Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 18, 2019, 07:49:35 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Gustaf, Lumine)
| | |-+  Senatorial Procedure Act
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Senatorial Procedure Act  (Read 3635 times)
JohnFKennedy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,470


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 18, 2004, 10:41:47 am »

The Constitution of the United States Election Atlas Forum states that:

The Senate shall establish its own rules and proceedings

(Article I, Section 5, Clause 1)

As of yet, we do not have any rules or proceedings regarding the Senate so I would like to propose that we take steps to bring the level of organization in the Senate up a notch so we can follow a stricter procedure.

For this reason I propose the following act:

Senatorial Procedure Act

Clause 1: At any one time there may be no more than two Bills/Acts/Constitutional Amendments being debated upon the Senate Floor. This does not include those Bills/Acts/Constitutional Amendments being voted upon at the time.

Clause 2: Each Bill/Act/Constitutional Amendment will be allotted debating time by the President of the Senate (Vice-President of the Forums) or the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.

Clause 3: Each Bill/Act/Constitutional Amendment will be debated upon for one week before a vote called. If the Senate wishes to end the debating early then a motion to cease debate may be brought forward by a Senator, if it gains the support of three other Senators then the debating shall cease immediately and the voting commence as soon as the President of the Senate or the President Pro Tempore begins the voting. If the Senate wishes to continue debating beyond one week a motion must similarly be brought before the Senate and supported by three other Senators. The debating will then be extended for one further week at which point a new motion may be put forward to extend debating otherwise the Bill/Act/Constitutional Amendment goes to a vote.

Clause 4: Voting in the Senate will take place for one week during which time the Senators must vote. All those Senators who do not vote will be considered to have abstained. If needed an injunction may be brought by a Senator to keep the polls open for a further week after which time the voting shall close. This injunction must be seconded by another Senator.

Clause 5: The public poll to pass a Constitutional Amendment once it has passed the Senate shall last for one week upon which time if it receives a majority vote it passes and if not then it does not.


So, lets get debating on this.

What do you think? Is there anything you would like to see change?
Logged
2,868,691
Harry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,722
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islan


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2004, 11:38:32 am »

personally, I  don't really think we should do this
Logged

JohnFKennedy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,470


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2004, 11:39:41 am »

personally, I  don't really think we should do this

Any reason why? We are supposed to establish rules and proceedings.
Logged
2,868,691
Harry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,722
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islan


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2004, 11:43:19 am »

personally, I  don't really think we should do this

Any reason why? We are supposed to establish rules and proceedings.
limiting to two bills and such just doesn't seem necessary.  We should be able to debate as many as needed
Logged

JohnFKennedy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,470


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2004, 11:45:13 am »

personally, I  don't really think we should do this

Any reason why? We are supposed to establish rules and proceedings.
limiting to two bills and such just doesn't seem necessary.  We should be able to debate as many as needed

I would say no more than five should be before the Senate at once though, gets a bit confusing.
Logged
2,868,691
Harry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,722
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islan


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2004, 12:05:18 pm »

personally, I  don't really think we should do this

Any reason why? We are supposed to establish rules and proceedings.
limiting to two bills and such just doesn't seem necessary.  We should be able to debate as many as needed

I would say no more than five should be before the Senate at once though, gets a bit confusing.
rather than making it a law, maybe we should just limit it ourselves
Logged

JohnFKennedy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,470


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2004, 12:07:20 pm »

personally, I  don't really think we should do this

Any reason why? We are supposed to establish rules and proceedings.
limiting to two bills and such just doesn't seem necessary.  We should be able to debate as many as needed

I would say no more than five should be before the Senate at once though, gets a bit confusing.
rather than making it a law, maybe we should just limit it ourselves

So you would like Clause 1 removed?
Logged
2,868,691
Harry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,722
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islan


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2004, 12:10:47 pm »

personally, I  don't really think we should do this

Any reason why? We are supposed to establish rules and proceedings.
limiting to two bills and such just doesn't seem necessary.  We should be able to debate as many as needed

I would say no more than five should be before the Senate at once though, gets a bit confusing.
rather than making it a law, maybe we should just limit it ourselves

So you would like Clause 1 removed?
yeah i don't have a problem with the rest of it
Logged

StevenNick
StevenNick99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,911


View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2004, 02:21:28 pm »

I think it should take more than four senators to cut off or continue debate.  Under such circumstances four senators could endlessly prolong debate on an issue to effectively kill a bill.  Likewise, a relatively small number of senators would be able to cut off debate whether or not the majority is willing.  I think it should take five senators to cut off or continue debate.
Logged



Economic Left/Right: 5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.00
JohnFKennedy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,470


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2004, 03:02:50 pm »

I think it should take more than four senators to cut off or continue debate.  Under such circumstances four senators could endlessly prolong debate on an issue to effectively kill a bill.  Likewise, a relatively small number of senators would be able to cut off debate whether or not the majority is willing.  I think it should take five senators to cut off or continue debate.

