Zombie Preparedness Act

flemingovia:
As, By the way, a former speaker myself, my interpretation of the rules is different. Even the proposer has admitted that this is now a new bill. Precedent gives that a new bill cannot go to vote before debate.

Look back and you will find that attempts have been made in the past to rush bills to vote before debate (there's your precedent). Speakers before you have always ruled against this.
Click to expand...
EMPHASIS ADDED ON FLEM'S QUOTE.

After rummaging through the archives for some idea on this issue, I'm still not sure if there is any precedent as to whether the speaker can object to a motion for immediate vote (the 1/10th rule), which is different from a motion for vote (formal debate, speaker scheduling vote, yaddi yadda). I'd appreciate if someone could point me to evidence that backs up Flem's position.
 
Lord Nwahs:
flemingovia:
As, By the way, a former speaker myself, my interpretation of the rules is different. Even the proposer has admitted that this is now a new bill. Precedent gives that a new bill cannot go to vote before debate.

Look back and you will find that attempts have been made in the past to rush bills to vote before debate (there's your precedent). Speakers before you have always ruled against this.
Click to expand...
EMPHASIS ADDED ON FLEM'S QUOTE.

After rummaging through the archives for some idea on this issue, I'm still not sure if there is any precedent as to whether the speaker can object to a motion for immediate vote (the 1/10th rule), which is different from a motion for vote (formal debate, speaker scheduling vote, yaddi yadda). I'd appreciate if someone could point me to evidence that backs up Flem's position.
Click to expand...
Umm. Did you read my post? I am not asking you to overrule the 1/10 rule. I agree there is no precedent for that.

There are two possible legal interpretations here:

1. The final version of this bill is just a tweak of the original bill that has been debated all along. The lateness of the revision is irregular, maybe even unfair on those who have no time to debate it, but not illegal as such. Therefore the 1/10 rule applies.

2. The final version of this bill is so different from the original that it effectively constitutes a new bill. Therefore the 1/10 rule does not apply and it needs to go back to the floor of the ra to allow for debate. The speaker is not overruling the RA rules, since precedent States that new bills should receive time on the floor of the house.

Now, CoE seems to want a third interpretation. He says that technically this is now a new bill, but he still wants an immediate vote. This is entirely withour precedent, and not allowed in our rules.

I think the correct ruling is #2 above, especially as CoE himself has admitted that this is now a new bill.

If the speaker rules in favour of #1, this opens the RA to all sorts of possible abuses.

For example, I could propose a bill, engineer an objection to the move to vote, then rally a 1/10 overruling of the cancellation, then at the very last moment insert a clause bringing Flemingovianism into the act. Since the substantive of the act remains the same, the speaker would, presumably, rule that it should go immediately to vote.
 
Flem:
For example, I could propose a bill, engineer an objection to the move to vote, then rally a 1/10 overruling of the cancellation, then at the very last moment insert a clause bringing Flemingovianism into the act. Since the substantive of the act remains the same, the speaker would, presumably, rule that it should go immediately to vote.
Click to expand...
You could, but jeez.. that's a bit much for a RP game. :P

To be fair, I suppose this situation could be accidental, or a result of an unfortunate collision of vague definitions and procedural ambiguities. But yeah.. new language = new bill. Back to square one. :2c:
 
falapatorius:
Flem:
For example, I could propose a bill, engineer an objection to the move to vote, then rally a 1/10 overruling of the cancellation, then at the very last moment insert a clause bringing Flemingovianism into the act. Since the substantive of the act remains the same, the speaker would, presumably, rule that it should go immediately to vote.
Click to expand...
You could, but jeez.. that's a bit much for a RP game. :P

To be fair, I suppose this situation could be accidental, or a result of an unfortunate collision of vague definitions and procedural ambiguities. But yeah.. new language = new bill. Back to square one. :2c:
Click to expand...
Didnt that like already happen though?

http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7209482/1/

So it isnt really a hypothetical... :fish:

Wait that was different, the proposer proposed something got it to a vote then voted it down.

