Legalization of Prostitution Bill

[minionofmidas]

I'm changing to Nay and saying that Ebowed is a terrible PPT and an incredibly biased one, you know that the remaining senators (perhaps maybe Jas) would vote Nay and are rushing to try and pass your bills without a true vote of the senate.

We had five ayes and an abstention at the time, so Porce was right.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I'm changing to Nay and saying that Ebowed is a terrible PPT and an incredibly biased one, you know that the remaining senators (perhaps maybe Jas) would vote Nay and are rushing to try and pass your bills without a true vote of the senate.

We had five ayes and an abstention at the time, so Porce was right.

So now it is 5-2-0 so it does not pass

[minionofmidas]

I'm changing to Nay and saying that Ebowed is a terrible PPT and an incredibly biased one, you know that the remaining senators (perhaps maybe Jas) would vote Nay and are rushing to try and pass your bills without a true vote of the senate.

We had five ayes and an abstention at the time, so Porce was right.

So now it is 5-2-0 so it does not pass

You'd have had to change your vote before Porce posted. I think. The bill passes in about thirteen hours.

[minionofmidas]

[edit]Article 5: Rules for Voting on Legislation, Changing of Votes and Veto Overrides
[edit]Section 1: Rules for Voting on Legislation
(...) 2. Following the garnering of enough votes to either pass or fail, the PPT shall announce this fact publicly on the debate/voting thread. All Senators shall have a period of time lasting twenty-four (24) hours after this announcement during which they shall not be prohibited from changing their votes on the legislation.

3. Following the expiration of this twenty-four (24) hour time period, the PPT shall publicly declare the vote total to be final and shall apply said vote total to the legislation. (...)

The vote ends after seven days or 24 hours after the point where the PPT first notices that the legislation has enough votes to pass (or to fail). It had that number of votes for a time. That it doesn't right now would appear to be irrelevant.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Oh, the next senate will repeal this

[Brandon H]

Nay

[Ebowed]

With 5 ayes and 3 nays, the bill is passed.  It is presented to the President for his signature.

[afleitch]

Line item VETO of

Section 3: Legalization of Prostitution
2. All prostitutes must be 18 or older.

I have to concur with Senator Ernest; this law would theoretically make it legal, for a 16 year old (and correct me if I am wrong but 16 is the age of consent for the District of Columbia is it not, of course 'federal territories' may have varying ages of consent. I wish for the Senate to clarify this) to pay an 18 year old for sex, but the said 16 year old would fall foul of this law if they paid for a sexual act from a 16 or 17 year old.

To me this is an inconsistency. If the Senate is uncomfortable with the possibilty of 16 and 17 years old offering payment for sex then I would encourage that either the bill be withdrawn in it's entirety or the Senate legislate to raise the age of consent to 18.

[Ebowed]

There is no possibility of a line-item veto unless the clauses withdraw money from the treasury.

[afleitch]

There is no possibility of a line-item veto unless the clauses withdraw money from the treasury.

My apologies. I was, admittedly unsure as to how it would work. In that case, my position still stands and I have to veto the whole bill.

[DownWithTheLeft]

That's great, does it take 6 or 7 votes to override a veto?  I think 6 is plausible, 7 is not

[MasterJedi]

That's great, does it take 6 or 7 votes to override a veto?  I think 6 is plausible, 7 is not

A veto override is 2/3 of the senate, that means it takes 7 votes to do.

[Dr. Cynic]

This won't over ride. My recommendation is for the bill to be withdrawn, worked upon and reintroduced in the next Senate.

[minionofmidas]

Line item VETO of

Section 3: Legalization of Prostitution
2. All prostitutes must be 18 or older.

I have to concur with Senator Ernest; this law would theoretically make it legal, for a 16 year old (and correct me if I am wrong but 16 is the age of consent for the District of Columbia is it not, of course 'federal territories' may have varying ages of consent. I wish for the Senate to clarify this) to pay an 18 year old for sex, but the said 16 year old would fall foul of this law if they paid for a sexual act from a 16 or 17 year old.

To me this is an inconsistency. If the Senate is uncomfortable with the possibilty of 16 and 17 years old offering payment for sex

Clearly it is not uncomfortable with that notion, and frankly I see no reason why it should. It was uncomfortable, obviously, with the notion that a 16 or 17 year old working as a prostitute.