S1: Act to revise Bill 2's 'revision to the rules of the chamber of delegates'

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

but... why? That's just obstructionism for obstructionism's sake.

How would you describe the effect that would issue from the striking of clauses b and c?

The Governor would not have an emergency slot, and there would be no thread for civilian submitted legislation.

Ok this amendment is dead in the water then. I'm not going to vote in favor of ditching this.

[West_Midlander]

but... why? That's just obstructionism for obstructionism's sake.

How would you describe the effect that would issue from the striking of clauses b and c?

The Governor would not have an emergency slot, and there would be no thread for civilian submitted legislation.

Ok this amendment is dead in the water then. I'm not going to vote in favor of ditching this.

[West_Midlander]

Can we move to a final vote on the amendment?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

No objection.

[JustinTimeCuber]

No objection.

[fhtagn]

Bringing this to a 48 hour final vote on the subamendment

[JustinTimeCuber]

Bringing this to a 48 hour final vote on the subamendment

Nay

[West_Midlander]

Nay

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Nay

[JustinTimeCuber]

With 0 votes in favor, and 3 opposed, with 2 not voting, subamendment 5 is rejected.
Acting Speaker of the South
x

(yes I know I need to get around to rotating my signature a few degrees clockwise)
Subamendment 6 is open for debate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This shall be struck.[/quote]

I would like to point out that this amendment strikes a clause that wasn't even included in the final version of last session's S2.

[fhtagn]

I mean, I wasn't the one who proposed it, I just sponsored all of this so it didn't die. But if it isn't even an actual rule, we can motiom to override the 48 hour requirement and move onto the next one

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I mean, I wasn't the one who proposed it, I just sponsored all of this so it didn't die. But if it isn't even an actual rule, we can motiom to override the 48 hour requirement and move onto the next one

I'd be in favor of such a move, personally.

[JustinTimeCuber]

I mean, I wasn't the one who proposed it, I just sponsored all of this so it didn't die. But if it isn't even an actual rule, we can motiom to override the 48 hour requirement and move onto the next one

it's not final passage so there's not technically a 48 hour requirement. I think I'm allowed to do this though (under Article VIII section 2 of the rules):

As presiding officer I hereby rule subamendment 6 out of order on the grounds that it attempts to strike a non-existent rule. Members have 24 hours to object.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

No objection.

[West_Midlander]

No objection.

[fhtagn]

No objection.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Without objection, subamendment 6 is ruled out of order.

Acting Speaker of the South
x


Subamendment 7 is now open for debate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This shall be struck[/quote]

[West_Midlander]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

imo the co-sponsor should be able to take over sponsorship if the original sponsor wants to remove the bill. (and/or to contest withdrawal of the bill)

In reference to this: "Co-sponsors of legislation under consideration shall have no power to withdraw legislation" what power would co-sponsors have in withdrawal if this is stricken?

[JustinTimeCuber]

For full context, here's the rest of that rule:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bold part is affected by this subamendment.

[fhtagn]

I think they should have the power to contest withdrawal of legislation by the original sponsor, but I don't think they should have the power to withdraw the legislation, since they aren't the original sponsor of the bill.

That being said, the rest of the text covers that, so I have no issue with striking it.

[JustinTimeCuber]

I think they should have the power to contest withdrawal of legislation by the original sponsor, but I don't think they should have the power to withdraw the legislation, since they aren't the original sponsor of the bill.

That being said, the rest of the text covers that, so I have no issue with striking it.

What's the purpose of striking the clause though? It seems to act as clarification to the more detailed rules below it.

[fhtagn]

I think they should have the power to contest withdrawal of legislation by the original sponsor, but I don't think they should have the power to withdraw the legislation, since they aren't the original sponsor of the bill.

That being said, the rest of the text covers that, so I have no issue with striking it.

What's the purpose of striking the clause though? It seems to act as clarification to the more detailed rules below it.

I just think it seems a bit redundant.

[West_Midlander]

I think they should have the power to contest withdrawal of legislation by the original sponsor, but I don't think they should have the power to withdraw the legislation, since they aren't the original sponsor of the bill.

That being said, the rest of the text covers that, so I have no issue with striking it.

[JustinTimeCuber]

What do you think would actually change if we strike the clause?

[fhtagn]

Nothing actually changes, it just takes out something unnecessary, as the rest of the clause covers it.