy Speaker, followed by a 48-hour vote on these positions. In the event of a tie, the Governor shall appoint an Acting Speaker to serve until the tie is resolved, or until a new Chamber is elected.
3.) The Speaker shall be tasked with upholding Chamber procedures, organizing the functions of the Chamber, including opening and closing votes, allowing for debate and amendments, and other functions as deemed necessary by the Speaker, all solely given the parameters and requirements provided in Section IV, V, VI, and VII.
4.) All sitting members of the Chamber of Delegates shall be eligible to vote in elections for the Speakership. There shall be no rule mandating the discounting of ballots cast before the end of the voting period on account of post-facto edits to those ballots, invalid preferences, or other trivial irregularities; but no ballot cast in a script other than the Latin alphabet shall be counted as valid.
5.) The Speaker’s term shall end upon the Friday after the election. Until the next Speaker shall swear in, the Dean of the Chamber shall act as Speaker.

Section II: The Southern Legislation Introduction Thread and Chamber Noticeboard
1. The "Southern Chamber Introduction” thread shall be used for the following purposes:
a. The introduction of bills, resolutions, and constitutional amendments.
b. The posting of any updates to the schedule, calendar, recesses, or other procedural details of the Legislature.
c. Any motions involving the procedure or hierarchy of the Legislature, including a motion for Speaker of the Legislature as well as votes on such a motion.
d. General discussion among members that is pertinent to the Southern Legislature but not related to debate on a bill, resolution, or constitutional amendment.
E. The Speaker of the Chamber, or a person of his or her choosing shall be the manager of this thread
2. The Chamber Noticeboard will be a thread managed by the Governor, or a person of his or her choosing, to update this board with recent events on the Southern Chamber’s legislation, and amendments, along with Rejected and Passed Legislation.

Section III: Legislative Threads
1. The Speaker of the Legislature shall create a new thread for each piece of legislation introduced; however, such a thread shall only be created when the Legislature is debating said legislation, "legislation" means any bill, resolution, or constitutional amendment introduced in the Southern Legislature Thread, with the exception of resolutions on the procedure or hierarchy of the Legislature.
2. The following shall be performed in the legislation thread:
a. All debate on the piece of legislation.
b. The introduction of any amendments to the piece legislation.
c. Any votes on the piece of legislation, including amendments to it.
3. Included in the thread title should be the current state of the piece of legislation followed by the title in parenthesis:
a. "Debating" - the piece of legislation is actively being debated by the Legislature.
b. "Voting on Amendment" - the Legislature is in the process of voting on an amendment to the proposed legislation.
c. "Final vote" - the Legislature is in the process of taking a final vote.
d. "Passed" - the Legislature voted in favor of the piece of legislation; however, the Governor has not yet signed it.
e. "Failed" - the Legislature voted against the the piece of legislation.
f. "Statute" - the Legislature voted in favor of the piece of legislation, and the Governor signed it into law.
g. "Vetoed" - the Legislature voted in favor of the piece of legislation; however, the Governor vetoed the legislation.
h. "Vote to Override" - the Legislature voted in favor of the piece of legislation; however, the Governor vetoed the legislation, and the Legislature is in a vote to override the veto.
i. "Tabled" - the Legislature voted to table the piece of legislation until a further time.

[fhtagn]

