Post Archive

Region: The Thaecian Senate

History

Aye

Andusre, Brototh, The Bigtopia

Nay

World Trade, Brototh

Aye

Andusre, Brototh, The Bigtopia

Nay

Brototh, Marvinville

Aye

Andusre, The Bigtopia

Results - Amendment A

Congressional Expansion Act of July 2020

Author: Marvinville

Sponsor: Marvinville

Amendment A (PASSED)

Author: Brototh

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Amend Article I - House Expansion to read as follows:

The House of Commons will be expanded by 4 seats, to a total of 15 seats.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Vote Results]

Ayes (4) - Andusre, Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia

Nays (3) - Marvinville, Snowflame, World Trade

Abstentions (0)

[/spoiler]

Voting - Congressional Expansion Act of July 2020

Congressional Expansion Act of July 2020

Author: Marvinville

Sponsor: Marvinville

As amended by: Brototh

We have now begun voting on the Congressional Expansion Act of July 2020, as amended by the Senate.

My vote is Aye

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

Marvinville

Snowflame

World Trade

[/spoiler]

Emazia

aye

World Trade, The Bigtopia, Emazia

Aye

The Bigtopia, Emazia

Aye

World Trade, The Bigtopia, Emazia

Aye

World Trade, The Bigtopia, Emazia

Aye

World Trade, The Bigtopia

Aye

World Trade, The Bigtopia

Results - Congressional Expansion Act of July 2020

Congressional Expansion Act of July 2020

Author: Marvinville

Sponsor: Marvinville

As amended by: Brototh

Ayes (7) - Andusre, Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Marvinville, Snowflame, World Trade

Nays (0)

Abstentions (0)

The Congressional Expansion Act of July 2020, as amended by the Senate, has passed with well over the 2/3rds majority needed. It will now move to the House of Commons for further action.

[spoiler=Speaker of the House]

Zanaana

[/spoiler]

Dizgovzy, World Trade, The Bigtopia, Zanaana

Opening Debate - The Loosening of Congressional Procedures Act

The Loosening of Congressional Procedures Act

Authors: Andusre & Islonia

Sponsors: Andusre & Islonia

We have now begun debating The Loosening of Congressional Procedures Act. Please share your thoughts on this bill as well as submit amendments if you wish to do so.

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

Snowflame

World Trade

[/spoiler]

seems pretty epic ngl

Pap Sculgief, The Bigtopia

It is a good bill, but if a majority of MP's or Se actors have already voted aye (or 2/3 in some cases), then why would a member of congress need to ask for more voting time. The outcome is not going to change, and if the correct amount of people have already voted for or against a bill, then the amount needed to extend the voting time will not be there. I therefore find those additions pretty useless when put with the rest of the bill.

Besides that though, it's good, and that wouldn't necessarily stop me voting aye for this bill.

Post self-deleted by Brototh.

On this bill that amends both L.R. 006 and L.R. 024, it would change the rules on the timings of debates and votes. In my opinion, I do not believe that these amendments are needed. I like the system we have now, which is a mandatory 12 hours of debate time on bills plus 24 hours of voting time, unless every Senator has voted. It gives the chance for every Senator to express their opinions, either through the debate time or in the vote. However, this bill will slightly change that. The timings of the bills through the debate stage and voting period will be up to the Speaker or Senate Chair themselves. All it would take is 4 Senators to express their opinions towards a certain way, either for a bill or against it, which would allow the Senate Chair to begin the vote. Those 4 Senators could then either vote Aye or Nay, all unanimously, which would allow for the Chair to end the vote, Giving the other 3 Senators no say in the matter of context of the bill. As I stated yesterday, either chamber could easily abuse this power for their own benefit, passing or rejecting bills quickly before anyone else can participate. The chamber could as well finish the whole docket in a matter of days. I know this could be rare, but it could possibly happen. Our jobs as elected officials to the Congress is to represent our peers in the region, through debates and votes. This could simply suppress that given right, if we have a Speaker or Chair in the future that would abuse this power. Again, the system we have now is fine and does not need changes. I will vote Nay on this bill and I encourage the rest of the Senate to do the same.

World Trade, Dendrobium

I agree with what Marvinville stated above and would like to add something to what they said;

making it so the Senate Chair or Speaker of the House have the ability to end the debating- or voting period as soon as a majority for either vote can be found could easily have the result that a debate has been decided and/or ended already before everyone has gotten the chance to speak up for their minds, this way a few quick and vocal MP's or Senators could easily sway the results of the voting period (to their will) by (indirectly) preventing any possible further debate involving other MP's or Senators, with different opinions on the matter, who could otherwise have changed the general opinion of their respectable house and those seating in it, and with that the outcome of the debating- and voting period.

While I understand where the idea behind this Act is coming from, and while there are certainly parts in it which I do agree with, I mainly believe that it opens up for undesired consequences such as stated above.

