Senate Bill: Official Sessions

[Thud]

This bill will authorise decisions reached in any meeting of the Senate posted on the forum at least 24 hours in advance and meeting quorum to have all of the constitutional authority of a normal threaded Senate Bill.

This bill expires in 72 hours.

[Arnelos]

Um.....

YES

[Aggie]

I believe this is already allowed under the newcon, but please vote yes just to eliminate doubt.
Aggie

[roadcage]

As a simple Senate Bill, this will almost certainly fail a constitutional challenge due to it's inherent disenfranchisement nature.

Now on the otherhand, if this were to be recast as an Amendment, it would probably fail but become the beginnings of a meaningful discussion.

Realistically, the only times this sort of thing happens is when the chat is stopped due to an emergency event such as war or GL usage etc. And even war events probably don't need a special session since the requisite bill is easily drafted as a simple Yea, Nay, Abstain. I think the proper course in light of recent experience is that whenever a chat is stopped for an event likely to create complex voting issues, the Administration immediately post a Special Session request including Proxy Voting features, but not specifying which normal bills will be proxied until they become apparent.

So based on the above I urge all my colleagues to vote Nay to this bill.

[Togas]

Excellent idea.

--Togas

[Thud]

Actually, the constitution gives us the power to organize our procedures. If our bill passing procedure takes place on a chatroom instead of this forum (even though it will fufill all bill regulations when posted on chat), then that is within our rights.

[roadcage]

The constitution is very clear about never denying citizens their franchise. Other than that we have the ability to organize ourselves as we see fit.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by roadcage
The constitution is very clear about never denying citizens their franchise. Other than that we have the ability to organize ourselves as we see fit.

It sounds like it would be useful for the Court to deliberate on their chosen interpretation of the current rules...

Justices? (hint!)

[naervod]

I think this is an excellent idea.

[E_T]

A Capitol Idea. There should only be times that this will be used, but this should be allowed.

E_T

[Aro]

Yes. This will make my job... sorry, I meant Arnelo's job, easier in the next term.

[civman2000]

I agree that this is legal in that the Senate can organize its procedures and disenfranchisement is not an issue, but it seems to violate this part of the constitution, unless the meeting would be 3 days long:

(d) The poll [for a Senate Bill] must be open for at least 72 hours.

Also, this seems to be violated:

To propose a law, a senator (or minister under the conditions above) [added by Amendment I, 12/23/02] must post a poll that is clear, unbiased, states the proposed law in its entirety, and gives three options: “yea”, “nay”, and “abstain”.

[Thud]

I can put you at ease for the latter: A Senator will post the non-biased, clear, and states the law, with three options, in the chatroom. Then everyone present will vote in that chatroom.

[kring]

Unless, the chat room activity went on for 72 hours, it would still fail the first part of the above mentioned quote.

Some people aren't able to make the chats, but are able to visit the boards. These people would be automatically left out.

[Thud]

Sirs, I am one of those people frequently unable to join the chatroom, however I am the sponsor of this bill. I beleive this bill is of national importance.

Furthermore, there are certain procedures allowing those unable to attend to PM their vote to a justice. I did not feel it necessary to include these in my bill as those procedures may change.