NSG Senate (OLD THREAD, DO NOT POST)

[Imperiatom]

Read the op. It is allowed to be tabled. Section 6 i believe.

Read the constitution.

RULING that to protect from a single party voting in the middle of the night to pass a bill that suits their best interests, 48 hours must elapse before a bill is passed/shot down.

You don't specify in the bill that it overrides/ is in place of the OP's rules. Therefor in law since his was first that takes precedent. This basic error means our first act of legislation is deeply flawed. It should be struck out and re-written.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

6. The vote will be closed automatically twenty-four forty-eight hours (as of passage of legislation #1) after the "debate-closing motion" had been "fifthed." This deadline can be extended or shortened by use of a motion such as "I move to extend voting for another six hours..."

It's not unconstitutional

RULING that to protect from a single party voting in the middle of the night to pass a bill that suits their best interests, 48 hours must elapse before a bill is passed/shot down.

It's unconstitutional; Den's rules are unconstitutional.

It could be perhaps your resolution is unconstitutional. The OP made it clear.

[Imperiatom]

RULING that to protect from a single party voting in the middle of the night to pass a bill that suits their best interests, 48 hours must elapse before a bill is passed/shot down.

It's unconstitutional; Den's rules are unconstitutional.

It could be perhaps your resolution is unconstitutional. The OP made it clear.

That's what i am saying above. Our very first act is a farce.

At least it only took us 10 days to realize lol

[Othelos]

RULING that to protect from a single party voting in the middle of the night to pass a bill that suits their best interests, 48 hours must elapse before a bill is passed/shot down.

It's unconstitutional; Den's rules are unconstitutional.

It could be perhaps your resolution is unconstitutional. The OP made it clear.

How is it unconstitutional if it's in the constitution?

Read the constitution.

RULING that to protect from a single party voting in the middle of the night to pass a bill that suits their best interests, 48 hours must elapse before a bill is passed/shot down.

You don't specify in the bill that it overrides/ is in place of the OP's rules. Therefor in law since his was first that takes precedent.

Where in law does it say the OP, who is a Senator, is above the law?

This basic error means our first act of legislation is deeply flawed. It should be struck out and re-written.

No, it shouldn't be, because everyone deserves the right to have their vote, which is the basic tenant of democracy.

The purpose of the bill is to prevent midnight voters from coming in and ending the vote, which you are doing right now.

[Othelos]

It could be perhaps your resolution is unconstitutional. The OP made it clear.

That's what i am saying above. Our very first act is a farce.

At least it only took us 10 days to realize lol

The OP is a Senator and is not above the law, the constitution is supreme, not the other way around.

[Imperiatom]

It could be perhaps your resolution is unconstitutional. The OP made it clear.

How is it unconstitutional if it's in the constitution?

You don't specify in the bill that it overrides/ is in place of the OP's rules. Therefor in law since his was first that takes precedent.

Where in law does it say the OP, who is a Senator, is above the law?

This basic error means our first act of legislation is deeply flawed. It should be struck out and re-written.

No, it shouldn't be, because everyone deserves the right to have their vote, which is the basic tenant of democracy.

The purpose of the bill is to prevent midnight voters from coming in and ending the vote, which you are doing right now.

It does not say your bill is the new constitution. In fact there is no mention of the OP rules at all. His were first his take precedent in law. I suggest you table a re-draft of the bill to eradicate this flaw.

[Hippostania]

With a heavy heart, I must vote FOR the National Tax Act. We compromised with the left too much, but I must respect CMP's official party line.

[Othelos]

How is it unconstitutional if it's in the constitution?


Where in law does it say the OP, who is a Senator, is above the law?


No, it shouldn't be, because everyone deserves the right to have their vote, which is the basic tenant of democracy.

The purpose of the bill is to prevent midnight voters from coming in and ending the vote, which you are doing right now.

It does not say your bill is the new constitution. In fact there is no mention of the OP rules at all. His were first his take precedent in law. I suggest you table a re-draft of the bill to eradicate this flaw.

Do you understand the purpose of the clause in the first place?

Also, again, the OP is a Senator and therefore must follow the constitution. Not the other way around.

[Othelos]

Current Vote:

For: 30

Against: 8

78.9% approval

[Imperiatom]

That's what i am saying above. Our very first act is a farce.

At least it only took us 10 days to realize lol

The OP is a Senator and is not above the law, the constitution is supreme, not the other way around.

You must submit the bill to be amended or this problem will not end. Don't take it personally but the truth is the bill is fatally flawed.