Marvinville

Voting - The Loosening of Congressional Procedures Act

The Loosening of Congressional Procedures Act

Authors: Andusre & Islonia

Sponsors: Andusre & Islonia

We have now begun voting on The Loosening of Congressional Procedures Act.

My vote is Nay

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

Snowflame

World Trade

[/spoiler]

I motion to Marvinville to stop the vote and return to the debate stage, as we've discussed amending the bill to change "adequate support" to have a more appropriately high threshold.

Andusre wrote:I motion to Marvinville to stop the vote and return to the debate stage, as we've discussed amending the bill to change "adequate support" to have a more appropriately high threshold.

The vote will continue as a majority of the Senators have voted. The amendment could have been proposed during the debate stage.

Marvinville wrote:The vote will continue as a majority of the Senators have voted. The amendment could have been proposed during the debate stage.

I don't really want to rehash what I said on discord in the #senate channel, but to recap:

>Most senators approve of the bill but are concerned with the definition of adequate consensus, understandably fearing it could leave chambers open to abuse from a majority which speeds through legislation way too quickly.

>Less than 24 hours had passed from the time the debate period was started and concluded, which isn't exactly a great deal of time especially given that everyone here has a real life to contend with.

>You want the house to amend it and send it back to us. This will waste the house's time and our own time.

-->It wastes the house's time because it would have to vote to amend the bill, send it back to us, then pass it again, this time into law.

-->The house is already tight for time - its docket is huge and it has barely over a month until it has to close down for the midterms again. It isn't fair to ask the house to do this for us when we can do it ourselves by sparing a couple of hours.

-->It wastes our time by passing it now and waiting for it to come back to us - which no one wants to do.

There isn't any good reason to go ahead with the vote right now when the bill can be very very easily amended into a better form which will pass Congress more smoothly. Going ahead with the vote imo is not a good judgement call.

Edit: this post was longer than I initially intended it to be lol

Andusre wrote:I don't really want to rehash what I said on discord in the #senate channel, but to recap:

>Most senators approve of the bill but are concerned with the definition of adequate consensus, understandably fearing it could leave chambers open to abuse from a majority which speeds through legislation way too quickly.

>Less than 24 hours had passed from the time the debate period was started and concluded, which isn't exactly a great deal of time especially given that everyone here has a real life to contend with.

>You want the house to amend it and send it back to us. This will waste the house's time and our own time.

-->It wastes the house's time because it would have to vote to amend the bill, send it back to us, then pass it again, this time into law.

-->The house is already tight for time - its docket is huge and it has barely over a month until it has to close down for the midterms again. It isn't fair to ask the house to do this for us when we can do it ourselves by sparing a couple of hours.

-->It wastes our time by passing it now and waiting for it to come back to us - which no one wants to do.

There isn't any good reason to go ahead with the vote right now when the bill can be very very easily amended into a better form which will pass Congress more smoothly. Going ahead with the vote imo is not a good judgement call.

Edit: this post was longer than I initially intended it to be lol

You had plenty of time to propose the amendment, which you did not. Also Zanaana said it would be fine if the bill passed the Senate and was amended in the House. He supports my decision to keep the vote open so the vote shall continue. Please cast your vote.

I've consulted with the following Senators, and all have agreed to sign onto this motion/petition to return to the amendment stage:

Islonia

Dendrobium

World Trade

Brototh

and myself

Since 5 out of 7 senators want to return to that stage, I urge you to reconsider pressing ahead with the vote.

Brototh

[spoiler=Amendment A, if Marv decides to accept the motion]The definition of "adequate consensus" will be changed to read as follows:

Adequate consensus is defined as a group of MPs, constituting two thirds of the chamber, who all voice their support or opposition to the current business of the chamber.

Examples:

When debating a constitutional amendment, adequate consensus would be defined as two thirds in support of the amendment (required for a constitutional amendment to pass Congress) OR one third in opposition to the amendment (as this is enough to cause a constitutional amendment to fail)

When debating a regular bill, adequate consensus would be defined as a two thirds' majority in favour OR in opposition to the bill.[/spoiler]

Brototh, Titanne

I have decided to Table the bill and the Senate will be adjourned for a short period of time (also due to personal reasons). This bill will once again be brought to the Senate floor soon for a new debate period.

[Spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

Snowflame

World Trade

[/spoiler]

Andusre

Opening Amendment Voting - The Loosening of Congressional Procedures Act

The Loosening of Congressional Procedures Act

Authors: Andusre & Islonia

Sponsors: Andusre & Islonia

With Marvinville's permission, we have now begun debating on Amendment A to The Loosening of Congressional Procedures Act.

[spoiler=Amendment A]The definition of "adequate consensus" will be changed to read as follows:

Adequate consensus is defined as a group of MPs, constituting two thirds of the chamber, who all voice their support or opposition to the current business of the chamber.

