NationStates

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:16 pm**

President Pro Tempore: "The Ayes outweigh the Nays, therefore the bill passes and is sent to the House of Representatives. The floor is open to motions."

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:45 pm**

Earl M. Boone
House Majority Whip
Senator from Tennessee (Democratic)

“Motion to proceed with the docket,” Earl said. Noticing that the Majority Leader was indisposed, he smiled to himself as he took the liberty of penning a note to his fellow Democratic Senators.

The whip for the 23rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is Aye.

Tenuous as it was, D.C. would be an electoral gain for the Democrats.

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:10 pm**

The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile wrote:Earl M. Boone
House Majority Whip
Senator from Tennessee (Democratic)
“Motion to proceed with the docket,” Earl said. Noticing that the Majority Leader was indisposed, he smiled to himself as he took the liberty of penning a note to his fellow Democratic Senators.

The whip for the 23rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is Aye.
(Image)

Tenuous as it was, D.C. would be an electoral gain for the Democrats.

President Pro Tempore: "Do I hear a second or an objection?"

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:39 pm**

Louisianan wrote:
The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile wrote:Earl M. Boone
House Majority Whip
Senator from Tennessee (Democratic)
“Motion to proceed with the docket,” Earl said. Noticing that the Majority Leader was indisposed, he smiled to himself as he took the liberty of penning a note to his fellow Democratic Senators.

The whip for the 23rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is Aye.
(Image)

Tenuous as it was, D.C. would be an electoral gain for the Democrats.

President Pro Tempore: "Do I hear a second or an objection?"

Senator Elmer Russel Stevens, Texas
Senate Chambers, Washington DC
03 January 1959

"Seconded."

Posted: **Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:44 pm**

Taridaria wrote:
Louisianan wrote:President Pro Tempore: "Do I hear a second or an objection?"

Senator Elmer Russel Stevens, Texas
Senate Chambers, Washington DC
03 January 1959

"Seconded."

President Pro Tempore: "I hear a Second and no Objection, the motion passes. The clerk will read out the Constitutional Amendment,

"I invite the Senator from Massachusetts, to lay out the bill. The Senate shall have order whilst Senator Oswald is speaking."

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:11 am**

Senator William Lawrence Oswald Jr.

Senate Chamber, Washington D.C.
January 3rd, 1959

At the signal of the Democratic whip, Willie couldn’t help but smirk. Arising from his seat at the insistence of the President Pro Tempore he straightened his tie and regarded his fellow Senators with his trademark smile. Laying out the bill could always be fun, from a certain perspective. Especially if you have the flare for the dramatic.

You just had to tie into something bipartisan. Everyone loved bipartisanship.

“Mr. President, I rise today to lay out the XXIII Amendment to the United States Constitution. A drastic thing, some might say, but often necessary like so many amendments that have come before. For what does this amendment entail? It entails fundamental American freedoms. The right to vote. The right of representation. All things this country fought and died for.

What I have presented grants the District of Columbia, all 700,000 of it’s freedom loving citizens, just that. Freedom. The freedom to choose. Whilst the amendment does not constitute the formation of a state, as our founding fathers did not wish at the time of the capitals creation, it does lay out fundamental things they would agree with. Members of Congress of a proportion appropriate to the Districts population and the chance to express a vision of this nation's future through presidential votes.

And how could we, as not just a Senate, but as a people, deny it? Take for example the state of Vermont. A state represented on all levels of government, with half the population of our nation's capital. Should we send the message both home and abroad that we take democratic rights arbitrarily?

This is not even a partisan push! The District is known to have it’s party registration split down the middle. Republican or Democratic, it doesn’t matter. We are Americans.

Which again brings this back to what we stand for as a people. I like to think that we stand for decency, and democracy. Something that during this ever so cold war is surely so important to us all. Especially considering our foes.

Fundamentally this amendment asserts American commitment to the things we talk about daily in this chamber.

Something we might not always live up to, but something we have a chance to change.

I encourage all of my colleagues and friends to think about that, if nothing else.”

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:23 am**

Flowerdell wrote:
(Image)

Senator William Lawrence Oswald Jr.

Senate Chamber, Washington D.C.
January 3rd, 1959

At the signal of the Democratic whip, Willie couldn’t help but smirk. Arising from his seat at the insistence of the President Pro Tempore he straightened his tie and regarded his fellow Senators with his trademark smile. Laying out the bill could always be fun, from a certain perspective. Especially if you have the flare for the dramatic.