Quote
Section IV: Introducing and Managing Legislation
1.) If the Speaker determines that a piece of legislation is functionally impractical, frivolous, or is directly unconstitutional, they may, in a public post on the Legislation Introduction thread, remove said legislation from the Chamber queue. The sponsoring Delegates of the legislation shall have seventy-two (72) hours to challenge this action in a public post, and with the concurrence of a majority (3/5) of office-holding Delegates in the affirmative (excluding the Speaker), may override the actions of the Speaker.
2.) 6 threads about legislation may be open for voting and debate simultaneously.
a) The first 4 open threads shall be open to all legislations initially regarding bills, resolutions or constitutional amendments. If the sponsor already has two or more pieces legislation on the Chamber floor, legislation from Delegates who do not shall take priority until all such other legislation is completed. The Speaker shall be the president officer for these open threads.
b) The fifth open thread shall be reserved for bills submitted by civilians in the Public Consultation and Legislation Submission thread. The Speaker shall be the president officer for this open thread.
c) The sixth open thread shall be reserved for legislation related to regional emergencies declared by the Governor of the South. The Speaker shall introduce legislation to this thread as directed by the Governor, but only when the Governor has declared a state of regional emergency.
3.) A piece of legislation is no longer on the Chamber Floor when it has been withdrawn, tabled, rejected, or passed by the members of the Chamber of Delegates.
4.) If at any time the original sponsor vacates their office as Delegate, all legislation introduced in the Legislation Introduction Thread shall, within a week of the next session, be declared withdrawn by the Speaker by public post, if no Delegate sponsors the legislation. If a piece of legislation has been introduced on the Chamber floor, any office-holding Delegate may assume sponsorship.
5.) Co-sponsors of legislation under consideration shall have no power to withdraw legislation nor contest withdrawal of legislation by the original sponsor. Any office-holding Delegates may assume sponsorship of the legislation within 72 hours after the original sponsor has motioned to withdraw. Once a motion to assume sponsorship has been filed by a Delegates, Delegates shall have 24 hours to object to this motion. If any Delegate objects, the Speaker shall open a vote on the motion lasting until a majority has voted for or against the motion, but not more than 72 hours. If the motion is rejected, the bill shall be removed from the floor.


Section V: Debate
1.) After a piece of legislation is introduced to the Chamber of Delegates floor, debate shall begin immediately. Debate on the legislation shall last for no less than 48 hours. The Chamber of Delegates may waive the 48-hour requirement on any legislation by passing cloture by unanimous consent. To waive the 48-hour requirement, the presiding officer must request unanimous consent to waive the minimum debate time requirement and provide 24 hours for a Delegate to object to this request. If the 48-hour requirement is waived, the presiding officer shall immediately open a final vote.
2.) The sponsor of a piece of legislation may at any time withdraw his or her sponsorship. In addition, when the sponsor is no longer a Delegate, his or her sponsorship shall be revoked automatically. If no member of the Chamber of Delegates moves to assume sponsorship of the legislation within 48 hours, the legislation shall be tabled automatically.
3.) At any time during debate on a piece of legislation, a Delegate may propose an amendment to that legislation. The presiding officer may ignore amendments that he or she deems frivolous, functionally impractical, or unconstitutional at his or her discretion, but the Chamber may compel the presiding officer to consider the amendment by majority consent.
4.) The presiding officer shall allow 24 hours for objections to an amendment following its introduction. If no objections are filed, the amendment shall pass. If any objections are filed, a vote shall be held. This vote shall last until a majority of sitting Delegates have voted to either approve or reject the amendment or until 3 days, i.e. 72 hours, have elapsed. No Delegate may change his or her vote once the voting period has concluded.
5.) Any Delegate may file a motion to table a piece of legislation during debate. The presiding officer shall open a vote on the motion to table when at least two other Delegates have seconded the motion. A two thirds majority is required for the approval of the motion to table.
6.) When debate on legislation has halted for longer than 24 hours and the legislation has been on the floor for more than 72 hours, any Delegates may call for a vote on said legislation. The presiding officer shall open a vote if no other member of the Chamber of Delegates objects within 24 hours of the call for a vote. When debate on legislation has halted for longer than 24 hours and the legislation has been on the floor for more than 72 hours but no more than 336 hours, any Delegates may motion for cloture. Upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the Chamber of Delegates, the Chamber of Delegates shall end debate. If the legislation has been on the floor for more than 336 hours, a simple majority is needed in order to end the debates. The presiding officer shall then open a final vote.
7.) If a bill has been vetoed, a Delegate has 24 hours to motion for a veto override. A two-thirds majority of the members of the Chamber of Delegates is needed in order to override a veto.