Hey guys I'd really like you to pass this law, former debate plz! Speaker schedule a vote plz!

Speaker: OK

Proposer: Nay! Lol
 
The 10% rule does not make any exceptions for bills that haven't been debated for very long. It bypasses normal procedures - that is its function. Here is the text of the rule:
4. If at least one-tenth of the members of the Regional Assembly, including the member that introduced the proposal to the Regional Assembly, motion that a vote should be held on a proposal before the Regional Assembly, then the Speaker must schedule a vote on that proposal to begin as soon as permitted by law.
Click to expand...
It is in the RA Rules, not the discretionary policies of the Speaker, so the use of normal debate rules to delay a bill that 10% of the RA had motioned for an immediate vote on would be illegal, since the normal debate rules are in the discretionary policies of the Speaker, which are subordinate to the RA Rules.
 
Is it being suggested that if the proposer adds a comma, corrects a misspelling or changes a sentence here and there at the suggestion of another RA member, then it goes back to square one?
 
Great Bights Mum:
Is it being suggested that if the proposer adds a comma, corrects a misspelling or changes a sentence here and there at the suggestion of another RA member, then it goes back to square one?
Click to expand...
I don't think that's the suggestion. I think the suggestion is that once a bill has exited formal debate, there are no circumstances under which a revised version can go to vote without going back to square one. Broadly, this is true. There are no provisions for editing a bill after formal debate has ended, so any revised version would be considered a new bill. The 10% rule is an exception to normal procedures, and allows a bill to go to an immediate vote, no matter what stage of the debate process it is in.
 
What COE said is correct. The 1/10ths rule apply for all bills, even new ones. Not sure if that was the case back when you were Speaker, Flem, but the wording of the law (and recent precedents, as far as I can tell) back up COE's take on this.
 
flemingovia:
For example, I could propose a bill, engineer an objection to the move to vote, then rally a 1/10 overruling of the cancellation, then at the very last moment insert a clause bringing Flemingovianism into the act. Since the substantive of the act remains the same, the speaker would, presumably, rule that it should go immediately to vote.
Click to expand...
That would be silly.

Instead, you should propose a bill that includes flemingovianism, motion for an immediate vote, and round up 1/10 of the RA as supporters.

Why go through the extra rigamarole?
 
That's 8, which exceeds the 10% required to take this to vote. I would request a vote of 4 days, to ensure that the bill has a chance to go through before the zombie event takes place.

I would encourage the government of TNP to go ahead and start the poll that would be requred by this bill. If the bill fails, then the poll will naturally not be binding, but if the bill passes, failure to start a poll in advance would paralyze the government while we wait for the results to come in.

EDIT: For anyone who wasn't counting, the eight members in support are me, Sev, SillyString, r3n, Tomb, GBM, Scandigrad, and Kiwi.
 
Well, is there are provision for the Regional Assembly to overrule the Speaker in this instance? I believe that COE is abusing the rules of the R.A. in revising a bill after formal debate has ended, and then pushing for a vote on a bill that the sponsor admits is a substantively new bill.

COE should be ashamed of himself for abusing a body for which he served as Speaker in order to advance his own personal interest. Shame on you, sir, shame!
 
I have NOT admitted that it is a substantively new bill. Substantively, it is identical to a version that has been under debate for the past week. It is procedurally a new bill, but that is all.

EDIT: Also, this bill does not advance my personal interest in the slightest. It is the public interest that I am advancing.
 
Crushing Our Enemies Today:
I have NOT admitted that it is a substantively new bill. Substantively, it is identical to a version that has been under debate for the past week. It is procedurally a new bill, but that is all.
Click to expand...

crushing our enemies:
falapatorius:
This vote was objected to after formal debate. It was then amended. So this is a new bill that you are attempting to rush through with the 10% rule?
Click to expand...
Technically, yes, although the text is very similar to the one that Mcm suggested almost a week ago.
Click to expand...

