Talk Elections

As a simple point of order - this cannot be a piece of statute (remember that any future law simply overrides this law as a matter of course); Instead this should be a Senate Procedural Resolution concerning the introduction of bills by Senators.

Secondly, this bill is wide open to interpretation - what is "only one matter". Arguably under your definition, the following statute would not have been considered as one bill because the topics under discussion are very broad:

The Health Care Reform Act of 2004
National Energy Act
Family Planning Amendments Act of 2004

I like how this is really the anti-Miscellany Bill. If you want a section by section vote on the Miscellany Bill, why don't you just ask for one?

Actually laws concerning the form in which laws may be passed are fairly common.  The relevant section in US law is 1 U.S.C. 104, but the Miscellany Act fits within the parameters of that section of the US Code, in that each section of that Act deals with a single topic.

Just as a point, the bill could not have retroactive effect anyway, as that would be an Ex Posto Facto Law, which will in all likelihood be a power forbidden to the Senate in the Amendment. I was simply pointing out that had this procedure been in effect at the time those bills could not have been considered as one bill.

I still oppose this legislation, not only because I disagree with its purpose, but also because I think it is wide open to interpretation as to how narrow the definition of "only one matter" could become.

I strongly support this resolution.  It will prevent pork barrel spending and prevent possible abuses of power by the senate.  It also ensures that the senate will debate each issue rather than letting a number of issues slip by in bills such as the current Miscellany bill.

This is far too broad. The word matter has no definition. And then we may have to resort to some sort of list of matters. This bill is not well thought out in my opinion.

Siege

New version, written under the coordination of AG Peter Bell.

I think I can now open debate on this.

I support this bill also, just to consisen (is that a word?) matters.

No, but consisten is.

Maybe he means Concisen as in concise.

In that case, that isn't a word.

Concisen is an English word, built using the usual rules for suffixes, albeit one that probably isn't in any dictionary except perhaps the OED.  Given that shorten (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=shorten) and its large number of synonyms  are existing verbs that already express the concept and are in common use, I can't say that I am surprised by the lack of the perfectly valid word, concisen, in either common use or the dictionary.

This would hamstring a senators right to amend so i'm against it.

Ammendmets by definition are within teh same matter. Unless you wanted to ammend a bill say, legalizing marijuana to illegalize crosbreading of pigs with weasels.

Sometimes a single senator has to be able to delay a bill with killer amendements.

...and delay is the last thing we need with so many bills being proposed

So maybe we need less bad bills being introduced?

Well, IrishDem is no longer a senator, so this may not be too much to hope for.

Debate ends today. Will the presiding officer put this to a vote?

I hereby open the voting.

Please vote Yea, Nay or abstain.

Yea.

Nay.

Siege

Nay.

I urge my congressman to vote IN FAVOR OF this amendment. Note the final clause Texasgurl

Yea.

Nay.

Nay

Yea

yea

The vote is currently:
4 aye
4 nay

Nay

At 11:01:34 am EST this vote will have be open for one week as required by R. 1.

The vote presently stands at 4-5-0. The missing vote is that of Senator Harry.

I consider that whether this vote remains open beyond the one week time limit is an internal matter for the Senate, but I post this for its information.

Yea

sorry I took so long to vote; I've been busy with exams, but they're over now! :)

I urge the v.p. to vote no on this.

JFK close this so KeystonePhil can break the tie.

Phil needs to break the tie before it closes :P

Yea

With this vote the SPR has passed.

Damn shame

Guess how many bills on the status thread are presently in violation of this SPR. I can count at least two and possibly as many as four.