You just had to tie into something bipartisan. Everyone loved bipartisanship.

“Mr. President, I rise today to lay out the XXIII Amendment to the United States Constitution. A drastic thing, some might say, but often necessary like so many amendments that have come before. For what does this amendment entail? It entails fundamental American freedoms. The right to vote. The right of representation. All things this country fought and died for.

What I have presented grants the District of Columbia, all 700,000 of it’s freedom loving citizens, just that. Freedom. The freedom to choose. Whilst the amendment does not constitute the formation of a state, as our founding fathers did not wish at the time of the capitals creation, it does lay out fundamental things they would agree with. Members of Congress of a proportion appropriate to the Districts population and the chance to express a vision of this nation's future through presidential votes.

And how could we, as not just a Senate, but as a people, deny it? Take for example the state of Vermont. A state represented on all levels of government, with half the population of our nation's capital. Should we send the message both home and abroad that we take democratic rights arbitrarily?

This is not even a partisan push! The District is known to have it’s party registration split down the middle. Republican or Democratic, it doesn’t matter. We are Americans.

Which again brings this back to what we stand for as a people. I like to think that we stand for decency, and democracy. Something that during this ever so cold war is surely so important to us all. Especially considering our foes.

Fundamentally this amendment asserts American commitment to the things we talk about daily in this chamber.

Something we might not always live up to, but something we have a chance to change.

I encourage all of my colleagues and friends to think about that, if nothing else.”

President Pro Tempore: "Debate on this bill has begun, remember any questions directed to the Senator must be in question form, and any answers the Senator gives must be in statement form. If a Senator wishes to end debate and bring the bill to a vote, simply motion to end debate and proceed to a vote on said legislation."

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:37 am**

Joshua Sharp
Senator from Mississippi (Democratic)

Joshua Sharp stood up from his seat, his thin yet tall pencil neck like frame rose from the chair. He calmly looks to the President pro-tempore for recognition, seeing a curt nod from the President-pro Tempore, he clears his throat and begins.

"Mr. President. I rise before you to lay out concerns I have with the gentlemen from Massachusetts's proposed legislation. What my friend has come forward with is nothing short than the disenfranchisement of the white race for the people of the District of Colombia in general, and, more abstractly, the south.
I am not opposed to the concept of voting, so long as it's the right kind of voting. However, I am worried as to what our founding fathers would think, the capital of the united states getting mired in political issues and caught up with representation.

The Capital is managed well by a governor already! Why do you seek to increase the unemployment of the incumbent with such a radical piece of legislation? Why is there a need to fix an already running machine?

The capital of the United States has representatives, it is taxed like any other part of the country, be it some shithole in the new fucking frozen north or the hot swamps of Alabama. They already have a general head of government, the President of the Board of Commissioners.

If this system has worked without incident since the 1860s, why do we need a new government? Will it not cost the taxpayer money and funds for some swamp creatures to finally have their nature reservation?

I may also proudly point out that Representative Ross A. Collins from my very home state of Mississippi argued to cut the general well-fare and judici-I mean education, arguing that his constituents wouldn't, and I quote: 'stand for spending money on coloreds.' "

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:43 pm**

Senator William Lawrence Oswald Jr.

Senate Chamber, Washington D.C.
January 3rd, 1959

He recognised Senator Sharp almost immediately. It was hard not to. The man had certainly created a...reputation about himself over the years. Not one he necessarily agreed with, but one he would have to engage with nonetheless. Taking the others' questions he began.

“I thank my distinguished friend from Mississippi for his question. We may not agree often, and we may be as different as cats and dogs, but that does not mean that I can’t respect such a huge figure of prominence in my party.

Mr President, this amendment does not affect the South. It makes no mention of civil rights law. It makes no mention of race. Whilst it may be true that black citizens make up a substantial amount of the population, that is mere coincidence. This is about the representation of hard working Americans. I can assure the gentleman that this piece of legislation concerns the district and the district only.

And, I would point out to the gentleman, that you cannot disenfranchise those that do not have enfranchisement in the first place. This bill empowers white voters as much as anyone else, and gives them a voice in our chambers.

I take the point on the founders, Mr President. When they envisioned the capital, they merely saw it as a seat of government. Yet in their lifetimes they never saw the extent of what the District would become. It’s population has only risen, and I believe that the founders would happily amend the law surrounding the district if they saw the state of disenfranchisement today.

The founders loved procedure, that I cannot dispute, but they loved liberty more. This amendment ensures liberty. When the last major founder, James Madison, died in 1836, the population of the capital was somewhere in the 30,000’s, Mr President. That is an increase of twenty-five times the populations since his death.