But meh, this will go to vote because those who wield power in the region desire it. Let's not pretend otherwise.
 
flemingovia:
Crushing Our Enemies Today:
I have NOT admitted that it is a substantively new bill. Substantively, it is identical to a version that has been under debate for the past week. It is procedurally a new bill, but that is all.
Click to expand...

crushing our enemies:
falapatorius:
This vote was objected to after formal debate. It was then amended. So this is a new bill that you are attempting to rush through with the 10% rule?
Click to expand...
Technically, yes, although the text is very similar to the one that Mcm suggested almost a week ago.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Those two quotes from me are saying pretty much the same thing. Technically, this is a new bill, but substantively it is not. If you were trying to catch me in an inconsistency, you failed.
 
Don't you just hate it when people keep pressing the same bill over and over again, each time changing the language in attempts to make it appear to be a new bill?

I seem to recall everyone getting irate over that practice in the past, or is this just applicable only to certain individuals who engage in this practice? :P ;)
 
OK, first off, this bill has never gone to vote, and this is only the second attempt to get it there. The first time, I was supposed to have changed the text, and I told everyone exactly how I was going to change it. The first attempt was a non-starter. This is the real bill, and it's been under debate for a week now.
 
Enough silliness. This bill goes to vote immediately.

Fact is, whether this is a new bill doesn't matter at all. The RA rules don't provide me with any provision to overrule the 1/10ths rule, as it is.
 
I'm not really sure what to say about the last few pages of this thread. Who would have thought Zombie day would turn into a 7 or so page spread in the RA? :n2d
 
Section 2. Clause 4 of the Rules of the Regional Assembly:
4. If at least one-tenth of the members of the Regional Assembly object to the duration of a vote of the Regional Assembly decided by the Speaker before the conclusion of the vote, then that vote will last for the maximum duration permitted by law.
Click to expand...
I hereby object to the scheduled duration of this vote.
 
falapatorius:
Section 2. Clause 4 of the Rules of the Regional Assembly:
4. If at least one-tenth of the members of the Regional Assembly object to the duration of a vote of the Regional Assembly decided by the Speaker before the conclusion of the vote, then that vote will last for the maximum duration permitted by law.
Click to expand...
I hereby object to the scheduled duration of this vote.
Click to expand...
I think I am third to support this motion. Full voting period.
 
Yes, and that edit was one that I acknowledged I would make on October 20th, and which made the bill functionally identical to the version Mcm proposed on October 19th.

EDIT: In other words, anyone who isn't informed enough about this bill to make an educated vote on it hasn't been trying.
 
announcing you would make the edit and making the edit are two different things.

And it is a bit much to dismiss a ra member unwilling to wade through eight pages of posts as "not trying"
 
So now there's been too much debate?

And announcing that I would make the edit turned the debate toward the version proposed by Mcm. There has not been any debate on the original version since then. To say that this "new" bill hasn't gotten enough attention from the RA to be voted on is ridiculous, and to attempt to extend the vote past zombie day is petty.
 
I never said there was too much debate. I love to see a vibrant and active assembly. I said that expecting people to work out the final version of a bill based on posts on page .... Four? Five? Of the thread is a bit much.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
This body is completely dysfunctional. :mellow:
Click to expand...
:cry: They aren't doing what I want them to do! :cry:

and to attempt to extend the vote past zombie day is petty.
Click to expand...
Is it now? As an opponent of the idea of this legislation it seems to me a legitimate use of procedure to attempt to stall this bill until it is totally, as opposed to mostly, irrelevant. :P
 
I 4th the motion to object to the length of time on the scheduled vote. And ask for more to join us in objecting so the vote may last for the full time as permitted by law.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
and to attempt to extend the vote past zombie day is petty.
Click to expand...
Is it now? As an opponent of the idea of this legislation it seems to me a legitimate use of procedure to attempt to stall this bill until it is totally, as opposed to mostly, irrelevant. :P
Click to expand...
It is a legitimate and petty use of procedure. If this bill passes after a seven day vote, it will mean that 10% of the RA has overruled the whole on laws surrounding this year's zombie day.
 
It is hardly the fault of the RA that this was brought up too late to have a proper debate abd voting period before October 31st.

We have known zombie day was coming for a year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top