|
Title: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (Failed) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 14, 2012, 07:24:13 AM Quote AN AMENDMENT To reform the position of the Vice President of the Republic of Atlasia by assigning most duties of Senator to it. Be it enacted by the two-thirds of the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled. SECTION 1. TITLE This act may be cited as 'The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012.' SECTION 2. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Article 1, section 1, subsection 3 of the Constitution is amended to read: The Vice President of the Republic of Atlasia shall be the President of the Senate, and considered a regular voting member of the body thereof, but may not assume the position of Dean or President Pro-Tempore, and is prohibited from serving on legislative committees. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVENESS This legislation shall be applicable on the first day of the next executive term. Sponsor: Scott Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 14, 2012, 07:27:07 AM Scott, as you know, you have 24 hours to advocate for this.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 14, 2012, 11:13:26 AM Basically, the purpose of this amendment is to actually give the Vice President a job to do. The position of VP is a job that few desire to have, and that's because the VP is only needed to break ties in the Senate or substitute for the PPT when one is not available. This amendment reforms the position so that the person holding it may have a more significant and active role in the game.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: tmthforu94 on July 14, 2012, 12:40:13 PM As a former President and Vice President who has always been an advocate of game reform, this amendment has my support.
Just to make sure - will there need to be a policy put in place for breaking ties if this passes? Would it just swing with whichever way the VP voted? Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 14, 2012, 02:19:09 PM As a former President and Vice President who has always been an advocate of game reform, this amendment has my support. Just to make sure - will there need to be a policy put in place for breaking ties if this passes? Would it just swing with whichever way the VP voted? Ideally, there shouldn't be any ties because the Senate would have eleven members. But I see your point that ties can still happen, especially since we have senators that don't vote for nearly every piece of legislation that comes up. In the Northeast, bills that tie in the Assembly and supported by the Governor are passed onto the citizens to decide on via a referendum, or die if the Governor decides to veto them. Perhaps this is a policy we can consider for the federal government? Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: Redalgo on July 14, 2012, 04:29:06 PM Either that or the Senator(s) who didn't vote could be treated as if they abstained in the event of a tie. Ya? Doesn't the language of our regulations otherwise make it impossible for a tie to indefinitely stall progress in processing legislation? Depending on the exact wording, we might not require any tie-breaking method.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 14, 2012, 05:33:33 PM Either that or the Senator(s) who didn't vote could be treated as if they abstained in the event of a tie. Ya? Doesn't the language of our regulations otherwise make it impossible for a tie to indefinitely stall progress in processing legislation? Depending on the exact wording, we might not require any tie-breaking method. But if a vote comes down to, say, four in favor, four opposed, and three abstentions, then a tie exists. Then it becomes a problem. To correct this, I am amending the legislation: Quote SECTION 2. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Article 1, section 1, subsection 3 of the Constitution is amended to read: The Vice President of the Republic of Atlasia shall be the President of the Senate, and considered a regular voting member of the body thereof, but may not assume the position of Dean or President Pro-Tempore, and is prohibited from serving on legislative committees. Article 1, section 3 of the Constitution is amended to read: Legislation resulting in a tied vote in the Senate may be forwarded to the people for a vote at the will of the President. Legislation not forwarded to the people shall be considered unsuccessful. When tied legislation is referred by the President, the SoFE shall open the voting booth on the nearest Friday at 12:00:00am EST and shall close said both the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm EST. The referendum question will be: “Shall [name of law, followed by text] be made law?”. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote YES for passage and NO for failure during this time. Abstentions will not affect the results. Referred legislation shall automatically become law if voted in favor by the people. Yes, this was pretty much directly taken from the Northeast Constitution. :P Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: Napoleon on July 14, 2012, 05:37:37 PM I don't think allowing Senators to shirk their duties is a good idea. We elected you to make a decision, abstentions should be disallowed in these circumstances.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 16, 2012, 07:38:10 AM Quote from: Amendment 50:06 by Scott SECTION 2. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Article 1, section 1, subsection 3 of the Constitution is amended to read: The Vice President of the Republic of Atlasia shall be the President of the Senate, and considered a regular voting member of the body thereof, but may not assume the position of Dean or President Pro-Tempore, and is prohibited from serving on legislative committees. Article 1, section 3 of the Constitution is amended to read: Legislation resulting in a tied vote in the Senate may be forwarded to the people for a vote at the will of the President. Legislation not forwarded to the people shall be considered unsuccessful. When tied legislation is referred by the President, the SoFE shall open the voting booth on the nearest Friday at 12:00:00am EST and shall close said both the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm EST. The referendum question will be: “Shall [name of law, followed by text] be made law?”. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote YES for passage and NO for failure during this time. Abstentions will not affect the results. Referred legislation shall automatically become law if voted in favor by the people. Sponsor Feedback: Origination Status: Senators have 24 hours to object to the amendment. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 16, 2012, 07:39:40 AM I don't think allowing Senators to shirk their duties is a good idea. We elected you to make a decision, abstentions should be disallowed in these circumstances. I can sympathize with the sentiment, as it is very annoying to have 4-3-3 votes that take up the full vote time and so forth. However, I am weary of restricting voting options. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 16, 2012, 07:43:33 AM I have a minor point to make first and that is wouldn't it bet better to refer to this as "The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012" instead of "Act"? People might get confused. If the bill contained more significant non-amendment portions, then it might make sense.
Could sponsor enlighten me as to the reasoning for referring to it as an "act"? Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on July 16, 2012, 07:44:54 AM Sorry, but I oppose this measure.
Right now, we do have mechanism to ensure that the Vice President is an active part of the cabinet and, in general words, the executive power. Considering that the Vice President can become President at any moment, he should be more attached to the executive, rather than legislative. Beside, we don't need 11th Senator. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 16, 2012, 09:58:07 AM The title wording was a mistake. Sorry about that.
Amendment: Quote SECTION 1. TITLE This Sorry, but I oppose this measure. Right now, we do have mechanism to ensure that the Vice President is an active part of the cabinet and, in general words, the executive power. Considering that the Vice President can become President at any moment, he should be more attached to the executive, rather than legislative. Beside, we don't need 11th Senator. Unlike most vice presidents, you've been given two positions in the cabinet, so you already have a more active role. Most VPs (like Tmthforu) were not able to do very much with their power. I see no harm that might come out of giving the VP legislative power so that the office carries more than just a title and a small chance of ascending to the presidency. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: Napoleon on July 16, 2012, 10:10:21 AM The title wording was a mistake. Sorry about that. Amendment: Quote SECTION 1. TITLE This Sorry, but I oppose this measure. Right now, we do have mechanism to ensure that the Vice President is an active part of the cabinet and, in general words, the executive power. Considering that the Vice President can become President at any moment, he should be more attached to the executive, rather than legislative. Beside, we don't need 11th Senator. Unlike most vice presidents, you've been given two positions in the cabinet, so you already have a more active role. Most VPs (like Tmthforu) were not able to do very much with their power. I see no harm that might come out of giving the VP legislative power so that the office carries more than just a title and a small chance of ascending to the presidency. Tmthforu could've be given a Cabinet position. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 16, 2012, 10:15:06 AM The title wording was a mistake. Sorry about that. Amendment: Quote SECTION 1. TITLE This Sorry, but I oppose this measure. Right now, we do have mechanism to ensure that the Vice President is an active part of the cabinet and, in general words, the executive power. Considering that the Vice President can become President at any moment, he should be more attached to the executive, rather than legislative. Beside, we don't need 11th Senator. Unlike most vice presidents, you've been given two positions in the cabinet, so you already have a more active role. Most VPs (like Tmthforu) were not able to do very much with their power. I see no harm that might come out of giving the VP legislative power so that the office carries more than just a title and a small chance of ascending to the presidency. Tmthforu could've be given a Cabinet position. That still makes the VP position itself someone pointless. I'm not really comfortable with the idea of giving people multiple cabinet positions unless there's one that no wants. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 17, 2012, 07:55:39 AM Keep in mind that the VP determines his own involvement with regards to running the Senate. The Constitution provides that the VP do the job and the PPT's power is entirely derived and delegated from the VP.
