Bella

Hi - The rules for the House are located in the Speakers office.

Yes, you can use the motion move to a previous in such a way. We have not allowed friendly/hostile amendments to date. It is something that would need to be discussed and agreed to by both party leadership.

9 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

 I felt Bella did not fully address the 'pinned' question, and the comment on being 'unaware' was a little obfuscated, and wanted to provide more clarity as to the issue of how we were left unaware. 

I apologize that you don't feel that I answered it fully. But I am not sure how much clearer I could have made it.

But with your additions I think we have now fully answered it.

19 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

It was not simply a question of pinned, to be clear. There were two things saved in the Speaker office: "Resolution to Adopt Rules for the 106th Congress", and "HR. 1. Rules of the House of Representatives"... H.R. 1, the logical location of the rules effective in the House, were of the old variety that did not include a motion to dispatch. So any attempt to reference the rules was directed, whether intentionally or not, to an outdated set that left the minority party with a much weaker position. We Democrats were, in practice, denied the right to the motion to dispatch by such an error. So, having been effectively denied such opportunity for the majority of the prior congressional session, we were rightfully upset by being forced to provide such opportunity or be punished by a decision to deny it when the motion was effectively not offered us. 

Hence, the frustration that required AB intervention to come to a reasonable solution that leaves neither party wholly punished by the snafu. 

Respectfully Mr. Anderson, I think you missed the part where I explained the frustration as " It has also lead to frustration because October 25th was also the last time that the then HmL posted on the game boards. And much of the current Democratic party was not active or signed into the game at that time, so they were unaware of the rule. Being unaware of the rule to motion to dispatch meant that they were unable to actively use the rule to their advantage within in the game."

Personal attacks are not necessary and are not conductive to anything here.

21 hours ago, Terrus said:

I am rejoining the game after some time away, so excuse me here, but I am very confused by what is happening. What exactly is the in-game order of events here? Did the Democrats propose a set of rules that include a motion to dispatch, or not? If they did, am I correctly understanding that they cannot be hit for it? If they did not, then are we retconning the relevant portions of the House debate?

 

Will the scandal be the failure to enforce the dispatch rule last round?

Here is my understanding Terrus. I apologize for the delay.

TIMELINE: (What exactly is the in-game order of events here?)

September 9, 2017 - HR 1 - Rules of the House of Representatives were proposed.

October 18, 2017 - The logs show that the thread was moved to the Office of the Speaker, closed and pinned.

October 19, 2017 - Resolution to Adopt Rules for the 106th Congress was proposed. This resolution made 2 amendments to HR1. First, it changed Section II. Subpart (3) regarding the requirements to amend the rules from a simple majority to a 2/3rd majority. Second, it added Section II. Subpart (10) Motion to Dispatch.

October 19, 2017 - A Motion to Suspend and Pass House Rules was made.

October 20, 2017 - The motion to suspend was seconded and recognized. A 24-hour vote then was called.

October 21, 2017 - The rules were adopted by a vote of 100-0.

October 24, 2017 - The Resolution to Adopt Rules for the 106th Congress thread was locked.

October 25, 2017 - HmL requested a Motion to Dispatch. It was recognized and voted on here. 

October 25, 2017 - The Resolution to Adopt Rules for the 106th Congress was moved to the Office of the Speaker, however it was not pinned at this time and HR1 was not unpinned.

Did the Democrats propose a set of rules that include a motion to dispatch, or not? If they did, am I correctly understanding that they cannot be hit for it? If they did not, then are we retconning the relevant portions of the House debate?

The Democrat leadership asked the Administrative Board what the current rules were and the Admin Board provided those known as HR 1 - Rules of the House of Representatives. The Democrats agreed to use these to keep continuity. The GOP, who became the minority in the last election, requested that the Democrats consider using the more recent rules which included the Motion to Dispatch as it gives the minority party some level of control; which had been written by the then HmL.The new Democratic party leadership (along with most of the Administrative Board) were not aware of the new rules nor the opportunity Motion to Dispatch.

This has lead to some confusion and frustration as you can imagine. The confusion comes from when did the new rules get moved to the Office of the Speaker; why were they not pinned; was the lack of pinning an oversight or a deliberate political action. It has also lead to frustration because October 25th was also the last time that the then HmL posted on the game boards. And much of the current Democratic party was not active or signed into the game at that time, so they were unaware of the rule. Being unaware of the rule to motion to dispatch meant that they were unable to actively use the rule to their advantage within in the game.

After the discovery, the Deputy Chief Administrator offered the Democrats to either switch to the Wilder rules, which are the rules that were actually in effect and suffer no penalty for switching to the rules so as to keep the continuity or they could keep the original rules (HR1) as they had elected but would be open to official response. The Chief Administrator went on to clarify the initial complaint and confusion in a formal post.

Will the scandal be the failure to enforce the dispatch rule last round?

In accordance with the Chief Administrator's post, the GOP will receive a penalty with a small scandal regarding the rules in the House and the former Speaker of the House's character will receive a scandal for violating the spirit of the rules.

I hope that clarifies the situation for you. If not, please let me know!