Section VI: Amendments
1.) During the course of debate on legislation, any sitting Delegate may offer amendments to the legislation. The Speaker may remove amendments from consideration that are functionally impractical, frivolous, directly unconstitutional, or lack clear intent regarding the changes to be made. The amendment sponsor shall have 24 hours to object to the decision and may overturn the action with the concurrence of 1/3rd of his or her fellow Delegates. Unless stated otherwise in the amendment, components of the underlying legislation not referenced in an amendment will remain unchanged.
2.) The legislation's primary sponsor shall judge the amendment(s) in relation to their intent with the legislation. If judged friendly by the sponsor, the Speaker shall give twenty four hours for objections to the amendment, after which, with no objections having been entered the amendment shall be considered as passed.
3.) If judged hostile by the sponsor, or if a Delegate has objected, a vote shall be started by the Speaker once the amendment has been on the floor twenty four hours. The vote shall last for three days or until a majority has voted in favor or against the amendment, at which point Delegates who have voted shall be prohibited from changing their votes and the vote shall be declared final.
4.) The Speaker shall number and track all amendments offered during the course of each Chamber session. These shall be tracked in the “Chamber Noticeboard” thread.

Section VII: Voting
1.) Votes on legislation shall last for a maximum of 3 days (i.e. 72 hours).
2.) When a piece of legislation has enough votes to pass or fail, the office in control of the legislative slot shall announce that he or she will close the vote in 24 hours and that any Delegate who wishes to change his or her vote must do so during that interval.
3.) If a piece of legislation is vetoed by the Governor, the bill's sponsor may request an override of the veto within 3 days, i.e. 72 hours, of the veto taking place. The Speaker may extend this period if the bill's sponsor is on a publicly-declared leave of absence.
4.) For the purposes of overriding vetoes, any Delegate who abstains from voting shall be counted as a vote against overriding the veto.

Article VIII: Rules Disputes
1.) The Southern Legislature may elect to suspend any section of these rules at any time with the consent of two-thirds of sitting Delegates.
2.) The presiding officer may unilaterally suspend any section of these rules at any time, unless another Delegate objects. If two Delegates object, suspending the rules shall require the consent of a majority of sitting Delegates.
3.) If the Chamber of Delegates cannot resolve a rules dispute, within 168 hours of the start of the dispute, the Supreme Court of The South may issue a binding decision dictating the proper interpretation of these rules, bound by the Constitution.


sponsor: Governor NeverAgain

[fhtagn]

The floor is now open for debate.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Motion to bypass the rules of the chamber require unanimous consent.

As this bill is already filed, and I am the sponsor of the bill already on the order paper, I will reject this motion.

We will take the matter up in due course.

[fhtagn]

I'd like to note that I'm open to discussion on amending this as well, as I'd like to, at the very least, define what would be considered frivolous. 

Unlike Mr. Cuber, I don't find all of the legislation you introduced "frivolous" (there are quite a few that I looked forward to discussing with you), nor do I only think your actions were politically motivated (I think it's correct to say you are both at fault).

I think it's fair to establish rules we all agree upon so that we can proceed without any further issues.
Like I mentioned in the legislation thread, I'm all for supporting this as long as we aren't trying to change the rules again when another party is in power. Should that happen, and if I am still a delegate, I will not supoort changing the rules again to give less power to an opposing party.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Motion to bypass the rules of the chamber require unanimous consent.

As this bill is already filed, and I am the sponsor of the bill already on the order paper, I will reject this motion.

We will take the matter up in due course.

Nothing about that in the rules.

I think some of the bills are completely frivolous but some could be worth debating.

[NeverAgain]

Okay, folks, I'd ask here that we continue debating. I really desire EVERYONE'S ideas and opinions here. This needs to be passed before we can move forward.

[JustinTimeCuber]

I move to amend this Bill by amending Section 4, Subsection 1 by striking the stricken text and inserting the bold text as below:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and by similarly amending Subsection 4 of the same as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

An example of how to apply the first one: Say there are 8 bills, 12345678 in the queue. The Speaker declares 1, 3, 4, and 7 frivolous. The queue is then 2568.
2 and 5 are considered, 2 is passed and signed by the Governor and 5 is tabled. The queue is then 68.
At that point, an objection to 1, 4, and 7 passes. The objection to 3 fails. The queue would then be 14678, and 1 would be the next bill to be considered.

To explain the point of the second one, I think we shouldn't sloppily carry over the queue past elections, because then we risk electing Delegates with no power to have their legislation heard if the queue gets clogged up and we are still considering legislation from June in September.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, this is why we should take the legislation up in it's proper order. No one is talking about removing this legislation from the order paper, least of all me, who is it's sponsor. Just because the legislation in front of this is deemed 'frivolous' by one member is insufficient cause to reorder things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We already have existing rules of the chamber.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that's something that will have to come up. We can't simply suspend the rules. I could have done that as Speaker earlier to ignore Laborite bills, which I didn't actually do.