Examples:

When debating a constitutional amendment, adequate consensus would be defined as two thirds in support of the amendment (required for a constitutional amendment to pass Congress) OR one third in opposition to the amendment (as this is enough to cause a constitutional amendment to fail)

When debating a regular bill, adequate consensus would be defined as a two thirds' majority in favour OR in opposition to the bill.[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

Snowflame

World Trade

[/spoiler]

Marvinville

After reconsidering, I think that the amendment does fix some of the issues with the proposed bill, and although I do feel there could be some improvements made elsewhere, it does improve it enough to potentially change my vote to an aye.

Marvinville

I do support Amendment A but I agree with World Trade that the bill can be improved in other areas to be effective. I will likely submit another Amendment later on when I am able to. I would like to apologize to the Senate with the earlier mess but I was making decisions based on what Procedures would allow for and I believe that the best course of action was to table the bill and to restart the process on it, which I hope you agree with. I would like to say that if you are planning to submit an amendment in any future time following 12 hours of debate, please let me know so we can avoid this from happening again. Thank you Andy for your help so far and thank you to the rest of the Senators for being patient.

World Trade, Islonia, Andusre, Brototh

Islonia wrote:Aye

We aren't voting yet but thanks for the enthusiasm

Islonia, Andusre, Marvinville

While Amendment A does offer a great and greatly needed improvement, I do believe there to still be a major issue: as of now (including Amendement A) an adequate consensus would consist of a 2/3 majority, yet the needed amound of MP's or Senators needed to ask for a return to the debating stage with any legitimacy remains to be 50% + 1 (meaning a simple majority).

I think the problem here is clear. If this would be the case, such a simple majority would, logically speaking, be impossible to achieve in a situation where 2/3 of MP's or Senators have already called out their thoughts in unity on the matter.

That is why I ask consideration and input on this idea from fellow Senators for a possible Amendement B in which this would be changed.

Marvinville

Brototh wrote:We aren't voting yet but thanks for the enthusiasm

Reee Andy

I'll look at it tomorrow, 1:18am here.

Andusre I have 2 quick questions for you. In Amendment A, it changes the adequate consensus from a majority to 2/3rds majority to end the debate stage before the 12 hours is up. Does this also include the voting period or just the debate period?

The second question is where will Article III of the bill go? Will it be included in both of L.R. 006 and L.R. 024 or will it be a separate law?

Andusre has answered the questions on discord so if the Senators want to know the answers, here they are:

Answer to question 1: "Yes, it includes the voting period and the debate period."

Answer to question 2: "The new definition should be added to both bills, the "reminder" part should be discarded."

I will also be starting something new now so we can avoid any more possible scenarios like the one earlier today from happening again. Once I start the debate period of a bill, I will announce a time when I look to start the votes on the final passage or on any proposed amendments if there are any. I believe that this can keep the Senate organized so all amendments can be proposed before a planned vote time. I can of course postpone the vote time if the debate is ongoing but I would let you know if that happens. Also if you want to propose an amendment near the planned vote time, please let me know so I can postpone the voting period and allow for a short debate addition on the amendment. If you have any questions for this new addition, feel free to ask me.

I am announcing that the vote on the proposed amendments(s) will begin no earlier than tomorrow (Wednesday) afternoon. (all times will be EST)

Voting - Amendment A

The Loosening of Congressional Procedures Act

Authors: Andusre & Islonia

Sponsors: Andusre & Islonia

Amendment A

Author: Andusre

[spoiler=Amendment A]

The definition of "adequate consensus" will be changed to read as follows:

Adequate consensus is defined as a group of MPs, constituting two thirds of the chamber, who all voice their support or opposition to the current business of the chamber.

Examples:

When debating a constitutional amendment, adequate consensus would be defined as two thirds in support of the amendment (required for a constitutional amendment to pass Congress) OR one third in opposition to the amendment (as this is enough to cause a constitutional amendment to fail)

When debating a regular bill, adequate consensus would be defined as a two thirds' majority in favour OR in opposition to the bill.

[/spoiler]

We have now begun voting on Amendment A to The Loosening of Congressional Procedures Act

My vote is Aye

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

Snowflame

World Trade

[/spoiler]

Aye

(My bad for the debate. I got occupied with the festival's organisation and TEP stuff, completely forgot to check the Senate. 😞)

World Trade, Marvinville

Results from the Voting on Amendment A

Aye (6): Marvinville, World Trade, Dendrobium, Islonia, Andusre, Brototh

The amendment has passed unanimously.

Opening of Voting on the Loosening of Congressional Procedures Act

With permission from Marvinville, I now start the vote on the bill, as amended with Amendment A.

My vote is Aye.

(I won't do a senator ping spoiler cause y'all are already mentioned).