Your only answer to my point is but its the constitution and a wrote it. And that my friend is not acceptable in a court of law.

[Othelos]

The OP is a Senator and is not above the law, the constitution is supreme, not the other way around.

You must submit the bill to be amended or this problem will not end. Don't take it personally but the truth is the bill is fatally flawed.

Your only answer to my point is but its the constitution and a wrote it. And that my friend is not acceptable in a court of law.

Hippostania just voted.

Your ridiculous point and illogical argument are moot.

[Imperiatom]

It does not say your bill is the new constitution. In fact there is no mention of the OP rules at all. His were first his take precedent in law. I suggest you table a re-draft of the bill to eradicate this flaw.

Do you understand the purpose of the clause in the first place?

Also, again, the OP is a Senator and therefore must follow the constitution. Not the other way around.

Yes of course. i would table a slightly different clause, But as it stands it is not the primary constitution. As any point you cover that the OP also covers, his has seniority and is what should be followed. I keep telling you to amend the bill and submit it for emergency debate and vote.

[Imperiatom]

You must submit the bill to be amended or this problem will not end. Don't take it personally but the truth is the bill is fatally flawed.

Your only answer to my point is but its the constitution and a wrote it. And that my friend is not acceptable in a court of law.

Hippostania just voted.

Your ridiculous point and illogical argument are moot.

Lets continue by TG.

[Imperiatom]

You must submit the bill to be amended or this problem will not end. Don't take it personally but the truth is the bill is fatally flawed.

Your only answer to my point is but its the constitution and a wrote it. And that my friend is not acceptable in a court of law.

Hippostania just voted.

Your ridiculous point and illogical argument are moot.

Its the law of any self respecting legal system. His has precedent since you failed to say your constitution makes his null and void. Its about as far from illogical one can get. I have the Law profession on my side.

[Othelos]

Hippostania just voted.

Your ridiculous point and illogical argument are moot.

Its the law of any self respecting legal system. His has precedent since you failed to say your constitution makes his null and void. Its about as far from illogical one can get. I have the Law profession on my side.

It's not "my" constitution, it's the constitution.

Also, he's a Senator, and therefore has to follow the constitution. He's the first Senator under the list of Senators, so he's not above the law.

[Imperiatom]

Its the law of any self respecting legal system. His has precedent since you failed to say your constitution makes his null and void. Its about as far from illogical one can get. I have the Law profession on my side.

It's not "my" constitution, it's the constitution.

Also, he's a Senator, and therefore has to follow the constitution. He's the first Senator under the list of Senators, so he's not above the law.

I will TG you from now on about this.

[Imperiatom]

Due to the lack of votes being cast.

I move to reduce voting time on the national tax bill by 12 hours.

Any Seconds?

Currently thirded.

1 against.

[Great Nepal]

I move to block Senator Imperiatom's move to reduce voting time since it is unnecessarily and I suspect not made in good faith.

[Othelos]

Due to the lack of votes being cast.

I move to reduce voting time on the national tax bill by 12 hours.

Any Seconds?

Currently thirded.

1 against.

Read this.

[Imperiatom]

I move to block Senator Imperiatom's move to reduce voting time since it is unnecessarily and I suspect not made in good faith.

I want to shave it to a 36 hour vote since not much is happening right now. The bill has very high support so far, it will not make any difference to the outcome.

[Othelos]

I move to block Senator Imperiatom's move to reduce voting time since it is unnecessarily and I suspect not made in good faith.

Seconded.

[Othelos]

I move to block Senator Imperiatom's move to reduce voting time since it is unnecessarily and I suspect not made in good faith.

I want to shave it to a 36 hour vote since not much is happening right now.

Read this.

I'm going to spam-reply you until you read it.

[Imperiatom]

I want to shave it to a 36 hour vote since not much is happening right now.

Read this.

I'm going to spam-reply you until you read it.

I told you i am TG you. Reply there.

[Great Nepal]

I move to block Senator Imperiatom's move to reduce voting time since it is unnecessarily and I suspect not made in good faith.

I want to shave it to a 36 hour vote since not much is happening right now. The bill has very high support so far, it will not make any difference to the outcome.

So what, is it going to kill you to wait 12 more hours, just in case someone hasn't been online for last two days? We have standard voting time to ensure most people can vote and there is no reason to change that for this bill.
Only 28% of senate has voted so far.

[Othelos]

Read this.

I'm going to spam-reply you until you read it.

I told you i am TG you. Reply there.

Give up your petty attempts to circumvent fair democracy because of your impatience, and I'll stop.