- Bella

Following the election of Tyler Grayson in the United States, the market in Asia had one of their strongest openings in almost 10 years. Likewise, the markets of Europe also had a good morning,  albeit not as strong as Asia. However, the European market had been severely lagging for the last several months after the dismal reception to the euro as a currency, which was released nearly two years ago.  Economic experts are more wary of Grayson's campaign promises to revitalize industry and spur investment for rural and urban areas. But with the rising dissatisfaction of the working and middle classes in both Asia and Europe, there is hope that Grayson's promises for a better American future will bolster foreign investment in their markets.

Yesterday, Mayor Cincinnati Charlie Luken held a press conference to discuss his recent submission to the United States Department of Treasury requesting federal funding to increase the number of police officers to prevent and investigate alleged hate crimes. He explained that the DNC Convention and resulting protests have strained the current police budget leading to short falls in other areas. In addition to the request for an additional $1.1 million for equipment and personnel. Additionally, Luken requested approximately 20 seats in the Department of Treasury's Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia, to provide the local force the latest in both investigation and community policing techniques.

When the Hate Crime Prevention Modernization Act of 1999 passed, section 5 permits state and local authorities to request additional funding for such training, and equipment for activities related to hate crimes. Across the country, states and local communities are submitting similar requests. To date, the US Treasury has received requests totally more than $115 million.

A bi-partisan Constitutional Amendment was submitted in the House of Representatives recently for consideration. Sponsored by Mr. Jerome Hooper (R-Colo.-3) the Line Item Veto is intended to provide the President of the United States the opportunity to strike or reduce from any appropriations bill or resolution the amount of money being designated for a program or fund within the Federal budget.

In 1996, Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act (Public Law 104-130) to enable the President to have this authority, but the United States Supreme Court found the authority to be found unconstitutional in the court case of Clinton v. City of New York. The main finding of the court was that line item veto power violated the Presentment Clause, which is contained in Article I, section 7, clauses 2 and 3 of the Constitution. The Presentment Clause provides for the President to sign legislation that originates in the legislature, but also to return legislation that he vetoes. The Supreme Court has argued that allowing the president to strike sections of the bill that he disagrees with violates the check and balance that is contained in the Presentment Clause.

This Constitutional Amendment would change the constitution to allow for the use of the Line Item Veto. To pass the bicamerial bodies, the amendment must have 2/3rd majority to pass in each. Then it would be sent to the states to be considered in their state legislature for ratification. Thirty-eight of the fifty states would need to ratify the Amendment in accordance to the rules of their body. The last Amendment to the Constitution was amendment number 27, which delays laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until after the next election of the representatives. This Amendment was originally proposed in 1789 and was ratified in 1992. Previous to that Amendment the 26th, which prohibits the denial of the right of US citizens, eighteen years of age or older, to vote on account of age was offered in 1971 and ratified the same year.  However, in 1985 an amendment was offered to grant the District of Columbia state representation and voting rights, but it failed to be ratified.

Unemployment rate remains relatively unchanged in 1st Quarter 2000

Payroll employment rose in 1st quarter of 2000 and the unemployment rate remained relatively unchanged at 4.3%, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported this week. Payroll in non-agricultural sectors grew by 235,000; however, losses continued in manufacturing and mining sectors.

The unemployment rate has been at or below 4.5% since April 1998. In this quarter, unemployment rates for adult men (3.4%), adult women (4.2%) and teenagers (14.1%) were unchanged. In all other demographics, blacks has seen a decrease in overall unemployment by near 1.5%.

As 1999 comes to a close, Wall Street reports that it is finishing the year at an all-time peak rising 44.26 points today ti 11,497.12 surpassing previous records. Overall 1999 was a stellar year for Wall Street with the NASDAQ composite rising 85.6%; Dow Jones Industrial posting a 25.2% gain; and, the S&P 500 growing 19.5%. Nearly 204 billion shares were traded on the New York Stock Exchange and over 265 billion shares on the NASDAQ.

As 2000 starts, economists believe that the market will continue to remain strong for the foreseeable future - with strongest growths in the technology sectors and real estate.

I'm taking a LOA from today, November 15 to Monday, Nov 20. I am attending PAX in Philadelphia.

Vandy and Lloth both have my cell phone number to reach me.

Earlier this week the House of Representatives passed the 21^st Century American Defense Act, sponsored by Representative Charles Fong (R-Calif.). The 21^st Century American Defense Act’s stated purpose to is “declare US policy toward the establishment of a national missile defense program” and amends United States Code to establish an Office of Air Force Research. However, the bill fails to address some basic issues to include what this program will cost; where cuts in other areas of Defense will come from to finance it or why the program is even necessary.

As the Chair of the House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs, Representative Fong temporarily passed the gavel off in committee to move to consider the bill via unanimous consent forcing it through. When it was brought for consideration before the whole body, Mr. Fong as the sponsor of the bill as asked by two members of the Democratic party for clarity on the costs and the use and functionality of the bill. Mr. Fong as the Sponsor failed to response to either of these concerns.

This has left many Washington insiders questioning if Mr. Fong’s run for President on a promise of cutting taxes can be a reality as he develops new defense technologies and offices without providing for their funding.