Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Ebowed]

Bumping this since the Senate needs new legislation:

Campaigning Bill

§1. Findings
   (a) In the recent case of True Democrat v. Department of Forum Affairs, the Supreme Court found that due to the lack of any definition of what constituted campaigning, only the narrowest of definitions could be used.
   (b) A narrow definition of campaigning allows for some campaigning activities to escape the sanctions intended to curb them.
   (c) The Senate has not only power under Article V Section 1 Clause 3 to punish campaigning under the limited definition ascribed to the term by the Supreme Court, but a broader power under Article I Section 4 Clause 6 and Article II Section 2 Clause 2 to regulate elections so as to prevent campaigning type activities.

§2. Definitions
   (a) The term "criminal campaigning" shall mean content in an ballot post clearly and obviously designed to persuade other voters. It shall include any direct exhortation to voters in general or particular to vote in a certain manner.  It shall also include any use of an image or a hyperlink containing references to one more candidates (including potential write-in candidates), save one copied from the post containing the official ballot for that election.
   (b) The term "civil campaigning" shall mean any expression of the reasons for casting a particular vote that does not constitute criminal campaigning.  The term does not include any expression of the difficulty of deciding how to vote or any unexplained statement that one or more candidates are fit or unfit to serve in an elected office.

§3. Civil Campaigning
   (a) If an administrator of a voting booth determines that a post contains civil campaigning, he shall invaldate the ballot only for those offices for which civil campaigning occured.
   (b) The voter may within 72 hours of the determiniation of an occurance of civil campaigning make an administrative appeal to the Secretary of Forum Affairs, giving his reasons for why the activity should not be considered civil campaigning.
   (c) If the Secretary determines that civil campaigning has not occurred, the ballot shall be counted for that office.
   (d) If the Secretary determines that civil campaigning has occurred, or if the Secretary fails to inform the voter of his determination within 72 hours of the voter making his appeal, the voter may appeal to the Supreme Court.
   (e) The Supreme Court may choose whether or not to hear the case.
   (f) If the result of an adminstrative or judicial appeal could affect the outcome of an election, any Justice of the Supreme Court may issue an injuction barring the carrying out of the effect of that outcome until either all appeals have been exhausted or the result would no longer affect the outcome.

§4. Criminal Campaigning
   (a) If the administrator of a voting booth determines that a post contains criminal campaigning, he shall invalidate the ballot only for those offices for which criminal campaigning occured and refer the evidence to the Attorney General for prosecution.
   (b) If the Attorney General determines that he will not prosecute for criminal campaigning, then the content shall be treated as if it were civil campaigning.
   (c) If the Attorney General fails to determine whether he will prosecute within 24 hours of receiving a referral under subsection (a), then the voter may begin an administrative appeal as if the offense were civil campaigning. Such an adminstrative appeal shall be immediately suspended if the Attorney General determines to prosecute, but any rulings made as a result of the administrative appeal shall stand until overruled by the trial court.
   (d) If the Attorney General fails to determine whether he will prosecute within 168 hours of receiving a referral under subsection (a), then all criminal charges shall be dropped.
   (e) If the voter is found guilty of criminal campaigning, then the court shall invalidate  the ballot only for those offices for which criminal campaigning occured and may additionally impose a penalty of the suspension of voting rights for a period not to exceed 120 days, or in lieu of such penalty, may impose a probationary period of not to exceed 1 year, during which the court may impose the penalty if the voter violates the terms of probation.
   (f)  If the voter is found not guilty of criminal campaigning, then the court shall also determine if the action constituted civil campaigning and order the official results of the election adjusted accordingly.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I worked in liasion with TCash on this Bill, therefore, I, hereby,introduce this

Notification of Federal Election Polling Hours Bill

1. This Act, hereby, instructs the Secretary of Forum Affairs; or, in his absence, the Deputy Secretary of Forum Affairs, to publicy notify registered voters of Federal Election Polling Hours in both the:

a. Fantasy Elections Forum; and
b. the Voting Booth.

2. This Act, hereby, instructs the Secretary of Forum Affairs; or, in his absence, the Deputy Secretary of Forum Affairs to give three days notice of Federal Election Polling Hours.

'Hawk'

I presume this bill is intended to cause the voting booth administrator to specify three days before the start of the election exactly when the election starts under the Flexitime Amendment.  If so, I urge the bill be amended to make explict the intent, and to simplify things down to saying the voting booth adminstrator, since that could be someone other than the SoFA or the DSoFA under current law (Section 10 of the ESRA).  Indeed, this bill might be better done as an amendment to the ESRA.

