View Topic

Honestly all I am really doing is giving the speaker the ability to expedite something, mainly motion to expedite.

Well, now that the notorious section has been removed, I'm less iffy about it.

Well the act seems to have changed since the last time I read it...

I think I can actually support the ability for the speaker to motion to expedite, I mean they will need a second for it to pass. It doesn't actually seem to be open for that much abuse. But what are the points against the speaker having this ability?

Wait, the procedural rules still say that no motion to expedite may be made in the case of a citizenship revocation, so I'm not opposed to giving at least this power back to the Speaker. It would certainly help with productivity.

Besides, it would still require a second for the motion to pass.

That's fine then.  I think the only reason it was changed in the first place was so that the Speaker couldn't motion to expedite during a revocation, let alone ANYONE, since it was decided during the last one that defendants should be allowed the full period no matter what.

Hold that thought, I've skimmed the procedural rules, and can't actually find the provision that prohibits anyone from expediting in the case of a citizenship revocation.

Could someone else verify? I've lost my glasses, you see, so reading a great volume of text is a bit difficult at this time.

All this act does is remove the small section prohibiting the speaker from actually, you know, expediting.

Yes, but I definitely don't want that if we don't have a provision in place to prevent ANYONE from expediting in the case of a revocation.

Yes, but I definitely don't want that if we don't have a provision in place to prevent ANYONE from expediting in the case of a revocation.

Agreed.  I thought that passage was already in there.  I'm surprised if it's actually not.

Yep, Laurentus is right.  That passage isn't actually in there.  So technically Skrifa can still motion to expedite in a Revocation.

What does the laws section currently say? Perhaps this is just an oversight in the procedural rules in the UH...

Let me read the laws section, but the rules for the UH is clearly just:

(a) (a) Any Skrifa other than the Speaker may motion to expedite at any time after a proposal has been introduced.  If the motion receives a second, the bill will proceed to a vote no later than 24 hours after the second.

Disregard my second part of this post.  I just can't read today apparently.

Alright, I gave the laws a quick glance, and so far I'm not seeing anything about it.  Though the last updated thing for UH procedure was the Default Seating act.  The Citizenship Revocation Clarification Act doesn't touch upon the idea of expediting during a revocation at all.

Alright, let's use this opportunity to add that provision, and then the rest of this bill can be left as is.

It has now also become apparent that we need to clean up the Procedural Rules. I'll get on that. Sigh.

There's always cleanup to do Laurentus.

Also, as i said, disregard what I said about the other section.  It's actually clear enough...I just didn't read it close enough.