As for the current state of the Districts government, this does not change. The District will not become a state. It will not enjoy the rights of a state. It will still be administered by this Congress. The President of the Board of Commissioners will keep his job. As will other servants of the public. Nothing concerning the internal workings of D.C. is at risk. We merely propose that they be given representation on the national level. That is all.

I would also remind the gentleman, Mr President, that there is no Representative, voting or not, from the capital currently in these chambers. Such a position was abolished in 1875. And I think we can all agree that local representation is not on, or near, the same level as national representation.

I think the gentleman should think long and hard on his opposition to this measure, Mr President, for I truly respect him. I am not sure that if he were taxed, he would be content to sit out the debate on those very same taxes. Neither would Mississippi.”

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:47 pm**

Newne Carriebean7 wrote:Joshua Sharp
Senator from Mississippi (Democratic)

Joshua Sharp stood up from his seat, his thin yet tall pencil neck like frame rose from the chair. He calmly looks to the President pro-tempore for recognition, seeing a curt nod from the President-pro Tempore, he clears his throat and begins.

"Mr. President. I rise before you to lay out concerns I have with the gentlemen from Massachusetts's proposed legislation. What my friend has come forward with is nothing short than the disenfranchisement of the white race for the people of the District of Colombia in general, and, more abstractly, the south.
I am not opposed to the concept of voting, so long as it's the right kind of voting. However, I am worried as to what our founding fathers would think, the capital of the united states getting mired in political issues and caught up with representation.

The Capital is managed well by a governor already! Why do you seek to increase the unemployment of the incumbent with such a radical piece of legislation? Why is there a need to fix an already running machine?

The capital of the United States has representatives, it is taxed like any other part of the country, be it some shithole in the new fucking frozen north or the hot swamps of Alabama. They already have a general head of government, the President of the Board of Commissioners.

If this system has worked without incident since the 1860s, why do we need a new government? Will it not cost the taxpayer money and funds for some swamp creatures to finally have their nature reservation?

I may also proudly point out that Representative Ross A. Collins from my very home state of Mississippi argued to cut the general well-fare and judici-I mean education, arguing that his constituents wouldn't, and I quote: 'stand for spending money on coloreds.' "

President Pro Tempore: "ORDER! Senator Sharp, I thought you had a bit more restraint, old boy. Watch your language. The Clerk may strike his choice words from the public record. Also, this 'question' did not end in questionary form and instead ended in a statement, on that point of order, Senator Oswald you were not obliged to respond, but are good for doing so. Proceed."

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2021 3:01 pm**

Louisianan wrote:
Newne Carriebean7 wrote:Joshua Sharp
Senator from Mississippi (Democratic)

Joshua Sharp stood up from his seat, his thin yet tall pencil neck like frame rose from the chair. He calmly looks to the President pro-tempore for recognition, seeing a curt nod from the President-pro Tempore, he clears his throat and begins.

"Mr. President. I rise before you to lay out concerns I have with the gentlemen from Massachusetts's proposed legislation. What my friend has come forward with is nothing short than the disenfranchisement of the white race for the people of the District of Colombia in general, and, more abstractly, the south.
I am not opposed to the concept of voting, so long as it's the right kind of voting. However, I am worried as to what our founding fathers would think, the capital of the united states getting mired in political issues and caught up with representation.

The Capital is managed well by a governor already! Why do you seek to increase the unemployment of the incumbent with such a radical piece of legislation? Why is there a need to fix an already running machine?

The capital of the United States has representatives, it is taxed like any other part of the country, be it some shithole in the new fucking frozen north or the hot swamps of Alabama. They already have a general head of government, the President of the Board of Commissioners.

If this system has worked without incident since the 1860s, why do we need a new government? Will it not cost the taxpayer money and funds for some swamp creatures to finally have their nature reservation?

I may also proudly point out that Representative Ross A. Collins from my very home state of Mississippi argued to cut the general well-fare and judici-I mean education, arguing that his constituents wouldn't, and I quote: 'stand for spending money on coloreds.' "

President Pro Tempore: "ORDER! Senator Sharp, I thought you had a bit more restraint, old boy. Watch your language. The Clerk may strike his choice words from the public record. Also, this 'question' did not end in questionary form and instead ended in a statement, on that point of order, Senator Oswald you were not obliged to respond, but are good for doing so. Proceed."

