NationStates

Lykens wrote:"Mister President, I move to proceed to the third reading of the Amendment to the Standing Rules."

"So moved, we shall proceed to the third reading of the Amendment to the Standing Rules.

During this time, the committees for judicial nominations shall also deliberate."

"Honorable members of this house. This recent crisis within and outside of the parliament just shows what happens if you let the legislative be stronger than the executive branch. This democracy will choke on the plotting and infighting within these chambers, whether you like it or not is a different question."

"Mister President, I move to strike Section Vb and delete 'upon the recommendation of the Minority Leader in regards to the minority member.' From Section VIa."

Lykens wrote:"Mister President, I move to strike Section Vb and delete 'upon the recommendation of the Minority Leader in regards to the minority member.' From Section VIa."

Seconded.

Tumbra wrote:

Lykens wrote:"Mister President, I move to strike Section Vb and delete 'upon the recommendation of the Minority Leader in regards to the minority member.' From Section VIa."

Seconded.

"So ordered."

“Mister President, I can’t feign respect for this amendment. It is born of malice and eliminates the voice of the minority, all in the name of ending obstruction that never occurred. It’s purpose is clear: to leave this chamber more partisanly divided than before and eliminate the ability of the minority to check the excesses of the majority. It is the very antithesis of the spirit of democracy, which calls for us to assemble and discuss and debate before making decisions. Legislation must be done through careful consideration, not haste, and every pertinent fact and view must be heard to ensure that our legislation is effective at addressing the issues it is targeted at.

“Mister President, I speak plainly. I urge every member of this august body, if there is any respect for the democratic process within you, please, I beg of you, vote Nay on the Power Grab Amendment to the Standing Rules.”

"Mister President, the Senator is a liar.

Plain and simple, Mister President. He is lying now, on the floor of this august body, and I expect him to continue exhibiting such distasteful behavior.

He is lying about the purpose of this amendment, he is lying about the reasons behind it, and he continues to spew demonstrably false information for nothing other than political gain. It is distasteful, it is disturbing, it is unbecoming of a Senator in his position.

This amendment, Mister President, seeks to end the obviously unworkable positions of Majority and Minority Leader. It has been demonstrated that a relationship between the two positions that is anything but cordial and determined to govern will not work. It seeks to abolish these positions and return the President of the Senate's constitutional authority to determine the agenda of this august body. These are facts, Mister President.

The Constitution lays out a system or government that is accountable to separate branches. The judiciary may rein in a runaway executive, or legislature. The executive appoints these judges, and the legislature confirms them. The legislature makes laws, and the executive enforces them, or vetoes them. Many have wrongfully claimed, for political or other nefarious and covert motives, that this has proven that this constitution can not work.

No, Mister President, it shows that when this body is divided in such a manner between a majority and minority, it will lead to division, hyperpartisanship, and obstruction. We have seen this once venerable body slowly descend into partisan bickering over the smallest of matters. It is time to shelf the positions of Majority and Minority Leader for the good of the senate and Fernão as a whole.

This amendment will get the Senate working again, giving the presiding officer the power to control this body's agenda and get the Senate working again. We owe it to ourselves as legislators, as leaders of the great Fernãoan people, and to the constitution which many lives were lost to make possible. I will not allow those lives lost to be in vain and allow Fernão to fall into lawless anarchy or yet another civil war.

This amendment will pave the way for constructive and inclusive debate, removing the power of individual members to singlehandedly obstruct or exhibit undue influence upon what business comes before this body.

This amendment, Mister President, will allow us to go forward with nominees for various offices which remain unstaffed at the top level and essentially defunct. We will no longer have to wait for leaders who are too busy to carry out their duties, we will have a single officer who will appoint individuals best suited for the scrutiny at hand. This amendment will ensure that partisan considerations are no longer a factor in how this chamber is run, how committees are chosen, or by which bills come to this floor.

I will no longer sit by idly and allow this purposeful misinformation to go on Mister President. I have had enough, and so has Fernão."

Mister President, the Senator is a liar.

Plain and simple, Mister President. He is lying now, on the floor of this august body, and I expect him to continue exhibiting such distasteful behavior.

He is lying about the purpose of this amendment, he is lying about the reasons behind it, and he continues to spew demonstrably false information for nothing other than political gain. It is distasteful, it is disturbing, it is unbecoming of a Senator in his position.

"Mr. President, under rule XVIII clause G of the standing rules, I request that the majority leader retract their statement for accusing another senator of lying."

"Mister President, if this amendment is truly about fostering debate, then perhaps the Majority Leader would be so kind as to explain why it provides for a means to proceed directly to the third reading with only five seconds and while providing none for allowing those who object to such direct action to halt it and give the body time to offer amendments to better improve the legislation?"

"Mister President, you can expel me and the Majority Leader together because I would guess that neither of us plan to withdraw"

House of Judah wrote:"Mister President, if this amendment is truly about fostering debate, then perhaps the Majority Leader would be so kind as to explain why it provides for a means to proceed directly to the third reading with only five seconds and while providing none for allowing those who object to such direct action to halt it and give the body time to offer amendments to better improve the legislation?"