I let them come up in due course. I hear the desire to tighten up the rules. I just don't think we are helping matters by establishing precedent that just because we don't like legislation means we can change the order paper.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why? We already have the rules in place. This bill is not S2, nor should it supplant S2 just because the Governor doesn't like the legislation that is actually S2.

What you are doing, Nev, is setting a precedent that the delegates can simply ignore legislation that they do not like.

[JustinTimeCuber]

If 3 delegates hate it so much that they vote not to consider it, it's probably not worth the time. All it takes is one delegate in the majority who isn't a complete cheater and hack, and I believe we have 3.

[NeverAgain]

"Delegates shall have seventy-two hours to challenge the decision(s), or until the end of the Speaker's term. If there is a challenge, the Speaker shall call a seventy-two hour vote on the challenge, offering an individual vote for each challenged decision, in the Southern Legislature Thread. If a majority of office-holding Delegates vote in the affirmative (in favor of the challenge), the legislation shall be re-introduced at the same position in the queue. If the legislation's position in the queue was already passed, it shall be re-introduced at the beginning of the queue."

Couple of things here: 1. "seventy-two hours to challenge the decision(s), or until the end of the Speaker's term", I mean that's a pretty big discrepancy. This is basically just saying anytime between the start of a legislative session, and the end of the legislative session you can bring it up. I think that we have to make it 72 hours, as there is a certain point when these bills become no longer relevant and if you wait over half a week to make a complaint, it's obvious you didn't care about the legislation in the first place.

2. "If a majority of office-holding Delegates vote in the affirmative (in favor of the challenge)". I would suggest adding "If a majority, and only a majority, etc.", as the Speaker should not be voting in this decision, so ending up in a tie, which means that the majority of Delegates (3/5) support the Speaker's actions.

3. "If the legislation's position in the queue was already passed, it shall be re-introduced at the beginning of the queue." I would say that if it has already passed, then it should be the FIRST bill to be debated. If a Speaker makes a mistake, then we should not spend possible weeks waiting for this delegate's rightful legislation to be discussed.

I will discuss the next part in a few hours, but first:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why? We already have the rules in place. This bill is not S2, nor should it supplant S2 just because the Governor doesn't like the legislation that is actually S2.

What you are doing, Nev, is setting a precedent that the delegates can simply ignore legislation that they do not like.

This is not a matter of liking or not liking legislation. Do you really think I care whether milk is the regional drink or not, or whether there is a Yankee International Airport? I don't. In fact, I am against the $15 Minimum Wage, but that should be given ample time to be discussed as it something that affects people's lives and prosperity, even though I would easily sign your milk bill over that in it's current form. I think Federalist or Laborite, and anything in between, has to agree that we are needed here to talk about REAL issues that affect people, not naming buildings or making the labor of heifers regionally significant.

But when we are looking at things in context, these are obstructive bills when the goal is getting things done that affect people's lives. I was not elected to obstruct, I was elected to lead. And leading means we have to have rules that clarify the basics of procedure. 

As I said to diptheriadan, my singling you out for your legislation, was nothing against you, but just saying that we need to see where our priorities are at. We cannot continue legislating or governing when our rules put us at the risk of a Constitutional Crisis daily.

In summation, I care very little about your bills, for or against. But whether I like ANY bill or not is not the issue, it is about establishing clear procedure, and all bills that were in the queue were at risk of this crisis if we didn't get clear rules established.

[JustinTimeCuber]

1. Oops, I meant to put whichever is lower. Duh
2. "A majority of elected Delegates" is three Delegates whether or not the Speaker votes.
3. The beginning of the queue, not the end. It would be the first bill to be considered.

So what's the status on the Amendment?

[diptheriadan]

Okay, I'm confused. I thought your problem with the rules was that it opened up the possibility of Ben and JTC suing each other and grinding progress in the Chamber to a halt, not that Ben's bills were obstructionist.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Okay, I'm confused. I thought your problem with the rules was that it opened up the possibility of Ben and JTC suing each other and grinding progress in the Chamber to a halt, not that Ben's bills were obstructionist.