The problem isn't as much about ability, as it is willingness to engage and communicate with the PPT to stay involved. Kalwejt typically does more than most VP's, atleast judging by his past times holding that position. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 17, 2012, 08:17:11 AM Amendment 50:06 is passed.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 17, 2012, 08:18:22 AM Quote from: Amendment 50:07 by Scott SECTION 1. TITLE This Sponsor Feedback: Origination Status: Senators have 24 hours to object. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 17, 2012, 06:45:18 PM Keep in mind that the VP determines his own involvement with regards to running the Senate. The Constitution provides that the VP do the job and the PPT's power is entirely derived and delegated from the VP. The problem isn't as much about ability, as it is willingness to engage and communicate with the PPT to stay involved. Kalwejt typically does more than most VP's, atleast judging by his past times holding that position. Well, personally, I would say that Tmth was very active in his job as VP last time, but his role was still very limited in Senate affairs and the PPT usually has complete autonomy in running the Senate. Designating the full powers of a Senator to the VP only adds another person to the legislative process and makes the position itself more important to the game. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: TJ in Oregon on July 17, 2012, 10:44:50 PM I apologize for my lack of activity of late while I was traveling...
Anyway, as for the issue of breaking ties in the Senate if this should pass, Article I specifies that legislation is passed by majority vote: Quote from: Article I Section 3 Subsection 3 For any Bill or Resolution to pass the Senate, it shall have gained a majority in a valid vote. Before the Bill or Resolution becomes Law, it shall be presented to the President of the Republic of Atlasia, unless it be concerning the rules for the proceedings of the Senate. If the President approves, he shall sign it, and it shall become Law. If the President does not approve, he shall return the Bill with his objections to the Senate, and it shall not become Law. Upon reconsidering the Bill, if the Senate shall approve the legislation by two-thirds of its number, it shall become Law. If a Bill is not returned to the Senate by the President within seven days after it shall have been presented to him, it shall become Law regardless. I would argue that a tie is not a majority, thus a tied vote would result in the legislation being rejected. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on July 17, 2012, 11:04:24 PM Keep in mind that the VP determines his own involvement with regards to running the Senate. The Constitution provides that the VP do the job and the PPT's power is entirely derived and delegated from the VP. The problem isn't as much about ability, as it is willingness to engage and communicate with the PPT to stay involved. Kalwejt typically does more than most VP's, atleast judging by his past times holding that position. Well, personally, I would say that Tmth was very active in his job as VP last time, but his role was still very limited in Senate affairs and the PPT usually has complete autonomy in running the Senate. Designating the full powers of a Senator to the VP only adds another person to the legislative process and makes the position itself more important to the game. No one can deny Tmthforu's superb performance in office, while my first term as Vice President was hardly an example. Personally, I'd prefer to eliminate Senate Presidency for Vice President and removing "pro tempore" from PPT's title. I'm not wild about mixing executive branch with legislative and, at least now, Vice President is actually an active part of the cabinet. I think making it permanent would be better reform than giving the Vice President a vote in the Senate. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 17, 2012, 11:11:57 PM I apologize for my lack of activity of late while I was traveling... Anyway, as for the issue of breaking ties in the Senate if this should pass, Article I specifies that legislation is passed by majority vote: Quote from: Article I Section 3 Subsection 3 For any Bill or Resolution to pass the Senate, it shall have gained a majority in a valid vote. Before the Bill or Resolution becomes Law, it shall be presented to the President of the Republic of Atlasia, unless it be concerning the rules for the proceedings of the Senate. If the President approves, he shall sign it, and it shall become Law. If the President does not approve, he shall return the Bill with his objections to the Senate, and it shall not become Law. Upon reconsidering the Bill, if the Senate shall approve the legislation by two-thirds of its number, it shall become Law. If a Bill is not returned to the Senate by the President within seven days after it shall have been presented to him, it shall become Law regardless. I would argue that a tie is not a majority, thus a tied vote would result in the legislation being rejected. Oh, I didn't realize that. Would it be much of a problem if we put tied legislation on ballot referendums, though? Keep in mind that the VP determines his own involvement