Because of the MoHA vote, I'm proposing an amendment that would allow a bill to be withdrawn from voting so that further revisions can be made.

Legislative Procedure Act
An Act to define the procedural rules of the Assembly

...

1. Legislative Rules

...

(6) Any legislator may motion to cancel voting and withdraw a bill that has been brought to a vote so revisions can be made. The Chair may cancel voting on the bill, provided that there is a reason deemed sufficient by the Chair and has no objection within 24 hours of the motion being made and seconded. Should the motion and seconding be made within the final 24 hours of voting, the legislation shall not pass or fail until the Chair makes a ruling on the motion.

(7) Should any bill, resolution or amendment fail to become law, any proposal which is judged by the Chair as being substantially similar to that failed legislation shall be prevented from going to vote for two weeks after the closure of the vote. The Chair may waive this restriction should a legislator motion for them to do so, provided that there is a reason deemed sufficient by the Chair and has been no objection within 24 hours of the motion being made and seconded.

...

2. Powers and Responsibilities of the Chair

...

(7) The Chair may waive the mandatory debate period remaining on a particular piece of legislation should a legislator motion for them to do so, provided that there is a reason deemed sufficient by the Chair and has been no objection within 24 hours of the motion being made and seconded.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

(This post was last modified: 06-15-2020, 03:41 AM by Jay Coop.)

Reply

I would ask a word other than "suspend" be used only because that implies the vote will be resumed. Other than that, I am in favor.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

(This post was last modified: 06-06-2020, 01:55 PM by Omega.)

Reply

I have chosen the word "cancel" as an alternative.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

Reply

Any legislator whose bill has been brought to a vote

How do you ascertain property over a bill? Is it the initial drafter? The one who drafted the final copy? The one who motioned? Any of the them?

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

How do you ascertain property over a bill? Is it the initial drafter? The one who drafted the final copy? The one who motioned? Any of the them?

I've updated the bill so anyone can make the motion.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

(This post was last modified: 06-06-2020, 05:48 PM by Jay Coop.)

Reply

A sensible amendment, I support this

-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions
-Legislator 2/24/20-
-High Court Justice 6/7/20-
-South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20-
-Minister of Engagement 6/17/22-

-Past Roles/Positions
-Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18
-Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21
-Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17
-Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18
-Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17
-Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and  2/26/16-7/3/2016

Reply

Reasonable, we've had plenty of times where we're halfway through a vote and someone goes "Oh god we forgot this vital loophole" at which point they have to crudely go around convincing everyone to vote nay before the time ends.

Reply

I support the intent of the bill but I do wonder if 24 hours might be unnecessarily long. If the bill is considered so flawed that it is in need of further revision then surely it would be better to do it sooner rather than later?

Admiral General of the South Pacific

Reply

I support the intent of the bill but I do wonder if 24 hours might be unnecessarily long. If the bill is considered so flawed that it is in need of further revision then surely it would be better to do it sooner rather than later?

I've reduced the window for objection down to 12 hours if that suffices.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

Reply

I support the intent of the bill but I do wonder if 24 hours might be unnecessarily long. If the bill is considered so flawed that it is in need of further revision then surely it would be better to do it sooner rather than later?

I've reduced the window for objection down to 12 hours if that suffices.

That sounds more fitting

Admiral General of the South Pacific

Reply