[Democratic Hawk]

I worked in liasion with TCash on this Bill, therefore, I, hereby,introduce this

Notification of Federal Election Polling Hours Bill

1. This Act, hereby, instructs the Secretary of Forum Affairs; or, in his absence, the Deputy Secretary of Forum Affairs, to publicy notify registered voters of Federal Election Polling Hours in both the:

a. Fantasy Elections Forum; and
b. the Voting Booth.

2. This Act, hereby, instructs the Secretary of Forum Affairs; or, in his absence, the Deputy Secretary of Forum Affairs to give three days notice of Federal Election Polling Hours.

'Hawk'

I presume this bill is intended to cause the voting booth administrator to specify three days before the start of the election exactly when the election starts under the Flexitime Amendment.  If so, I urge the bill be amended to make explict the intent, and to simplify things down to saying the voting booth adminstrator, since that could be someone other than the SoFA or the DSoFA under current law (Section 10 of the ESRA).  Indeed, this bill might be better done as an amendment to the ESRA.

I'll introduce it as an amendment to the ESRA and I'll word it to explicity state that the voting booth administrator give three days notice of polling hours prior to the commencement of the election

'Hawk'

[Ebowed]

There may be a possible further amendment to the ERSB from Brandon H. Could this be included with the above, but voted on separately, or not; or would I need to introduce it separately?

'Hawk'

It would need to be introduced separately if you want it to be voted on separately.

FWIW, I'd like to humbly request all Senators to use the new Legislation Introduction Thread instead of the old one.

[ilikeverin]

I worked in liasion with TCash on this Bill, therefore, I, hereby,introduce this

Notification of Federal Election Polling Hours Bill

1. This Act, hereby, instructs the Secretary of Forum Affairs; or, in his absence, the Deputy Secretary of Forum Affairs, to publicy notify registered voters of Federal Election Polling Hours in both the:

a. Fantasy Elections Forum; and
b. the Voting Booth.

2. This Act, hereby, instructs the Secretary of Forum Affairs; or, in his absence, the Deputy Secretary of Forum Affairs to give three days notice of Federal Election Polling Hours.

'Hawk'

We should also have something for special elections included in the bill.

[Democratic Hawk]

I worked in liasion with TCash on this Bill, therefore, I, hereby,introduce this

Notification of Federal Election Polling Hours Bill

1. This Act, hereby, instructs the Secretary of Forum Affairs; or, in his absence, the Deputy Secretary of Forum Affairs, to publicy notify registered voters of Federal Election Polling Hours in both the:

a. Fantasy Elections Forum; and
b. the Voting Booth.

2. This Act, hereby, instructs the Secretary of Forum Affairs; or, in his absence, the Deputy Secretary of Forum Affairs to give three days notice of Federal Election Polling Hours.

'Hawk'

We should also have something for special elections included in the bill.

I've scratched that Bill and introduced it as a modification to the Electoral System Reform Act. Basically, all I've done is added a new Clause 4 to Section 10: Administration of Voting Booths

4. The administrator of a voting booth shall give registered voters three days advance public notice, in both the Fantasy Elections Forum and the Voting Booth, of the hours in which voting shall take place for all regular and special Senate elections

All it does is mandate the administrator of a voting booth to publicly notify voters of voting hours since such hours can now be flexible as per the recently ratified Flexi-Time Constitutional Amendment

'Hawk'

[Ebowed]

Here's a proposal for the Senate to work with.  This is inspired by the recent banning of Hawkeye, who remains on the voter rolls despite being banned.

Banishment Procedure Bill
1. Any registered voter who is permanently banned from the Atlas Forum by Dave Leip shall be considered to be a deregistered voter, as defined in Section 2, Clause 2 under the Deregistration Act.
2. Public confirmation from Dave Leip stating that a person is permanently banned is considered sufficient information to invoke Clause 1 of this act.

[MAS117]

I commend the President and all the Senators who voted against MasterImperalists bill.

[Democratic Hawk]

What is imperialist about a Bill that sought to allow the people of American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands to determine for themselves whether they desired statehood or not?