Good point. I will make changes accordingly with what people want.
Logged
JohnFKennedy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,470


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2004, 04:08:13 pm »

Senatorial Procedure Act

Clause 1: At any one time there may be no more than four Bills/Acts/Constitutional Amendments being debated upon the Senate Floor. This does not include those Bills/Acts/Constitutional Amendments being voted upon at the time.

Clause 2: Each Bill/Act/Constitutional Amendment will be allotted debating time by the President of the Senate (Vice-President of the Forums) or the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.

Clause 3: Each Bill/Act/Constitutional Amendment will be debated upon for one week before a vote called. If the Senate wishes to end the debating early then a motion to cease debate may be brought forward by a Senator, if it gains the support of four other Senators then the debating shall cease immediately and the voting commence as soon as the President of the Senate or the President Pro Tempore begins the voting. If the Senate wishes to continue debating beyond one week a motion must similarly be brought before the Senate and supported by four other Senators. The debating will then be extended for one further week at which point a new motion may be put forward to extend debating otherwise the Bill/Act/Constitutional Amendment goes to a vote.

Clause 4: Voting in the Senate will take place for one week during which time the Senators must vote. All those Senators who do not vote will be considered to have abstained. If needed an injunction may be brought by a Senator to keep the polls open for a further week after which time the voting shall close. This injunction must be seconded by another Senator.

Clause 5: The public poll to pass a Constitutional Amendment once it has passed the Senate shall last for one week upon which time if it receives a majority vote it passes and if not then it does not.



Ok, I am resubmitting an altered version of this act, the number of bills/acts/amendments before the Senate can now go up to four and the number of senators support required to end debating early or extend it is five.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,659
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 18, 2004, 04:26:54 pm »

Actually, this should be a "Resolution" not an act, as it only pertains to the conduct of the Senate.
Logged

JohnFKennedy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,470


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2004, 04:28:31 pm »

Actually, this should be a "Resolution" not an act, as it only pertains to the conduct of the Senate.

Ok, sorry, then this is a Resolution Tongue.
Logged
JohnFKennedy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,470


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 19, 2004, 05:21:01 am »

Please move to the fantasy government board.
Logged
Platypus
hughento
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,496
Australia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2004, 07:40:46 am »

The problem I see with this, and with alot of the new rules and regs flooding in, is that it makes the community closed to newcomers. For example, the peopblems lots of new members have with regions and districts, and also how the senate works, who can debate in the senate, etc.

We need some ground rules, but they need to be as easy to understand as possible, as quickly as possible. I thereforen suggest we strip this resoulation to the bones; the framework is very good ut it needs to be a lot simpler.
Logged
JohnFKennedy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,470


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 22, 2004, 05:06:09 pm »

The problem I see with this, and with alot of the new rules and regs flooding in, is that it makes the community closed to newcomers. For example, the peopblems lots of new members have with regions and districts, and also how the senate works, who can debate in the senate, etc.

We need some ground rules, but they need to be as easy to understand as possible, as quickly as possible. I thereforen suggest we strip this resoulation to the bones; the framework is very good ut it needs to be a lot simpler.

I think these are reasonably easy to understand personally.

If they are placed in a sticky or something it will be easy for new applicants to learn Senate procedure rules.

Anyway, if nobody else has anything to say I will call a vote on this resolution tomorrow.
Logged
JohnFKennedy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,470


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 26, 2004, 09:35:19 am »

A bit behind but I'd like to call a vote on the Senatorial Procedure Resolution as posted by John F. Kennedy on July 18th at 4:02 PM.

Please vote Yea or Nay.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2004, 11:04:34 am by Senator John F. Kennedy, PPT »Logged
JohnFKennedy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,470


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 26, 2004, 09:35:48 am »

I vote Yea.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31,193
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 26, 2004, 11:50:39 am »

Nay.
Logged
StevenNick
StevenNick99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,911


View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 26, 2004, 03:07:07 pm »

Yea
Logged



Economic Left/Right: 5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.00
2,868,691
Harry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,722
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islan


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 26, 2004, 03:14:58 pm »

yea, i guess
Logged

Akno21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,100
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 26, 2004, 03:42:26 pm »

Yea.
Logged

Platypus
hughento
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,496
Australia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 26, 2004, 06:29:09 pm »

I have reservations, but this is a lot better then nothing.

I vote Yea.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2004, 04:19:01 pm by hughento »Logged
JohnFKennedy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,470


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2004, 07:51:19 am »

1 more vote and this passes.
Logged
Demrepdan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,316


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2004, 05:25:11 pm »

1 more vote and this passes.

You got your vote.....

I vote Yea.
Logged

Moderately-Liberal Progressive Populist Libertarian Democrat.
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines