Senate Bill: Official Sessions

Thud · January 10, 2003, 15:07

This bill will authorise decisions reached in any meeting of the Senate posted on the forum at least 24 hours in advance and meeting quorum to have all of the constitutional authority of a normal threaded Senate Bill.

This bill expires in 72 hours.

Arnelos · January 10, 2003, 15:19

Um.....

YES

Aggie · January 10, 2003, 15:41

I believe this is already allowed under the newcon, but please vote yes just to eliminate doubt.
Aggie

roadcage · January 10, 2003, 15:43

As a simple Senate Bill, this will almost certainly fail a constitutional challenge due to it's inherent disenfranchisement nature.

Now on the otherhand, if this were to be recast as an Amendment, it would probably fail but become the beginnings of a meaningful discussion.

Realistically, the only times this sort of thing happens is when the chat is stopped due to an emergency event such as war or GL usage etc. And even war events probably don't need a special session since the requisite bill is easily drafted as a simple Yea, Nay, Abstain. I think the proper course in light of recent experience is that whenever a chat is stopped for an event likely to create complex voting issues, the Administration immediately post a Special Session request including Proxy Voting features, but not specifying which normal bills will be proxied until they become apparent.

So based on the above I urge all my colleagues to vote Nay to this bill.

Togas · January 10, 2003, 15:43

Excellent idea.

--Togas

Thud · January 10, 2003, 15:46

Actually, the constitution gives us the power to organize our procedures. If our bill passing procedure takes place on a chatroom instead of this forum (even though it will fufill all bill regulations when posted on chat), then that is within our rights.

roadcage · January 10, 2003, 15:51

The constitution is very clear about never denying citizens their franchise. Other than that we have the ability to organize ourselves as we see fit.

Arnelos · January 10, 2003, 15:59

Quote:

Originally posted by roadcage
The constitution is very clear about never denying citizens their franchise. Other than that we have the ability to organize ourselves as we see fit.

It sounds like it would be useful for the Court to deliberate on their chosen interpretation of the current rules...

Justices? (hint!)

naervod · January 10, 2003, 16:06

I think this is an excellent idea.

E_T · January 10, 2003, 16:54

A Capitol Idea. There should only be times that this will be used, but this should be allowed.

E_T

Aro · January 10, 2003, 17:02

Yes. This will make my job... sorry, I meant Arnelo's job, easier in the next term.

civman2000 · January 10, 2003, 19:16

I agree that this is legal in that the Senate can organize its procedures and disenfranchisement is not an issue, but it seems to violate this part of the constitution, unless the meeting would be 3 days long:

Quote:

(d) The poll [for a Senate Bill] must be open for at least 72 hours.

Also, this seems to be violated:

Quote:

To propose a law, a senator (or minister under the conditions above) [added by Amendment I, 12/23/02] must post a poll that is clear, unbiased, states the proposed law in its entirety, and gives three options: “yea”, “nay”, and “abstain”.

Thud · January 10, 2003, 20:13

I can put you at ease for the latter: A Senator will post the non-biased, clear, and states the law, with three options, in the chatroom. Then everyone present will vote in that chatroom.

kring · January 10, 2003, 20:20

Unless, the chat room activity went on for 72 hours, it would still fail the first part of the above mentioned quote.

Some people aren't able to make the chats, but are able to visit the boards. These people would be automatically left out.

Thud · January 10, 2003, 20:43

Sirs, I am one of those people frequently unable to join the chatroom, however I am the sponsor of this bill. I beleive this bill is of national importance.

Furthermore, there are certain procedures allowing those unable to attend to PM their vote to a justice. I did not feel it necessary to include these in my bill as those procedures may change.

DAVOUT · January 10, 2003, 21:11

We are talking of an emergency procedure to have laws polled, voted and enforced in delays shorter than the constitution prescribes. This requires an amendment.

MJW · January 10, 2003, 21:52

Court-case now!

Thud · January 10, 2003, 22:18

My, aren't we a little obsessive with these court cases. Poor Justices hardly get a break.

roadcage · January 10, 2003, 22:18

I rise in support of the gentleman from Minnesota
Ssgt roadcage

MJW · January 10, 2003, 22:54

you can be the plaintiff roadcage

civman2000 · January 11, 2003, 09:15

Thud: Hmmm, that would be a case for the court. Does a written request for votes on a bill equal a poll or not?

roadcage · January 11, 2003, 10:20

Quote:

you can be the plaintiff roadcage

It looks like several folks want to challenge this one. But don't we have to wait until someone is harmed?

Right now it is just a pending senate bill which will probably pass.

Next monday or so, it will be an actual law, which if used to facilitate a faster senatorial chat COULD cause harm.

Don't we need to wait until after someone actually uses the bills feature to DO HARM?

But yes, if and when that happens, I will take steps to be sure that I am harmed and have a cause.

Ssgt roadcage (retired)

rush · January 11, 2003, 12:00

Abstain ....... Proxies should be allowed, like shareholders meeting.

civman2000 · January 13, 2003, 18:19

roadcage, I have PMed the court with a complaint...If you wish you can be my coplaintiff

Thud · January 13, 2003, 18:41

Alright, let it be known that I will be defendent.

Let it also be known that I have reached Prince! Who hoo!

civman2000 · January 13, 2003, 22:08

Also let it be known that I have nothing against Thud for posting this poll, and that with a few important refinements to insure as many people as possible get to vote his proposal would make an excellent constitutional amendment.