Finally, a massive thank you to Snowflame. I hope everything is alright with your IRL circumstances and thank you for your dedicated commitment to the Senate since election. o7

Pap Sculgief, Snowflame, Indian Genius, Zon Island, Marvinville

Results - The Loosening of Congressional Procedures Act

The Loosening of Congressional Procedures Act

Authors: Andusre & Islonia

Sponsors: Andusre & Islonia

As amended by: Andusre

Ayes (4) - Andusre, Brototh, Islonia, World Trade

Nays (2) - Dendrobium, Marvinville

Abstentions (0)

The Loosening of Congressional Procedures Act has passed the Senate, reaching the 2/3rds majority it needed. It will now move to the House of Commons for further action.

I would like to thank Andusre for helping me out the past couple of days running the chamber while I was in New Hampshire for a short vacation. I would also like to thank Snowflame for his service in this great body for the past 5 months. It was a honor to work with you in Congress and I hope we can once again work together some point in our Thaecian careers, wherever it takes us.

[spoiler=Speaker of the House]

Zanaana

[/spoiler]

Andusre, Asean Nations, Zanaana

Opening Debate - Senate Snap Election Constitutional Amendment

Senate Snap Election Constitutional Amendment

Author: Brototh

Sponsors: Brototh & Andusre

We have now begun debating the Senate Snap Election Constitutional Amendment.

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

World Trade

[/spoiler]

World Trade, Andusre, Asean Nations, Zanaana

I feel that this is what is needed. The entire reason I voted against the constitutional amendment was because of that parts removal, so I think that it is something that needs to be added again.

Andusre

World Trade wrote:I feel that this is what is needed. The entire reason I voted against the constitutional amendment was because of that parts removal, so I think that it is something that needs to be added again.

^ This. Only having the cabinet who can call one isn't ideal. Especially if the President is AFK.

World Trade, Andusre

I disagree with this Constitutional Amendment and let me share why. I don't think that the Senate shall have the ability to call snap elections alone. If we have a partisan Senate sometime, they could call a snap election on the House of Commons for no given reason, just because they don't like who is in it. That could be rare but not impossible. Also I believe that this would easily bypass our Impeachment process given for executive positions. To remove the President or Prime Minister from office, it needs both chamber support, in which inactivity is a reason for Impeachment. However, the Senate could basically bypass that process by calling a snap election on the position itself, not allowing the House of Commons participate in the process, because they may disagree with the motion. I don't think we should have this ability anymore. If we should have this ability, we could include the House of Commons in the process. I will vote Nay on the amendment and I hope my fellow Senators will do the same.

Marvinville wrote:I disagree with this Constitutional Amendment and let me share why. I don't think that the Senate shall have the ability to call snap elections alone. If we have a partisan Senate sometime, they could call a snap election on the House of Commons for no given reason, just because they don't like who is in it. That could be rare but not impossible. Also I believe that this would easily bypass our Impeachment process given for executive positions. To remove the President or Prime Minister from office, it needs both chamber support, in which inactivity is a reason for Impeachment. However, the Senate could basically bypass that process by calling a snap election on the position itself, not allowing the House of Commons participate in the process, because they may disagree with the motion. I don't think we should have this ability anymore. If we should have this ability, we could include the House of Commons in the process. I will vote Nay on the amendment and I hope my fellow Senators will do the same.

There are two possible solutions to this;

>The legislative can only call snap elections on the Prime Minister or President should both chambers have a 2/3 majority, or,

>The legislative cannot call individual snap elections on the Executive at all, and may only call snap elections on them via an impeachment-- don't really like this.

However I do think that it is quite wild that the Senate could call a snap election on the House just because they don't like it, there are also two solutions to this;

>The House of Commons can block this with her own legislation that receives 2/3 support- akin to other passages that allow for the Executive to call Snap Elections.

>A lot less desired, however, create a list of offences that may call for a snap election, so that if the Senate attempts to call a snap because "we dont like them", it is impossible. I don't really support this, however, because we would only be able to count in the probable events that could cause us to call a Snap for them, but it's the improbable that scares me.

The passage 'it's the improbable that scares me', really sums up this entire constitutional amendment, because the Legislative should always have the power to act in the improbable scenarios that we may face in the future. Allowing us to call Snap Elections, perhaps with those two amendments so that you don't shoot it down before trying to fix it, is a needed quality for the Senate.

World Trade, Marvinville

Brototh wrote:There are two possible solutions to this;

>The legislative can only call snap elections on the Prime Minister or President should both chambers have a 2/3 majority, or,

>The legislative cannot call individual snap elections on the Executive at all, and may only call snap elections on them via an impeachment-- don't really like this.

However I do think that it is quite wild that the Senate could call a snap election on the House just because they don't like it, there are also two solutions to this;

>The House of Commons can block this with her own legislation that receives 2/3 support- akin to other passages that allow for the Executive to call Snap Elections.

>A lot less desired, however, create a list of offences that may call for a snap election, so that if the Senate attempts to call a snap because "we dont like them", it is impossible. I don't really support this, however, because we would only be able to count in the probable events that could cause us to call a Snap for them, but it's the improbable that scares me.

The passage 'it's the improbable that scares me', really sums up this entire constitutional amendment, because the Legislative should always have the power to act in the improbable scenarios that we may face in the future. Allowing us to call Snap Elections, perhaps with those two amendments so that you don't shoot it down before trying to fix it, is a needed quality for the Senate.

You have some valid points relating to this Constitutional amendment. I do like the idea of letting both chambers have a say whether to have a snap election regarding executive positions, but it would bypass the new impeachment reform that is waiting in the House docket. Congress could decide to call for a snap election on executive positions instead of following the impeachment route due to the fact that to impeach someone, it must also be approved by the court. This is not the case for this snap election amendment, which does not need court approval to call a snap election. I will look to create an amendment or two to at least make the constitutional amendment slightly better

I will propose this amendment to the Constitutional Amendment. Please let me know your thoughts on it.

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Section III - The Senate Each chamber of Congress shall have the authority to call a snap election for their respective chamber, with two thirds of the chamber's support.

[/spoiler]

Dizgovzy

[spoiler=relevant quotes]

Brototh wrote:There are two possible solutions to this;

>The legislative can only call snap elections on the Prime Minister or President should both chambers have a 2/3 majority, or,

>The legislative cannot call individual snap elections on the Executive at all, and may only call snap elections on them via an impeachment-- don't really like this.

However I do think that it is quite wild that the Senate could call a snap election on the House just because they don't like it, there are also two solutions to this;

>The House of Commons can block this with her own legislation that receives 2/3 support- akin to other passages that allow for the Executive to call Snap Elections.

>A lot less desired, however, create a list of offences that may call for a snap election, so that if the Senate attempts to call a snap because "we dont like them", it is impossible. I don't really support this, however, because we would only be able to count in the probable events that could cause us to call a Snap for them, but it's the improbable that scares me.

The passage 'it's the improbable that scares me', really sums up this entire constitutional amendment, because the Legislative should always have the power to act in the improbable scenarios that we may face in the future. Allowing us to call Snap Elections, perhaps with those two amendments so that you don't shoot it down before trying to fix it, is a needed quality for the Senate.

Marvinville wrote:You have some valid points relating to this Constitutional amendment. I do like the idea of letting both chambers have a say whether to have a snap election regarding executive positions, but it would bypass the new impeachment reform that is waiting in the House docket. Congress could decide to call for a snap election on executive positions instead of following the impeachment route due to the fact that to impeach someone, it must also be approved by the court. This is not the case for this snap election amendment, which does not need court approval to call a snap election. I will look to create an amendment or two to at least make the constitutional amendment slightly better
[/spoiler]

I see what you mean about the bypassing impeachment stuff, and to be honest I'm not sure how to fix it.

Marvinville wrote:I will propose this amendment to the Constitutional Amendment. Please let me know your thoughts on it.

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Section III - The Senate Each chamber of Congress shall have the authority to call a snap election for their respective chamber, with two thirds of the chamber's support.

[/spoiler]

I don't really agree with this amendment. It is well intentioned, but it is too restrictive and has a couple of problems which could render the new power essentially totally useless. For example, what if one chamber has just less than 2/3s of members active? It wouldn't be able to dissolve itself, and the other chamber would be unable to act under this amendment too because it specifically states the Senate can only call Senate elections, and the House can only call House elections. Add onto this the fact that very rarely do chambers of congress actually want to dissolve themselves, and it may be the case that a chamber of congress needs to be dissolved (say it was abusing its powers or something, or its members were convicted of a crime but couldn't be recalled).

I propose an alternative, Amendment B. It does add a bit of wordiness to the bill, but I feel it captures an important sort of nuance in the power we're about to give ourselves.

[spoiler=Amendment B]

Section III - The Senate and the House of Commons shall have the authority to call a Congressional snap election, with two thirds of the chamber's support. Snap elections called by the House of Commons do not require the approval of the Senate, and vice versa. A chamber can refuse to have the snap election called upon it, if two thirds of the chamber support a motion to refuse the election. For example, if the House of Commons called a snap election on the Senate, the Senate could refuse to be dissolved by passing an amendment, with two thirds' support in the Senate, to veto the snap election, and vice versa.[/spoiler]

World Trade, Marvinville

Andusre wrote:[spoiler=relevant quotes][/spoiler]

I see what you mean about the bypassing impeachment stuff, and to be honest I'm not sure how to fix it.