with regards to running the Senate. The Constitution provides that the VP do the job and the PPT's power is entirely derived and delegated from the VP. The problem isn't as much about ability, as it is willingness to engage and communicate with the PPT to stay involved. Kalwejt typically does more than most VP's, atleast judging by his past times holding that position. Well, personally, I would say that Tmth was very active in his job as VP last time, but his role was still very limited in Senate affairs and the PPT usually has complete autonomy in running the Senate. Designating the full powers of a Senator to the VP only adds another person to the legislative process and makes the position itself more important to the game. No one can deny Tmthforu's superb performance in office, while my first term as Vice President was hardly an example. Personally, I'd prefer to eliminate Senate Presidency for Vice President and removing "pro tempore" from PPT's title. I'm not wild about mixing executive branch with legislative and, at least now, Vice President is actually an active part of the cabinet. I think making it permanent would be better reform than giving the Vice President a vote in the Senate. I don't see how much of a difference that would make, since the VP doesn't have much power in the Senate other than opening PPT votes and breaking ties, from my experience here. Why do you want to remove the title from the PPT? Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: tmthforu94 on July 18, 2012, 12:35:48 AM I've had a busy couple days, but I'd like to say thanks to all the compliments on my job as VP. :P
I'll be contributing more to this discussion later. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 18, 2012, 08:30:35 AM I apologize for my lack of activity of late while I was traveling... Anyway, as for the issue of breaking ties in the Senate if this should pass, Article I specifies that legislation is passed by majority vote: Quote from: Article I Section 3 Subsection 3 For any Bill or Resolution to pass the Senate, it shall have gained a majority in a valid vote. Before the Bill or Resolution becomes Law, it shall be presented to the President of the Republic of Atlasia, unless it be concerning the rules for the proceedings of the Senate. If the President approves, he shall sign it, and it shall become Law. If the President does not approve, he shall return the Bill with his objections to the Senate, and it shall not become Law. Upon reconsidering the Bill, if the Senate shall approve the legislation by two-thirds of its number, it shall become Law. If a Bill is not returned to the Senate by the President within seven days after it shall have been presented to him, it shall become Law regardless. I would argue that a tie is not a majority, thus a tied vote would result in the legislation being rejected. Oh, I didn't realize that. Would it be much of a problem if we put tied legislation on ballot referendums, though? Keep in mind that the VP determines his own involvement with regards to running the Senate. The Constitution provides that the VP do the job and the PPT's power is entirely derived and delegated from the VP. The problem isn't as much about ability, as it is willingness to engage and communicate with the PPT to stay involved. Kalwejt typically does more than most VP's, atleast judging by his past times holding that position. Well, personally, I would say that Tmth was very active in his job as VP last time, but his role was still very limited in Senate affairs and the PPT usually has complete autonomy in running the Senate. Designating the full powers of a Senator to the VP only adds another person to the legislative process and makes the position itself more important to the game. No one can deny Tmthforu's superb performance in office, while my first term as Vice President was hardly an example. Personally, I'd prefer to eliminate Senate Presidency for Vice President and removing "pro tempore" from PPT's title. I'm not wild about mixing executive branch with legislative and, at least now, Vice President is actually an active part of the cabinet. I think making it permanent would be better reform than giving the Vice President a vote in the Senate. I don't see how much of a difference that would make, since the VP doesn't have much power in the Senate other than opening PPT votes and breaking ties, from my experience here. Why do you want to remove the title from the PPT? The Vice President's official legislative branch title is "President of the Senate". The PPT's official title is "President Pro-Tempore". He wants to make the PPT the same as the position held by the VP, and to reflect that he wants to remove "Pro-Tempore" from the title. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 18, 2012, 08:33:42 AM Keep in mind that the VP determines his own involvement with regards to running the Senate. The Constitution provides that the VP do the job and the PPT's power is entirely derived and delegated from the VP. The problem isn't as much about ability, as it is willingness to engage and communicate with the PPT to stay involved. Kalwejt typically does more than most VP's, atleast judging by his past times holding that position. Well, personally, I would say that Tmth was very active in his job as VP last time, but his role was still very limited in Senate affairs and the PPT usually has complete autonomy in running the Senate. Designating the full powers of a Senator to the VP only adds another person to the legislative process and makes the position itself more important to the game. Whether or not the PPT has complete autonomy is a decision that the VP makes himself. As I said, the VP could render the PPT a total spectator if he wanted to do so. All of the PPT's power is delegated from that of the VP. Which reminds me, Kalwejt has yet to post a public delegation of authority to me. :P Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 18, 2012, 08:34:54 AM Keep in mind that the VP determines his own involvement with regards to running the Senate. The Constitution provides that the VP do the job and the PPT's power is entirely derived and delegated from the VP. The problem isn't as much about ability, as it is willingness to engage and communicate with the PPT to stay involved. Kalwejt typically does more than most VP's, atleast judging by his past times holding that position. Well, personally, I would say that Tmth was very active in his job as VP last time, but his role was still very limited in Senate affairs and the PPT usually has complete autonomy in running the Senate. Designating the full powers of a Senator to the VP only adds another person to the legislative process and makes the position itself more important to the game. No one can deny Tmthforu's superb performance in office, while my first term as Vice President was hardly an example. Personally, I'd prefer to eliminate Senate Presidency for Vice President and removing "pro tempore" from PPT's title. I'm not wild about mixing executive branch with legislative and, at least now, Vice President is actually an active part of the cabinet. I think making it permanent would be better reform than giving the Vice President a vote in the Senate. But I enjoy making the VP's life as miserable as possible. :( Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 18, 2012, 09:06:21 AM Hearing no objection, Amendment 50:07 is passed.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 18, 2012, 09:08:14 AM Quote from: Current Text AN AMENDMENT To reform the position of the Vice President of the Republic of Atlasia by assigning most duties of Senator to it. Be it enacted by the two-thirds of the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled. SECTION 1. TITLE This act may be cited as 'The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012.' SECTION 2. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Article 1, section 1, subsection 3 of the Constitution is amended to read: The Vice President of the Republic of Atlasia shall be the President of the Senate, and considered a regular voting member of the body thereof, but may not assume the position of Dean or President Pro-Tempore, and is prohibited from serving on legislative committees. Article 1, section 3 of the Constitution is amended to read: Legislation resulting in a tied vote in the Senate may be forwarded to the people for a vote at the will of the President. Legislation not forwarded to the people shall be considered unsuccessful. When tied legislation is referred by the President, the SoFE shall open the voting booth on the nearest Friday at 12:00:00am EST and shall close said both the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm EST. The referendum question will be: “Shall [name of law, followed by text] be made law?”. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote YES for passage and NO for failure during this time. Abstentions will not affect the results. Referred legislation shall automatically become law if voted in favor by the people. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVENESS This legislation shall be applicable on the first day of the next executive term. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 18, 2012, 12:02:12 PM Keep in mind that the VP determines his own involvement with regards to running the Senate. The Constitution provides that the VP do the job and the PPT's power is entirely derived and delegated from the VP. The problem isn't as much about ability, as it is willingness to engage and communicate with the PPT to stay involved. Kalwejt typically does more than most VP's, atleast judging by his past times holding that position. Well, personally, I would say that Tmth was very active in his job as VP last time, but his role was still very limited in Senate affairs and the PPT usually has complete autonomy in running the Senate. Designating the full powers of a Senator to the VP only adds another person to the legislative process and makes the position itself more important to the game. Whether or not the PPT has complete autonomy is a decision that the VP makes himself. As I said, the VP could render the PPT a total spectator if he wanted to do so. All of the PPT's power is delegated from that of the VP. Which reminds me, Kalwejt has yet to post a public delegation of authority to me. :P When has the VP ever taken control of the Senate himself, though? At this point, it's seem to have become tradition to delegate all the authority to the PPT, and it would just be logical to make that normal routine. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Act of 2012 (Debating) Post by: tmthforu94 on July 18, 2012, 09:26:07 PM Keep in mind that the VP determines his own involvement with regards to running the Senate. The Constitution provides that the VP do the job and the PPT's power is entirely derived and delegated from the VP. The problem isn't as much about ability, as it is willingness to engage and communicate with the PPT to stay involved. Kalwejt typically does more than most VP's, atleast judging by his past times holding that position. Well, personally, I would say that Tmth was very active in his job as VP last time, but his role was still very limited in Senate affairs and the PPT usually has complete autonomy in running the Senate. Designating the full powers of a Senator to the VP only adds another person to the legislative process and makes the position itself more important to the game. Whether or not the PPT has complete autonomy is a decision that the VP makes himself. As I said, the VP could render the PPT a total spectator if he wanted to do so. All of the PPT's power is delegated from that of the VP. Which reminds me, Kalwejt has yet to post a public delegation of authority to me. :P When has the VP ever taken control of the Senate himself, though? At this point, it's seem to become tradition to delegate all the authority to the PPT, and it would just be logical to make that normal routine. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 19, 2012, 07:12:11 AM The VP can never be PPT. BK was a Senator during his time as PPT.
The VP can run the Senate through his job as President of the Senate which happens everytime the Senate starts or when the PPT becomes prematurely vacant. It also can happen as part of a mutual power sharing agreement between the PPT and VP, something which I would very much desire, yet I have never been able to get the VP play ball. Atleast not recently. :P Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (Debating) Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on July 20, 2012, 08:15:49 PM The VP can never be PPT. BK was a Senator during his time as PPT. The VP can run the Senate through his job as President of the Senate which happens everytime the Senate starts or when the PPT becomes prematurely vacant. It also can happen as part of a mutual power sharing agreement between the PPT and VP, something which I would very much desire, yet I have never been able to get the VP play ball. Atleast not recently. :P There are Atlasians amiable to that should they be brought to the VP position. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 21, 2012, 08:53:11 AM Well, anything more?
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (Debating) Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 21, 2012, 01:22:31 PM I think we can move to a final vote. If this fails, I still think we should work to reform the VP position.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 22, 2012, 01:12:42 PM Quote from: Final Text AN AMENDMENT To reform the position of the Vice President of the Republic of Atlasia by assigning most duties of Senator to it. Be it enacted by the two-thirds of the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled. SECTION 1. TITLE This act may be cited as 'The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012.' SECTION 2. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Article 1, section 1, subsection 3 of the Constitution is amended to read: The Vice President of the Republic of Atlasia shall be the President of the Senate, and considered a regular voting member of the body thereof, but may not assume the position of Dean or President Pro-Tempore, and is prohibited from serving on legislative committees. Article 1, section 3 of the Constitution is amended to read: Legislation resulting in a tied vote in the Senate may be forwarded to the people for a vote at the will of the President. Legislation not forwarded to the people shall be considered unsuccessful. When tied legislation is referred by the President, the SoFE shall open the voting booth on the nearest Friday at 12:00:00am EST and shall close said both the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm EST. The referendum question will be: “Shall [name of law, followed by text] be made law?”. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote YES for passage and NO for failure during this time. Abstentions will not affect the results. Referred legislation shall automatically become law if voted in favor by the people. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVENESS This legislation shall be applicable on the first day of the next executive term. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (At Final Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 22, 2012, 01:13:47 PM Senators this bill is now at final vote so please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (At Final Vote) Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 22, 2012, 01:18:14 PM Aye.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (At Final Vote) Post by: Redalgo on July 22, 2012, 03:19:43 PM Nay
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (At Final Vote) Post by: Sbane on July 22, 2012, 03:50:58 PM Aye.
