Don't Cry For Me Atlasia Bill

[Ebowed]

Don't Cry For Me Atlasia Bill

§1. Repeal
The Onion Futures Act (Pub. L. 85-839, Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 1013 [7 U.S.C. 13-1]) which prohibits trading in future contracts on onions is hereby repealed.

§2. Conforming amendment
The text "except onions as provided in section 13-1 of this title," is stricken from section 1a of the Commodity Exchange Act [7 U.S.C. 1a].


Sponsor: Sen. Ernest

[Colin]

Why, in the name of all that's good, are we taking time out of the Senate schedule to vote on a bill concerning onions? This Onion Bill doesn't even merit a informal discussion of the issue.

I would like to motion to table this bill.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I second Colin's motion.

[Sam Spade]

Humor is obviously not the Senate's forte.

[Brandon H]

I'm guessing this bill was intended for the purpose of the dead period at the end of the session when there is little legislation left to discuss. Obviously, we are not in the dead period and there is not little legislation left to discuss. This would probably be better moved to the end of February (after the election but before the next Senate takes over).

[Colin]

Humor is obviously not the Senate's forte.

Can't we be the only serious place on the forum? I know we have BRTD as part of our number but we can stil give the allusion of being serious.

[Sam Spade]

Humor is obviously not the Senate's forte.

Can't we be the only serious place on the forum? I know we have BRTD as part of our number but we can stil give the allusion of being serious.

BRTD really had nothing to do with my comment, though you are accurate in this characterization.

This is simply a typical Ernest bill, which deals with something minor in the Code that is a good candidate for repeal.  It is amusing because no one else would bother to think of it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I realize that the name of the bill is humorous and the scope may seem extremely narrow, but the topic is real and serious.  As it currently stands it is illegal to offer a futures contract on onions in the United States Republic of Atlasia and for the life of me I can't see a reason why it should be.  This bill is one of my serious bills and I have been generally introducing them in alphabetic order based on the titles I gave them.  I did introduce a few joke bills, but I withdrew them quite some time ago.  Little details matter, as a certain mayor from New York once noted.

[Ebowed]

The question is on the motion to table (i.e., reject without debate).

[Ebowed]

Nay

[Colin]

Aye

[Everett]

Aye.

[Brandon H]

Nay.

If this is a serious bill then it deserves to be debated and voted on as any other bill.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Nay

[Јas]

Nay.
Also could someone point me towards the procedural regulations on 'tabling' bills?

[Colin]

Nay.
Also could someone point me towards the procedural regulations on 'tabling' bills?

If you look at Article 7 you can overide, given the procedures of that section, Article 3 Section 2 Clauses 1-6 which concern the introduction, debate, and voting of a bill that has been put before the Senate floor. So while it's not called tabling it does basically the same thing.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Aye

[minionofmidas]

Ernest, can you tell me how this exemption came into being in the first place?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Aye

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ernest, can you tell me how this exemption came into being in the first place?

It was alleged that the futures market in onions was destabilizing the spot market in them.

Here's a link that provides more info.  The paper as a whole is concerned with the effect of the ban on the marker price of seats on future exchanges at the time, but it contains a good synopsis of what led to this misguided ban which was shepherded through the Congress on a bipartisan basis by Sen. Humphrey of Minnesota and Rep. Ford of Michigan despite reports from the Department of Agriculture that there was no problem caused for the spot market by the futures market.

[minionofmidas]

Hmmm... Upon sound reflection, I urge my legislators to pass this bill rather than tabling it.

[MasterJedi]

I believe this was a bad decision. It's a serious bill dealing with trading onions. Nothing silly about it and no reason to table it.

[Ebowed]

I believe this was a bad decision. It's a serious bill dealing with trading onions. Nothing silly about it and no reason to table it.

It hasn't been tabled; in fact, in hindsight it would have been faster to simply wait for three days and pass/fail the bill.

[Colin]

I believe this was a bad decision. It's a serious bill dealing with trading onions. Nothing silly about it and no reason to table it.

It hasn't been tabled; in fact, in hindsight it would have been faster to simply wait for three days and pass/fail the bill.

Yeah in hindsight I should have just waited.

This is just an open statement to all Senators. Can't we get a move on? You have been elected Senator at least vote within 36 hours of a vote opening, unless you have some serious reason for being absent, otherwise I would really not consider you fit for the job. I wouldn't be saying this if it was a time consuming duty or anything that might affect your day but really it takes less time to vote on bills than it does to check your email. So come on be a little quicker with voting and due your jobs as Senators affectively.

[minionofmidas]

If Colin's aim was to keep trading in onions illegal for just a crucial couple of days longer while he's manipulating the spot market, though, calling for a vote to table was the right idea.
Which makes me wonder if we'll see more similar votes in the future. Gee, I hope not.