I don't really agree with this amendment. It is well intentioned, but it is too restrictive and has a couple of problems which could render the new power essentially totally useless. For example, what if one chamber has just less than 2/3s of members active? It wouldn't be able to dissolve itself, and the other chamber would be unable to act under this amendment too because it specifically states the Senate can only call Senate elections, and the House can only call House elections. Add onto this the fact that very rarely do chambers of congress actually want to dissolve themselves, and it may be the case that a chamber of congress needs to be dissolved (say it was abusing its powers or something, or its members were convicted of a crime but couldn't be recalled).

I propose an alternative, Amendment B. It does add a bit of wordiness to the bill, but I feel it captures an important sort of nuance in the power we're about to give ourselves.

[spoiler=Amendment B]

Section III - The Senate and the House of Commons shall have the authority to call a Congressional snap election, with two thirds of the chamber's support. Snap elections called by the House of Commons do not require the approval of the Senate, and vice versa. A chamber can refuse to have the snap election called upon it, if two thirds of the chamber support a motion to refuse the election. For example, if the House of Commons called a snap election on the Senate, the Senate could refuse to be dissolved by passing an amendment, with two thirds' support in the Senate, to veto the snap election, and vice versa.[/spoiler]

Could you explain this part a bit more for me please? It is a bit wordy. "Snap elections called by the House of Commons do not require the approval of the Senate, and vice versa. A chamber can refuse to have the snap election called upon it, if two thirds of the chamber support a motion to refuse the election. For example, if the House of Commons called a snap election on the Senate, the Senate could refuse to be dissolved by passing an amendment, with two thirds' support in the Senate, to veto the snap election, and vice versa."

Marvinville wrote:Could you explain this part a bit more for me please? It is a bit wordy. "Snap elections called by the House of Commons do not require the approval of the Senate, and vice versa. A chamber can refuse to have the snap election called upon it, if two thirds of the chamber support a motion to refuse the election. For example, if the House of Commons called a snap election on the Senate, the Senate could refuse to be dissolved by passing an amendment, with two thirds' support in the Senate, to veto the snap election, and vice versa."

I'll just explain the whole thing so I get a flow going.

The Senate and the House of Commons will gain the ability to call a snap election for both chambers (or just one) with 2/3 of the chamber's support. If the House of Commons calls a snap election upon itself, it does not require the approval of the Senate, and vice versa. If the House of Commons calls upon a snap election to the Senate, the Senate has the right to block themselves being dissolved with a 2/3 majority, and vice versa.

The Senate or House will not have the right to block the other chamber from dissolving itself.

Personally combined with the impeachment reform constitutional amendment we passed some months ago, I support this. I am willing to amend the bill while it is on the floor, if the Senators support it, considering we lost a lot of vote time thanks to my own absence. Hope Marvin will withdraw amend. A

[spoiler=Senators (ping so you can say you do/do not support so we can vote or add it anyway]

Marvinville

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

World Trade[/spoiler]

World Trade, Islonia, Marvinville

Brototh wrote:I'll just explain the whole thing so I get a flow going.

The Senate and the House of Commons will gain the ability to call a snap election for both chambers (or just one) with 2/3 of the chamber's support. If the House of Commons calls a snap election upon itself, it does not require the approval of the Senate, and vice versa. If the House of Commons calls upon a snap election to the Senate, the Senate has the right to block themselves being dissolved with a 2/3 majority, and vice versa.

The Senate or House will not have the right to block the other chamber from dissolving itself.

Personally combined with the impeachment reform constitutional amendment we passed some months ago, I support this. I am willing to amend the bill while it is on the floor, if the Senators support it, considering we lost a lot of vote time thanks to my own absence. Hope Marvin will withdraw amend. A

Yes I have said prior that I will drop my Amendment A in favor of Andy's amendment.

Brototh

The only problem with the bill right now is that (correct me if I am wrong) it is nowhere stated that when calling for snap elections there must formally be given a reason for doing so, be it due to violations or L.R. 008 or something else such as inactivity. If a reference to this is made in the final version of the Amendement, I will gladly support it, as it finally properly regulates when snap elections must be held and who must call for them if not the EC.

Dendrobium wrote:The only problem with the bill right now is that (correct me if I am wrong) it is nowhere stated that when calling for snap elections there must formally be given a reason for doing so, be it due to violations or L.R. 008 or something else such as inactivity. If a reference to this is made in the final version of the Amendement, I will gladly support it, as it finally properly regulates when snap elections must be held and who must call for them if not the EC.

I think that's actually something of a strength of the bill, because it allows for the Senate or House to act during an improbable or unpredictable scenario. And with the Amendment B proposed by Andy, it makes it very hard for one chamber to corruptly pull a snap upon the other, as the other chamber can just block it if they so choose. I'd understand extending this amendment if it were easy to call for a snap if there was corruption, however, the current version of the bill w/ amendment B is very strong in my opinion.