Probably both to be perfectly honest, the Speaker does need to have the authority to get rid of dumb bills, not on policy, but just stupid crap like having an official beverage. If someone wants to introduce crap like that they should at least wait until we have nothing better to do.

[NeverAgain]

Okay, I'm confused. I thought your problem with the rules was that it opened up the possibility of Ben and JTC suing each other and grinding progress in the Chamber to a halt, not that Ben's bills were obstructionist.

That is my problem with the rules. The possibility of continual constitution crisis (like that alliteration?) is why I wanted to move all bills back so we can get talking about this NOW. Ben's bills were just examples of the bills that needed to be pushed back so that we can get this done. He stated it was that I have some political objection to them, which is not the case. It was the fact that there are a dozen of them sent out in a matter of hours, which can be discussed at any time (hopefully with rules).

[JustinTimeCuber]

like that alliteration?

You have my approval.

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would just say legislative session instead of "Speaker's term", as they are essentially substitutes for one another, and do not require the clarification. And adding "any legislation proposed by former members of the previous session, may be sponsored by Delegates of the next session". Other than that, looks great.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Final version of the Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and by similarly amending Subsection 4 of the same as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is there a second?

[JustinTimeCuber]

I guess this week was our Spring break, huh guys?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then let the legislative process work, Nev.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obstructive to whom? You?

What's stopping a federalist governor from deeming a Laborite bill as 'obstructive' and ignoring it. This sets a terrible precedent.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What crisis?

Nev has self-declared his own crisis here. Nor has he adequately explained why he must use his emergency powers to force change on the delegates rather than letting us debate and discuss the bills in their due course.

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then let the legislative process work, Nev.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obstructive to whom? You?

What's stopping a federalist governor from deeming a Laborite bill as 'obstructive' and ignoring it. This sets a terrible precedent.

Dunno where I ignored your bills. The Speaker used her authority to do this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What crisis?

Nev has self-declared his own crisis here. Nor has he adequately explained why he must use his emergency powers to force change on the delegates rather than letting us debate and discuss the bills in their due course.

We've had 2 Court Cases, and an false impeachment hearing, according to our rules, which has rendered our Chamber essentially useless, as we cannot even get through a single piece of legislation. I am perfectly fine with letting things go their course, but looking at precedent, the past couple of weeks. We will NEVER be able to get anything done if we continually have the threat of Supreme Court cases daily, due to these unclear rules.

Ben, I don't know where your going here. I didn't ignore your legislation, no one did. It's still in the queue. Focus on this bill, which was brought here legitimately under the Speaker's power (something that is in entire excess under our unclear rules). I don't want anymore screaming contests or court cases, because believe or not, it's really not my cup of tea.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We had two court cases because the rules were unclear at the time with how things should proceed. While I was speaker not only did I successfully conduct the vote the second time, I also established a precedent for a revote.

All without 'emergency powers' or breaking any of the rules.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

NeverAgain - just drop this bill and let us finish up with S1.

Then we can get rolling again on S2, and so on and so forth.

I've already sponsored the rules changes on the order paper so we will get to this bill. No need for emergency powers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why are we debating this bill now which is also in the queue, even though S2 should come first?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no emergency. I've asked, and you're yet to explain why we are in an emergency situation.

If you can't explain why this is an emergency situation, I'm forced to conclude that you are deliberately ignoring bills that you labeled 'obstructionist', and violating the rules of the Chamber.

We have rules and a process here. We should be following them.

[NeverAgain]

Explained it pretty darn clearly. If we don't have clear and set boundaries on slots, length of debate, etc, we will get into little tiffs like this which will explode into Constitutional Crisis, like we've seen.

Ben, I am going to have to stop responding, if all you're saying is that I established rules, which the Speaker brought, that get the ball rolling for the Chamber.

I just really, really want to get this stuff done, but you are really making this difficult. The problem here en lies, that we can't debate on any bill yours or anyone's, unless we have clear rules so we don't get held up on misinterpretations.

The rules say nothing about emergency slots, nor about forcing the chamber to go solely by the queue. That is up to the Speaker's discretion, and the Speaker has opened this. Arguing with me isn't going to get your bills debated any quicker.