If anything it's the concept of 'territory' that is imperialist, not that of 'statehood'

I abstained on that Bill because I didn't think the time was right given the situation in Guam but I don't think it fair that those who live in Atlasia's territories are second-class 'citizens' (for want of a better word). Were our territories to become states, they would be contributing to, as well as receiving, from the coffers

'Hawk'

[Ebowed]

What is imperialist about a Bill that sought to allow the people of American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands to determine for themselves whether they desired statehood or not?

Imperialism is defined as the continuous acquisition of land and power.  It's not a healthy way to govern, imo.  Especially when these territories were so small and separated from each other that statehood was hardly warranted.

On a side note, I wonder if people so anxious to allow the inhabitants to have a vote on statehood would be just as eager to allow state secessions.  If the people want it, who are we to stop them, right? :-S

[Democratic Hawk]

What is imperialist about a Bill that sought to allow the people of American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands to determine for themselves whether they desired statehood or not?

Imperialism is defined as the continuous acquisition of land and power.  It's not a healthy way to govern, imo.  Especially when these territories were so small and separated from each other that statehood was hardly warranted.

On a side note, I wonder if people so anxious to allow the inhabitants to have a vote on statehood would be just as eager to allow state secessions.  If the people want it, who are we to stop them, right? :-S

Since statehood for the Pacific territories has been ruled out, I'd like to know your opinion on whether or not the people of all our remaining territories should be given full citizenship and full federal voting rights?

Of course, this would depend on their federal tax status. No representation without taxation stands as far as I'm concerned

'Hawk'

[Ebowed]

Well, I think this is one of those issues where we need to have a fine line between real life and Atlasian politics.  In real life, extending voting rights sounds like a good idea, but in Atlasia, I don't see the need to extend anything towards territories.  One of the things that needs to be considered is the practicality of such a move: i.e., people would have to go to extra lengths to make maps for presidential elections, there would be more eligible places to register that the SoFA would be required to keep track of, etc.  So I'm inclined to say that I wouldn't support such a proposal.

[Democratic Hawk]

Well, I think this is one of those issues where we need to have a fine line between real life and Atlasian politics.  In real life, extending voting rights sounds like a good idea, but in Atlasia, I don't see the need to extend anything towards territories.  One of the things that needs to be considered is the practicality of such a move: i.e., people would have to go to extra lengths to make maps for presidential elections, there would be more eligible places to register that the SoFA would be required to keep track of, etc.  So I'm inclined to say that I wouldn't support such a proposal.

On the issues of practicality, I'm minded to agree . I can't take it for granted that no one wouldn't register in such territories, and it would unduly complicate things for the SoFA. So, I'll be leaving that idea

'Hawk'

[Peter]

Why is legislation to renumber sections in the ESRA necessary, or to incorporate UECA sections into it?

If you want one fluid piece of legislation on the subject, better just to pass a single consolidation statute rather than attempt to amend 'in text', because that always gets horribly confusing to the casual observer.

[Democratic Hawk]

Why is legislation to renumber sections in the ESRA necessary, or to incorporate UECA sections into it?

If you want one fluid piece of legislation on the subject, better just to pass a single consolidation statute rather than attempt to amend 'in text', because that always gets horribly confusing to the casual observer.

Basically, I just needed to know whether it was necessary or not. I gather the amendments I've proposed need to be considered separately, however

Ernest raised the ESRA/UECA and renumbering issues with me personally and I'm awaiting his response

'Hawk'

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I have two new bills, and I bet people will like!


South American Free Trade Act


1. No tariffs, customs, or restrictions on movement of goods, except those that have been outlawed by the destination or interim nation, shall exist between the Republic of Atlasia, Columbia, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina and Chile.
2. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this bill.



Caribbean Free Trade Act


1. No tariffs, customs, or restrictions on movement of goods, except those that have been outlawed by the destination or interim nation, shall exist between the Republic of Atlasia, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Barbados, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Guadeloupe, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Martinique, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago.
2. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this bill.

Two problems with these.  The first is that French Guiana, Guadeloupe, and Martinique, are part of the EU, so this would effectively create a funnel for the EU to ship goods into Atlasia tarrif free without their having to lower their tarriffs or subsidies.  The second is that given the current government of Venezuela, so we really want to lower our tariff barriers with Hurricane Hugo?

[Ebowed]

South American Free Trade Act
1. No tariffs, customs, or restrictions on movement of goods, except those that have been outlawed by the destination or interim nation, shall exist between the Republic of Atlasia, Columbia, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina and Chile.
2. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this bill.