I also think encouraging even greater ways to involve the voters into the legislative process will make the game more popular. We should expand on this. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (At Final Vote) Post by: Redalgo on July 22, 2012, 03:59:55 PM Oddly enough, that boost in legislative direct democracy was the reason for my vote. O.o
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (At Final Vote) Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 22, 2012, 04:07:33 PM This amendment would boost legislative direct democracy, because it allows the People to have the say on tied votes.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (At Final Vote) Post by: Redalgo on July 22, 2012, 04:16:42 PM My apologies for wording my thoughts poorly but I actually oppose letting the masses have a say in which pieces of legislation pass or fail.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (At Final Vote) Post by: Napoleon on July 22, 2012, 05:28:56 PM Aye. I also think encouraging even greater ways to involve the voters into the legislative process will make the game more popular. We should expand on this. In practice it is a failure. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (At Final Vote) Post by: Sbane on July 22, 2012, 07:46:55 PM Aye. I also think encouraging even greater ways to involve the voters into the legislative process will make the game more popular. We should expand on this. In practice it is a failure. What practice? At the regional level you mean? Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (At Final Vote) Post by: Napoleon on July 22, 2012, 08:35:56 PM Aye. I also think encouraging even greater ways to involve the voters into the legislative process will make the game more popular. We should expand on this. In practice it is a failure. What practice? At the regional level you mean? No it works in the Northeast but we've seen how useless the iniative amendment was. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (At Final Vote) Post by: AndrewTX on July 22, 2012, 08:48:44 PM Nay
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (At Final Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 24, 2012, 09:47:07 AM Only four votes here? WTF?!!!!!!
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (At Final Vote) Post by: TJ in Oregon on July 24, 2012, 11:15:38 AM Not sure I like the ties procedure but overall this is better than the status quo, so
Aye Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (At Final Vote) Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on July 24, 2012, 11:35:31 AM I have mixed feelings... but believe it will encourage more realistic VP selections. It wouldn't have made much sense for Polnut to choose Tmthforu94 for example if this was in place... Tmthforu94 is a very qualified and very kind individual and this says nothingto that- but they are not ideologically very much in tune. I believe this will be a fine way to make VP selections have more of an impact on the race...
AYE Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (At Final Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 24, 2012, 11:59:40 AM Nay, but not without some misgivings. The tie procedure is really pushing me over the edge but I just have too many issues with mixing the branches in this fashion.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (At Final Vote) Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on July 24, 2012, 09:51:25 PM Aye
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (At Final Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 26, 2012, 08:10:39 AM This has three days left. No result can be determined either way at this point until more votes are cast or time expires.
Seatown and Wormyguy haven't yet voted. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012 (Failed) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 30, 2012, 09:58:19 AM Vote on final passage of The Vice Presidential Reform Amendment of 2012:
Aye (5): Ben, Clarence, sbane, Scott, TJ in Cleve Nay (3): AndrewPA, NC Yankee and Redalgo Abstain (0): Didn't Vote (2): Seatown and Wormyguy With time having expired, the amendment has failed to gain the 2/3rds majority required to pass and thus has failed. |