L 15.4 - Veto Rescinding Amendment (Passed to referendum)

[wxtransit]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[/quote]

Sponsor: wxtransit
Bill designation: L 15.4

[wxtransit]

Lincoln Assembly Bill 15.4 is now on the Assembly floor. The mandatory 72-hour period for debate must now commence.

[wxtransit]

This amendment, if passed, will allow the Governor to rescind his veto if he deems it necessary (as seen with ReaganClinton's veto of the Gun Control Act, which he vetoed because he believed the bill didn't address a topic which it in fact did, and he expressed his wish that the veto was incorrect). There is a time limit on the bill (through both the 72 hour limit and the limit to if the Assembly starts a veto override) to prevent this from being used in a malicious manner by a different Governor who disagreed with a prior Governor's veto, for example.

[Peanut]

I'm worried about the potential this power has for political misuses. What is to prevent the Assembly from overriding a veto the Governor regrets at his request, except a bill which the majority of the Assembly (and a majority the people of Lincoln) don't agree with?  Even leaving aside the Gun Control Repeal Bill and my personal opposition to it, this does concern me. I can also, however, see the finer points of adopting such a measure. I try to be as neutral and objective as possible and will leave aside the circumstances of this amendment's introduction and the specific bill this derives from in my evaluation of it. I'll think carefully about this amendment and determine my support or opposition, I am currently neutral.

[wxtransit]

I'm worried about the potential this power has for political misuses. What is to prevent the Assembly from overriding a veto the Governor regrets at his request, except a bill which the majority of the Assembly (and a majority the people of Lincoln) don't agree with?  Even leaving aside the Gun Control Repeal Bill and my personal opposition to it, this does concern me. I can also, however, see the finer points of adopting such a measure. I try to be as neutral and objective as possible and will leave aside the circumstances of this amendment's introduction and the specific bill this derives from in my evaluation of it. I'll think carefully about this amendment and determine my support or opposition, I am currently neutral.

There is the potential that, say, in a future Assembly, the Governor may regret a veto of his own along with a majority of Lincolnites, but for a plethora of different reasons (personal reasons may come into play, along with simply not enough members not being present to vote), the override fails and the bill is vetoed according to original intent, against the will of the Governor and Lincoln. While I will admit this possiblity is not the most likely at hand, it still exists, and serves as a good argument in favor of this amendment. I do see your concern, however. I'm wondering if there's a way to put a safeguard against political misuse (like, for example, a unanimous vote against the rescind to nullify it?) that we could codify in the amendment.

[Peanut]

I'm worried about the potential this power has for political misuses. What is to prevent the Assembly from overriding a veto the Governor regrets at his request, except a bill which the majority of the Assembly (and a majority the people of Lincoln) don't agree with? Even leaving aside the Gun Control Repeal Bill and my personal opposition to it, this does concern me. I can also, however, see the finer points of adopting such a measure. I try to be as neutral and objective as possible and will leave aside the circumstances of this amendment's introduction and the specific bill this derives from in my evaluation of it. I'll think carefully about this amendment and determine my support or opposition, I am currently neutral.

There is the potential that, say, in a future Assembly, the Governor may regret a veto of his own along with a majority of Lincolnites, but for a plethora of different reasons (personal reasons may come into play, along with simply not enough members not being present to vote), the override fails and the bill is vetoed according to original intent, against the will of the Governor and Lincoln. While I will admit this possiblity is not the most likely at hand, it still exists, and serves as a good argument in favor of this amendment. I do see your concern, however. I'm wondering if there's a way to put a safeguard against political misuse (like, for example, a unanimous vote against the rescind to nullify it?) that we could codify in the amendment.

I would agree with that compromise. I propose, as such, an addition to the Amendment that reads as such, if you deem it friendly:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[wxtransit]

Amendment is friendly. 24 hours for Assembly members to object to the amendment. In addition, I will also add an amendment, which will take effect if the first amendment passes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
[/quote]
24 hours for Assembly members to object to this amendment.

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

Amendment is friendly. 24 hours for Assembly members to object to the amendment. In addition, I will also add an amendment, which will take effect if the first amendment passes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
24 hours for Assembly members to object to this amendment.

[/quote]

If I may interject here, I don't see why the clarification is necessary. The four-fifths requirement still works as intended without the clarification (2 of 3 votes is less than four fifths, so a unanimous vote would still be required to satisfy the requirement).

[wxtransit]

Amendment is friendly. 24 hours for Assembly members to object to the amendment. In addition, I will also add an amendment, which will take effect if the first amendment passes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

24 hours for Assembly members to object to this amendment.

[/quote]

If I may interject here, I don't see why the clarification is necessary. The four-fifths requirement still works as intended without the clarification (2 of 3 votes is less than four fifths, so a unanimous vote would still be required to satisfy the requirement).
[/quote]

That is true, but the SOAP has a precedent of including requirements for both types of Assemblies. However, if it's felt that it's not necessary, I won't push it.

[wxtransit]

Both amendments pass without objection. Debate resumes.

[wxtransit]

Motion for a final vote. 24 hours to object.

[wxtransit]

Final vote now in progress, 48 hours.

Aye.

[Peanut]

Aye.

[wxtransit]

Since the Constitution requires all sitting members to vote in favor in a three person assembly for amendments, and since JaydonBrooks's resignation does not have legal effect, it is possible this amendment will fail if he does not return or does not formally resign in 48 hours.

[wxtransit]

If I interpreted the SOAP correctly, I believe I can hold this vote open until we reach a quorum (3 members). So, vote stays open until we get a new member seated.

[wxtransit]

Still holding this open until we reach a quorum

[wxtransit]

[Comrade Funk]

Aye

[wxtransit]

we have a quorum!

Aye (3): wxtransit, Peanut, Comrade Funk

The bill will be referred to the public for ratification on Friday, February 22 to Monday, February 25.