"I will of course seek to satisfy any concerns of such a distinguished member, regardless of what format, choice words aside, thank you Mr. President. If there be no actual questions or statements from Senators I move to end the debate."

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2021 3:16 pm**

Earl M. Boone
House Majority Whip
Senator from Tennessee (Democratic)

"Seconded."

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2021 3:18 pm**

The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile wrote:Earl M. Boone
House Majority Whip
Senator from Tennessee (Democratic)
"Seconded."

President Pro Tempore: "Do I hear an objection?"

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:55 pm**

President Pro Tempore: "I hear a Second and No Objection, the motion passes. The Debate regarding the Constitutional Amendment put forth by the Senator from Massachusetts is now concluded. The Senate Floor is open for motions. If a Senator wishes to bring the constitutional amendment to a vote, then they may make a motion to do so."

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:50 pm**

Earl M. Boone
House Majority Whip
Senator from Tennessee (Democratic)

"I motion to vote on the constitutional amendment, Mr. President."

Posted: **Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:55 pm**

The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile wrote:Earl M. Boone
House Majority Whip
Senator from Tennessee (Democratic)
"I motion to vote on the constitutional amendment, Mr. President."

President Pro Tempore: "Do I hear a second or an Objection?"

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:53 am**

Louisianan wrote:
The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile wrote:Earl M. Boone
House Majority Whip
Senator from Tennessee (Democratic)
"I motion to vote on the constitutional amendment, Mr. President."

President Pro Tempore: "Do I hear a second or an Objection?"

"Second"

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:58 am**

Flowerdell wrote:
Louisianan wrote:President Pro Tempore: "Do I hear a second or an Objection?"

"Second"

President Pro Tempore: "Hearing no Objection the motion passes, the Senate will now vote on the Constitutional Amendment. An Aye for the bill means it will be sent to the House, a Nay means it will be sent back onto the docket. Remember, to pass an Amendment, a 2/3 majority must be met, not a simple majority."

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:17 pm**

Joshua Sharp
Senator from Mississippi (Democratic)

"Nay."

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:13 pm**

Senator William Lawrence Oswald Jr.

Senate Chamber, Washington D.C.
January 3rd, 1959

"Aye."

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:14 pm**

Senator Elmer Russel Stevens, Texas
Senate Chambers, Washington DC
03 January 1959

"Aye."

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:44 pm**

Earl M. Boone
House Majority Whip
Senator from Tennessee (Democratic)

"Aye," Earl said sharply, scowling as Sharp voted down the bill. Thankfully Republican support should easily carry the bill— but should it not, punishments would be in order for the Dixiecrats.

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:59 pm**

Sen. Fred Stark (R-NJ): "Aye."

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:15 pm**

The President Pro Tempore waited until all of the Senators cast their votes before reaching his decision,

President Pro Tempore: "The 2/3 Majority has been reached with the Aye's achieving a supermajority. The Amendment will be sent to the House, before being sent to the states for Ratification. The floor is open for motions."

Posted: **Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:47 pm**

SENATE FLOOR

Senator Joseph Gorski Warszawski put the following bill into the docket:

Official Name: The U.S. Government Internees Reconciliation and Redress Act

Overview: This bill seeks to grant reparations and redress for the victims of internment by the U.S. Government during World War II. This bill also serves to fully recognize our Government not only failed but proactively violated the protected rights of American Citizens under the U.S. Constitution.

Sponsor: Joseph Gorski Warszawski (R-PA)
Co-Sponsors: William Lawrence Oswald Jr. (D-MA)

Section 1:
A. This bill seeks to grant reparations to Japanese Americans who had been interned by the United States government during World War II. In full recognition of the violations of the rights of American citizens by the U.S. Government.
B. This bill will grant reparations of $15,000 to individual survivors of the internment by the U.S. Government in the years during and following World War II. Furthermore, this bill will grant full refunds of burial services costs to be provided to the families of those who lost family members who died while in or after being interned in any of these camps.
C. This bill seeks to create a Committee on the Reconciliation and Mediation of U.S. Internees. This Committee will serve to analyze all cases seeking redress for loss of property by individuals and their families during the process of Internment by the U.S. Government. This Committee will assist in verifying and filing these claims.

This bill is then honorably presented to the Senate for consideration in order to at least in part begin the process of amelioration and reconciliation by our government to redress its wrongs against American citizens to improve the United States Law and is backed by Joseph Gorski Warszawski on January 7th, 1959.

NationStates

Home of the Brave: A 1960s Political RP (86th Congress)