Islonia, Marvinville

I'm in favor of Andy's amendment. It doesn't overstep on the impeachment procedures and prevents a chamber from dissolving another without its consent. Expect an aye from me. :P

Andusre, Marvinville

As I have stated before, I support Andy's amendment as it solves problems that I have with the current version of the bill. It is a bit wordy and I am trying to figure out a way to make it less wordy but have the same meaning that it has now. The Senate will move forward with the Amendment B vote later tonight or in the morning, depending on how this debate continues.

Brototh wrote:I think that's actually something of a strength of the bill, because it allows for the Senate or House to act during an improbable or unpredictable scenario. And with the Amendment B proposed by Andy, it makes it very hard for one chamber to corruptly pull a snap upon the other, as the other chamber can just block it if they so choose. I'd understand extending this amendment if it were easy to call for a snap if there was corruption, however, the current version of the bill w/ amendment B is very strong in my opinion.

I get what you mean and I totally agree that Amendement B is a great addition, but I also believe under all circumstances it should be possible to ask for accountability for calling something as important as snap elections, not just in anothers but also in one's own respectable House.

Senators, considering we have had almost 48 hours of this bill in the debate stage, and the only thing to be voted on is Amendment B, which all Senators have shown their agreement upon, to save time that we should've used in voting, I will be amending the bill itself already. While it's a major amendment, yes, the amendment is clearly in 100% consensus across the whole chamber. There's no real need for us to vote on it, especially due to the lost time and consensus.

The bill is now as follows:

In Article VIII - Elections, the following shall be added:

Section III - The Senate and the House of Commons shall have the authority to call a Congressional snap election, with two thirds of the chamber's support. Snap elections called by the House of Commons do not require the approval of the Senate, and vice versa. A chamber can refuse to have the snap election called upon it, if two thirds of the chamber support a motion to refuse the election. For example, if the House of Commons called a snap election on the Senate, the Senate could refuse to be dissolved by passing a motion, with two thirds' support in the Senate, to veto the snap election, and vice versa.

Voting - Snap Election Constitutional Amendment

Snap Election Constitutional Amendment

Authors: Brototh & Andusre

Sponsors: Brototh & Andusre

We will now begin voting on the Snap Election Constitutional Amendment, with Amendment B being added to the final bill without a vote.

My vote is Aye

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

World Trade

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Quick note]

In the future, I would like to have the Senate to vote on any amendments proposed instead of being added to the bill without a vote, as the case with this bill. I would like to have the Senate decide in the future, please.

[/spoiler]

Results - Snap Election Constitutional Amendment

Snap Election Constitutional Amendment

Authors: Brototh & Andusre

Sponsors: Brototh & Andusre

Ayes (6) - Andusre, Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Marvinville, World Trade

Nays (0)

Abstentions (0)

The Snap Election Constitutional Amendment has passed the Senate, reaching the 2/3rds majority needed. It will now move to the House of Commons for further action.

[spoiler=Speaker of the House]

Zanaana

[/spoiler]

Pap Sculgief, Andusre

Opening Debate - Amendments to L.R. 008

Amendments to L.R. 008

Authors: Andusre & Broustan

Sponsors: Andusre

As amended by: Andusre, Marvinville & Zanaana

We have now begun debating the bill to Amend L.R. 008, as amended by the House of Commons. Broustan may participate in this debate because he is a co-author.

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

World Trade

[/spoiler]

Pap Sculgief, Andusre

I don't support what the House amended the blackmail definition to. I have looked on the House RMB and I can't really see any reason for the amendment. I think it is again too restrictive. Blackmail can go beyond just reputational damage and the loss of a position. It can really be anything like threatening your relationship with one specific person, which wouldn't be considered blackmail under the House's amended defintion. I understand Korsinia had some concerns about the previous redefinition of blackmail which could mean the PM can't exert control over their own administration, so Marvinville I'd like to sponsor him to be able to talk here. I am also not sure how to solve that issue with the PM's control, and will try to think of a new wording soon. I encourage the other senators to do so too.

To spare you from clicking the link, the House's new blackmail definition is:

"Blackmail will be defined as coercion, whether successfully or not, against one or more individual(s) into doing something against their will by threatening them with an action which would harm their reputation and/or position until demands are met."

Korsinia, World Trade, Senate Chair Marvinville

Korsinia has permission to speak in this debate, as sponsored by Andusre.

Korsinia, Andusre

Thank you honourable Senators and Honourable Senator Andusre for sponsoring me.

Under the previous version of the bill, an example was included that was meant to protect Ministers and potentially others from being threatened with a dismissal if they refused to go against their will to carry out a task or action.

While I believe it is necessary to protect people from this sort of position abuse, the example did not go far enough to be any effective.

I could simply never mention firing anyone and still be able to actually fire the ministers if they refused to violate their own will to carry out a task/action and threaten them in other ways.

