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

[fhtagn]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The clause 'who is not the Speaker' is struck. 
[/quote]

Agreeing with this, as the position of the longest serving Delegate should not matter.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given that debate has persisted, nope we ain't doing this.

How about actually discussing things rather than trying to shut the process down, Mr. Cuber?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's really the only way to tackle this monstrosity that is Bill 2. 

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The federal laws work well. I don't see a good argument against adopting them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Speaker serves the delegates not the other way around. It is not the job of the delegates to act as a check against the power of the Speaker.

Again, giving the Speaker the power to outright dismiss a bill because #idontlikeit is a terrible law. Which, unfortunately was passed last term.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We don't need more than 2 to clear a busy queue. Really, we don't. As a past speaker 2 is more than enough.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is a difference between 'propose' and 'introduce'. Propose means that he submits it to the legislative queue and that a delegate takes it up to introduce the legislation.

Right now with Bill 2, he can ram any legislation that he desires through *his* slot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which raises the question - as to why he needs his own slot if his legislation is being introduced the way that it ought to be. I am not saying that Nev shouldn't be able to contribute, far from it.

What I am saying is that there is a process that respects the authority of the chamber of delegates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no issue with him proposing legislation. I have an issue with him having a direct slot, provided by Bill 2.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I already stated what it does. There is no reason to require the speaker to introduce legislation within 48 hours. That should be left to the discretion of the Speaker. 

[Wisconsin+17]

With the permission of Fhtagn (and to save her a bit of time), I'm going to break up this amending bill into sub amendment so that each amendment can be debated and discussed separately.

This post is to keep track of the bill components:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The clause 'who is not the Speaker' is struck.
[/quote]

...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This clause shall be struck
[/quote]

.................................................

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This clause shall be struck, and amended to the following. "Ballots cast shall follow the same rules for validity as under the Federal voting laws of atlasia."
[/quote]

...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This entire section shall be struck.
[/quote]

[JustinTimeCuber]

I'm opposed to 2, 3, and 4, as they all make the rules less clear and don't fix anything.

[Wisconsin+17]

But you're not opposed to sub amendment one? Ok.

I motion for a vote on sub amendment 1 of the Revision bill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The clause 'who is not the Speaker' is struck.
[/quote]

[JustinTimeCuber]

But you're not opposed to sub amendment one? Ok.

I motion for a vote on sub amendment 1 of the Revision bill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The clause 'who is not the Speaker' is struck.

[/quote]
No objection to part 1. Seems like a trivial change, but it would increase the clarity of the rules.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given that debate has persisted, nope we ain't doing this.

How about actually discussing things rather than trying to shut the process down, Mr. Cuber?

Great, more loaded questions.

I'm willing to debate any bill, but as it appeared that debate had drawn to a close, I thought we were ready for a final vote.

I find it funny that someone who flooded the queue with things like a regional tree act and a regional beverage act would talk to someone about shutting down the process.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Excluding the case where the Speaker is the Dean makes no sense to me either.

Since we're in agreement, are you going to second my motion?

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Excluding the case where the Speaker is the Dean makes no sense to me either.

Since we're in agreement, are you going to second my motion?

Second.

[fhtagn]

Calling for a 24 hour vote on subamendment 1, which is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

. [/quote]


(clarification for those who haven't followed,  an "AYE" vote is agreeing to strike the clause "who is not the Speaker", a "NAY" vote disagrees with striking the clause).

[Wisconsin+17]

AYE!

[JustinTimeCuber]

Aye

[fhtagn]

Aye

[White Trash]

Aye

[fhtagn]

with 4 votes in favor, 0 against, and 1 not voting, subamendment 1 passes.

[Wisconsin+17]

SUBAMENDMENT 2

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This clause shall be struck

[Wisconsin+17]

Dean of the Chamber of Delegates is merely the longest continuous serving delegate.

There is no reason to make the office political or to 'remove' someone as the Dean. Ergo this clause is wholly unnecessary.

[fhtagn]

Agreed with Ben on this. It's honestly a pretty silly thing to include in the rules.

[JustinTimeCuber]

What if the Dean is inactive or refuses to follow the procedure?
It's not about making the position political. Notice how no one tried to remove you as Dean this time.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So this was purely motivated as an attack on me? Glad we cleared that up.

I don't see vindictiveness as a good basis for law. 

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So this was purely motivated as an attack on me? Glad we cleared that up.

I don't see vindictiveness as a good basis for law. 

Um...

What?


When exactly did I even come close to implying that?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seeing as this bill was introduced last term, logically it follows that this section of the bill was intended to provide a way to remove me as dean.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seeing as this bill was introduced last term, logically it follows that this section of the bill was intended to provide a way to remove me as dean.

But if it were some evil Labor plot, why didn't we use it? Look, we might have used it if you cheated like you did last time, but you didn't, so we didn't.