Constitutional Amendment to Remove the Balanced Budget Requirement

[Jake]

This doesn't include Hugh's amendment, correct?

If not, Aye.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This doesn't include Hugh's amendment, correct?

It doesn't include Hugh's amendment

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Aye

[The Dowager Mod]

Aye

[Gabu]

Aye.

[Platypus]

Abstain

[MasterJedi]

Aye: 5
Nay: 1
Abstain: 1

[MasterJedi]

Aye: 5
Nay: 1
Abstain: 1

If we're counting Colin absent then shouldn't this be passed now?

[PBrunsel]

Nay

[Emsworth]

If we're counting Colin absent then shouldn't this be passed now?

Constitutional amendments, I believe, require a two-thirds majority of the full Senate, not just a two-thirds majority of those voting.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Constitutional amendments, I believe, require a two-thirds majority of the full Senate, not just a two-thirds majority of those voting.

The Constitution says [Article VII, Section I]...

"The Senate, whenever two-thirds of its number shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution"

No mention is made of the full Senate (unless this has been replaced by an amendment) and bearing in mind how most legislatures work, I don't think that one is implied either.

[Emsworth]

"The Senate, whenever two-thirds of its number shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution"

No mention is made of the full Senate (unless this has been replaced by an amendment) and bearing in mind how most legislatures work, I don't think that one is implied either.

Well, the interpretation that "its number" means "the whole number of Senators" was accepted in this thread.

[Sam Spade]

Well, if DanielX were to vote Nay, all of this discussion really wouldn't matter.

[The Dowager Mod]

I think this points out the urgency of filling the NorthEast seat quickly.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It was accepted by two people (neither of which are Senators) in what could be thought of as an informal conversation.
Seeing as the Constitution does not make itself clear over this, I don't see what's so very wrong with the Senate regulating it's own actions.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, if DanielX were to vote Nay, all of this discussion really wouldn't matter.

Unless Hugh switches his vote to an aye o/c. In which case it would be 6:3.

And even if he doesn't it still matters, as this whole thing will probably just crop up in the next Senate...

[Platypus]

After consultation with some constituents and seeing the general will of the senate, and also to give the people of Atlasia the chance to decide,

I will change my vote aye

[MasterJedi]

Yay, great call Hugh!  

[MasterJedi]

So that would be:

6 Aye
2 Nay
0 Abstain


So this will have passed.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This amendment has recieved enough votes to pass and has done so. As per Article Four, Section Four, Clause Three of the Senate Procedural thing, this vote is now closed and Senators are no longer permitted to change their votes.

This all goes to public poll now IIRC.

[MasterJedi]

This all goes to public poll now IIRC.

I'll PM the Governor's about it so don't worry at all.

[Sam Spade]

This amendment has recieved enough votes to pass and has done so. As per Article Four, Section Four, Clause Three of the Senate Procedural thing, this vote is now closed and Senators are no longer permitted to change their votes.

This all goes to public poll now IIRC.

Uh, did Colin resign or is he still a member of the Senate?  And did he say to abstain every vote while he has been through his troubles?  (I might have missed something while I've been sort of absent)

If not, with 6 votes in favor, the amendment is surely not passed until 7 days have started from the vote beginning (i.e. December 6, 2005 @ 6:13:59 PM).  I know this sounds nit-picky, but there's reasons why these rules were created and since I expect DanielX would vote Nay, it means that Colin's vote would probably be the decider, if he were to come back.  Of course, if y'all would expel him before this time ended, it would eliminate the problem completely.  This is not a threat, but you expect me to vote Nay on the amendment if I believe it has been improperly approved.

Also, for real practical purposes, the Senators need to be given 24 hours to change their votes, as laid out in the OSPR.

[Sam Spade]

"The Senate, whenever two-thirds of its number shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution"

No mention is made of the full Senate (unless this has been replaced by an amendment) and bearing in mind how most legislatures work, I don't think that one is implied either.

Well, the interpretation that "its number" means "the whole number of Senators" was accepted in this thread.

I tend to disagree with Emsworth's supposition here, since it is clearly defined in the Constitution that the Senate has power to create rules governing its own assembly, and by right this means they have the power to choose how to define what two-thirds of their number means in real terms.

The only place in the OSPR where Abstaining is treated as a Nay is clearly marked in Article 5, Section 3, Clause 3, which states:

"3. Sections 1 and 2 of this Article shall apply in full to voting on a Veto Override, with this exception:

For the purposes of a Veto Override only, any Senator who Abstains from voting shall be counted as a vote Against the legislation under consideration."

The implication here is that only under the circumstances of a Veto Override may an Abstention be counted as a Nay against legislation.  Otherwise, Abstentions do not count towards the overall "number" of Senators.

I have proposed (quite a while ago) an amendment to the OSPR which could take care of some of the confusion, if worded properly.

In this post, I laid out the concept of a "quorum requirement" and the addition of the vote "Present" to be counted against said requirement.  "Abstain" would not count against the requirement or against anything for that matter.

If the amendment were so worded as to imply that the vote of "Present" would count towards the Senate's "number", then a vote of Present would count against an Amendment or Veto Override (where the "two-thirds of its number" clause is made) and not towards a simple majority vote.  However, if one wanted to include it for certain types of votes and not for others, clauses could added stating such, i.e. if the Senate did not want "Present" votes to count towards amendment voting.

Just a little food for thought.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Uh, did Colin resign or is he still a member of the Senate?

He's still a member, I think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He's not voted on anything as far as I'm aware

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually no mention is made of a minimum time; the procedural thing says "This vote shall last for a maximum of seven (7) days". If the intention was to make it so that a vote has to last for 7 days or until all Senators have voted, it isn't written down.
I could be misreading things though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough, although if it hasn't been improperly approved, it would be by accident rather than design.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep, true. Misread the OSPR. Sorry.

[Peter]

Actually no mention is made of a minimum time; the procedural thing says "This vote shall last for a maximum of seven (7) days". If the intention was to make it so that a vote has to last for 7 days or until all Senators have voted, it isn't written down.
I could be misreading things though.

I believe his point is that the vote could still be 6-4-0, which is obviously not a two-thirds majority. The general workings of the Senate have been that a vote stays open until it is absolutely guaranteed passage (in this case, has 7 votes) or its maximum duration expires (in this case, 7 days).