"Mister President, nothing in the rules prohibits extraordinary amendments during the third reading, and if such urgent legislation be needed and amendments wish to be offered, nothing stops the presiding officer to rule them in order."

"Mister President, I have only been in this chamber for a short while, shorter than the majority of my peers at this moment, but I have already seen the faulty system that we call a Senate. I regret to say this but the pillars of our democratic institutions are beginning to fall apart while we stay here and we keep pointing fingers. While this amendment does not fix all of the problems in our faulty institution, it is a step in the right direction. That is why I plan to support it, and I urge my fellow Senator to put partisan politics behind and do the same."

Lykens wrote:

House of Judah wrote:"Mister President, if this amendment is truly about fostering debate, then perhaps the Majority Leader would be so kind as to explain why it provides for a means to proceed directly to the third reading with only five seconds and while providing none for allowing those who object to such direct action to halt it and give the body time to offer amendments to better improve the legislation?"

"Mister President, nothing in the rules prohibits extraordinary amendments during the third reading, and if such urgent legislation be needed and amendments wish to be offered, nothing stops the presiding officer to rule them in order."

"And yet the presiding officer can rule them out of order, even when they are germane and considered extremely necessary by a significant section of this body, and would garner the support of a majority of this body. Further, we have seen time and again when a motion is brought to halt a proceeding because its commencement did violate the Standing Rules and such points of order have been ruled out of order. Even appeals of the ruling of the presiding officer have been ruled out of order. Simply put, this amendment has the potential to leave this chamber hostage to a renegade and partisan presiding officer, a position of such unbridled power I have no doubt the Majority Leader will seek to place in the hands of one of her most trusted henchmen if not pursuing it herself.

"The Majority Leader is unsatisfied with the process and procedures our rules lay out. I am too at times. But if the Majority Leader wished to make the atmosphere of debate more collegiate, to make allowances for haste when needed while ensuring that hastiness is not substituted for careful consideration, she could have approached the members of the minority and asked for help in drafting a replacement that satisfies all of us instead of drafting such a unilateral power grab amendment."

House of Judah wrote:

Lykens wrote:"Mister President, nothing in the rules prohibits extraordinary amendments during the third reading, and if such urgent legislation be needed and amendments wish to be offered, nothing stops the presiding officer to rule them in order."

"And yet the presiding officer can rule them out of order, even when they are germane and considered extremely necessary by a significant section of this body, and would garner the support of a majority of this body. Further, we have seen time and again when a motion is brought to halt a proceeding because its commencement did violate the Standing Rules and such points of order have been ruled out of order. Even appeals of the ruling of the presiding officer have been ruled out of order. Simply put, this amendment has the potential to leave this chamber hostage to a renegade and partisan presiding officer, a position of such unbridled power I have no doubt the Majority Leader will seek to place in the hands of one of her most trusted henchmen if not pursuing it herself.

"The Majority Leader is unsatisfied with the process and procedures our rules lay out. I am too at times. But if the Majority Leader wished to make the atmosphere of debate more collegiate, to make allowances for haste when needed while ensuring that hastiness is not substituted for careful consideration, she could have approached the members of the minority and asked for help in drafting a replacement that satisfies all of us instead of drafting such a unilateral power grab amendment."

"Hear hear!"

Chakradhar Chatterjee wishes he hadn't woken up.

House of Judah wrote:

Lykens wrote:"Mister President, nothing in the rules prohibits extraordinary amendments during the third reading, and if such urgent legislation be needed and amendments wish to be offered, nothing stops the presiding officer to rule them in order."

"And yet the presiding officer can rule them out of order, even when they are germane and considered extremely necessary by a significant section of this body, and would garner the support of a majority of this body. Further, we have seen time and again when a motion is brought to halt a proceeding because its commencement did violate the Standing Rules and such points of order have been ruled out of order. Even appeals of the ruling of the presiding officer have been ruled out of order. Simply put, this amendment has the potential to leave this chamber hostage to a renegade and partisan presiding officer, a position of such unbridled power I have no doubt the Majority Leader will seek to place in the hands of one of her most trusted henchmen if not pursuing it herself.

"The Majority Leader is unsatisfied with the process and procedures our rules lay out. I am too at times. But if the Majority Leader wished to make the atmosphere of debate more collegiate, to make allowances for haste when needed while ensuring that hastiness is not substituted for careful consideration, she could have approached the members of the minority and asked for help in drafting a replacement that satisfies all of us instead of drafting such a unilateral power grab amendment."

"Mister President, Senator, do you propose a better option? For all of your bickering about how the government is power grabbing and how the system is broken, do you propose an alternative?

"Mister President, I have a number of proposals on better paths, chief among them being that proceeding to expedited debate and bypassing the majority of the debate process should require input from the minority. If not in the form of consent from both leaders, then in the form of allowing five members to object to such direct procession. This amendment eliminates all provisions for ensuring the minority's voice is heard on any committees. If we cannot trust in the leaders to place members of the majority and the minority on select committees, then we should organize ourselves into caucuses for the majority and the minority and mandate that the presiding officer draw from the membership of each when impaneling a committee for some purpose."

House of Judah wrote:"Mister President, I have a number of proposals on better paths, chief among them being that proceeding to expedited debate and bypassing the majority of the debate process should require input from the minority. If not in the form of consent from both leaders, then in the form of allowing five members to object to such direct procession. This amendment eliminates all provisions for ensuring the minority's voice is heard on any committees. If we cannot trust in the leaders to place members of the majority and the minority on select committees, then we should organize ourselves into caucuses for the majority and the minority and mandate that the presiding officer draw from the membership of each when impaneling a committee for some purpose."

"Then, Mister President, the Senator should focus his time on his own proposals rather than attack another. I do not see you pushing any proposals nor do I see any of your compatriots doing the same. If you have a better idea, show it to us.

Anere wrote:

House of Judah wrote:"Mister President, I have a number of proposals on better paths, chief among them being that proceeding to expedited debate and bypassing the majority of the debate process should require input from the minority. If not in the form of consent from both leaders, then in the form of allowing five members to object to such direct procession. This amendment eliminates all provisions for ensuring the minority's voice is heard on any committees. If we cannot trust in the leaders to place members of the majority and the minority on select committees, then we should organize ourselves into caucuses for the majority and the minority and mandate that the presiding officer draw from the membership of each when impaneling a committee for some purpose."

"Then, Mister President, the Senator should focus his time on his own proposals rather than attack another. I do not see you pushing any proposals nor do I see any of your compatriots doing the same. If you have a better idea, show it to us.

"Mister President, I am working on constructing them into something coherent. For the time being, we have something before us that will only serve to shut out the minority when it is time for debate and leave us with a tyrannical system rather than a collegiate one, that will hijack this chamber, and I will fight against that in the mean time."

"Very well. The parliamentary secretary shall be suspended from the services of the House for 48 hours."

"Furthermore, the Minority Leader shall return to order. Only the presiding officer can request a member to withdraw unparliamentary remarks. The proper avenue would have been a point of order."

"On that note, the remarks of the Majority Leader are indeed unparliamentary and she must withdraw."

"I begrudgingly withdraw Mister President."

House of Judah wrote:"Mister President, I have a number of proposals on better paths, chief among them being that proceeding to expedited debate and bypassing the majority of the debate process should require input from the minority. If not in the form of consent from both leaders, then in the form of allowing five members to object to such direct procession. This amendment eliminates all provisions for ensuring the minority's voice is heard on any committees. If we cannot trust in the leaders to place members of the majority and the minority on select committees, then we should organize ourselves into caucuses for the majority and the minority and mandate that the presiding officer draw from the membership of each when impaneling a committee for some purpose."

"What right does the minority have in being granted that much power?"

Davincia wrote:

House of Judah wrote:"Mister President, I have a number of proposals on better paths, chief among them being that proceeding to expedited debate and bypassing the majority of the debate process should require input from the minority. If not in the form of consent from both leaders, then in the form of allowing five members to object to such direct procession. This amendment eliminates all provisions for ensuring the minority's voice is heard on any committees. If we cannot trust in the leaders to place members of the majority and the minority on select committees, then we should organize ourselves into caucuses for the majority and the minority and mandate that the presiding officer draw from the membership of each when impaneling a committee for some purpose."

"What right does the minority have in being granted that much power?"

Senator Ernst laughs at the ridiculousness. "'That much power?' Mr. President, the minority has the right to have a voice! My colleague is suggesting that the majority should do everything with no input from the minority, and that having a voice is too much power! These words are dangerous for our democracy! Democracy demands dissent! It thrives when everyone has a voice! It's not 'power,' it's the right to not be shut out from the proceedings of this body! Mr. President, it is shameful that the member has suggested that Senators opposing him don't deserve to have a voice! Clearly, anyone who has this attitude towards democracy does not deserve to hold power."

"Mister President, I have listened to this debate unfold over the course of the day and I must say that I am incredibly unimpressed that the Majority Leader continues to use unfounded claims of obstructionism to push forward legislation that will remove the ability of the minority to check the excesses of the majority. As my honourable colleague Senator Lyons pointed out just moments ago, such a move is against the very spirit of democracy and I urge my colleagues from across the political spectrum to come together and reject this awful amendment."

Roosevetania wrote:

Davincia wrote:"What right does the minority have in being granted that much power?"

Senator Ernst laughs at the ridiculousness. "'That much power?' Mr. President, the minority has the right to have a voice! My colleague is suggesting that the majority should do everything with no input from the minority, and that having a voice is too much power! These words are dangerous for our democracy! Democracy demands dissent! It thrives when everyone has a voice! It's not 'power,' it's the right to not be shut out from the proceedings of this body! Mr. President, it is shameful that the member has suggested that Senators opposing him don't deserve to have a voice! Clearly, anyone who has this attitude towards democracy does not deserve to hold power."

"Mr. President, I would like to take the time to indulge my colleague with the fact that there is a difference between the minority having a voice and the minority granting consent alongside the majority. The majority has already been democratically elected, the minority thus lacks the same powers granted to its opponent. This is not a complicated matter."