In light of the concerns I brought up, MPs took their liberty to not only remove that one example I had an issue with but also change the entire definition.

I never wanted the definition changed, I wanted that specific example removed and have it in another bill which could make it as effective as it possibly could be.

World Trade, Islonia, Andusre, Marvinville

I'm going to look very stupid if this topic is not being debated, because I'm only like 60% sure it is, but whatever

Andusre and Korsinia, there is a specific reason why the House of Commons amended the definition of blackmail at all, and it is to do with the PM-Cabinet concern. The reason is simple, when I spoke with Zanaana, he suggested that in his amendment he only strike the example of 'firing a minister'. However, we both quickly realised that this created a problem, because the examples are only to give clarity on the amendment. The examples could be replaced with absolutely anything, or not exist in the first place. The examples are not the content of the bill/crime. By removing only the examples, the content of the definition of blackmail remains the same, and it would still be a crime for the PM to exert control over their own cabinet.

As such, the definition of blackmail had to be changed. I hate to attack my own party members, but Zanaana did invite Andusre multiple times (As far as I am aware) to update the definition of blackmail with him. Frankly all of these problems could be solved if Andusre, Broustana nd Zanaana sat down together to work out a solution that doesn't make it illegal for the PM to threaten to fire a minister unless they do their job.

Zanaana

I sponsor MP Rhyssua to participate in this Senate debate on the Amendments to L.R. 008.

Zanaana

Marvinville wrote:I sponsor MP Rhyssua to participate in this Senate debate on the Amendments to L.R. 008.

Thank you Chairman.

As Andy said on discord, blackmail is a wide-ranging crime that can be tough to define well. That being said, I think the HoC's revised definition accomplishes what we want it to: defining and covering various methods of coercion. Threatening someone's reputation or position covers most of them. The others, such as Andusre's example, can be covered by various laws depending on what the perpetrator is specifically threatening to do (although I'd argue that harming personal relationships can still injure reputations).

The House's definition hasn't functionally limited blackmail's scope, and is still a significant upgrade from the previous version. It provides a solid definition while maintaining the flexibility that these kinds of laws need to cope with unexpected situations.

Marvinville, Zanaana

^ While the House's definition is definitely not perfect, which is something I myself will admit to considering I helped Zanaana write it, it's certainly a massive upgrade from the previous definition.

Rhyssua, World Trade, Marvinville, Zanaana

[spoiler=Amendment A]"Blackmail will be defined as coercion, whether successfully or not, against one or more individual(s) into doing something against their will by threatening them with an action which would harm their reputation and/or position until demands are met. It will be left to the discretion of the Court, on a case-by-case basis, to determine what is and is not blackmail.[/spoiler]

I think this should leave everyone happy, as it trusts the Justices to make the right decision about if something is and isn't blackmail. If not, feel free to vote it down or something

World Trade, Islonia, Brototh

Looks good

Andusre

Brototh wrote:Looks good

^

It's the court's job to interpret the law depending on the situation, so letting the door open to context is the best idea.

World Trade, Andusre, Brototh

Voting - Amendment A

Amendments to L.R. 008

Authors: Andusre & Broustan

Sponsor: Andusre

As amended by: Andusre, Marvinville & Zanaana

Amendment A

Author: Andusre

[spoiler=Amendment A]

To amend Article I, Section I

Blackmail will be defined as coercion, whether successfully or not, against one or more individual(s) into doing something against their will by threatening them with an action which would harm their reputation and/or position until demands are met. It will be left to the discretion of the Court, on a case-by-case basis, to determine what is and is not blackmail.

[/spoiler]

We have now begun voting on Amendment A to the bill to amend L.R. 008.

My vote is Aye

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

World Trade

[/spoiler]

Aye

World Trade, Brototh

aye

World Trade, Andusre

Aye

World Trade

Results - Amendment A

Amendments to L.R. 008

Authors: Andusre & Broustan

Sponsor: Andusre

As amended by: Andusre, Marvinville & Zanaana

Amendment A (PASSED)

Author: Andusre

[spoiler=Amendment A]

To amend Article I, Section I

Blackmail will be defined as coercion, whether successfully or not, against one or more individual(s) into doing something against their will by threatening them with an action which would harm their reputation and/or position until demands are met. It will be left to the discretion of the Court, on a case-by-case basis, to determine what is and is not blackmail.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Vote Results]

Ayes (6) - Andusre, Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Marvinville, World Trade

Nays (0)

Abstentions (0)

[/spoiler]

Amendment A to the bill that amends L.R. 008 has passed.

Voting - Amendments to L.R. 008

Amendments to L.R. 008

Authors: Andusre & Broustan

Sponsor: Andusre

As amended by: Andusre, Marvinville & Zanaana

We have now begun voting on the bill to amend L.R. 008, as amended by the Senate and House of Commons.

My vote is Aye

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

World Trade

[/spoiler]

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.