The New Triple Entente

May 4, 2006

Carmen Sandiego

Havana - Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and now Eva Morales have all agreed to reject any Atlasian attempt for further free trade in the Western Hemisphere.  In the agreement, all three men promised to lead their nations against Atlasian influence in Latin America.  Furthermore, the pact contained much left-leaning rhetoric.  This is now the second version of the Bolivarian Alternatives for the Americas, as Bolivia has been added this time around.  All three leaders met in Havana, where Fidel Castro offered them a warm welcome.

It seems though that not all of Latin America is happy this agreement.  Recently, Peru recalled its ambassador to Venezuela.  Furthermore, an emergency meeting has been called among the leaders of Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina, and Venezuela to discuss the most recent natural gas crisis in which President Morales has attemped to nationalize Bolivia's entire natural gas industry.  Many leaders, such as Silva of Brazil, have expressed concerns about this plan.

On the issue of free trade, the conflict between Atlasia and the members of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas will only get worse.  In light of the recently passed CAFTA, a possible free trade agreement with Colombia, and the Senate debate currently focused on a revision of NAFTA that would ensure true free trade, it seems unlikely that this crisis will diffuse quickly.  Not only has policy opposition plagued the two sides, but also rhetoric.  In his campaign for President of Bolivia, Eva Morales used the slogan "Long live coca, Death to the Yankees!"  Hugo Chavez has continually spoken out against Atlasia and wishes to equip citizens of Venezuela for a possible Atlasian invasion.  With Castro, I think we all know what the story is.  In conclusion, the clash between Atlasia and the leftist leaders of Latin America isn't going away any time soon.

Caribbean Free Trade Act

1. No tariffs, customs, or restrictions on movement of goods, except those that have been outlawed by the destination or interim nation, shall exist between the Republic of Atlasia, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Barbados, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Guadeloupe, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Martinique, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago.
2. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this bill.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Central_American_Free_Trade_Act

[MasterJedi]

Yeah, I shouldn't write things when I'm tired.   Anyway it's fixed.

[Ebowed]

More free trade fun.  This will catch Atlasia up with the U.S. in terms of free trade agreements, I think.

Atlasian-Australia Free Trade Bill

1. No tariffs, customs, or restrictions on movement of goods, except those that have been outlawed by the destination or interim nation, shall exist between the Republic of Atlasia and Australia.
2. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this act.


Atlasian-Morocco Free Trade Bill

1. No tariffs, customs, or restrictions on movement of goods, except those that have been outlawed by the destination or interim nation, shall exist between the Republic of Atlasia and Morocco.
2. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this act.


Atlasian-Singapore Free Trade Bill

1. No tariffs, customs, or restrictions on movement of goods, except those that have been outlawed by the destination or interim nation, shall exist between the Republic of Atlasia and Singapore.
2. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this act.
3. The United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement is repealed.


Atlasian-Bahrain Free Trade Bill

1. No tariffs, customs, or restrictions on movement of goods, except those that have been outlawed by the destination or interim nation, shall exist between the Republic of Atlasia and Bahrain.
2. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this act.

*Note:  The U.S. also has a free trade agreement with Chile, but that is covered in MasterJedi's South American Free Trade Bill.

[Emsworth]

Perhaps all of the above bills, as well as the South American Free Trade Bill and Caribbean Free Trade Bill, could be combined into a single piece of legislation. I don't think that there is any point to having the same debate six separate times.

[MasterJedi]

Perhaps all of the above bills, as well as the South American Free Trade Bill and Caribbean Free Trade Bill, could be combined into a single piece of legislation. I don't think that there is any point to having the same debate six separate times.

The areas are different, people might want free trade somewhere but not somewhere else. This seperates it in case.

[Emsworth]

Perhaps all of the above bills, as well as the South American Free Trade Bill and Caribbean Free Trade Bill, could be combined into a single piece of legislation. I don't think that there is any point to having the same debate six separate times.

The areas are different, people might want free trade somewhere but not somewhere else. This seperates it in case.

Well, if that's the case, then the Senate could just amend the bill by removing the section that it disapproves. At the very least, even if the Senate is going to vote on the six separately, it makes sense to consider and debate them together.

Another possibility is to introduce a general free trade bill, which would apply not to a specific group of countries, but to the whole world.

[MasterJedi]

Perhaps all of the above bills, as well as the South American Free Trade Bill and Caribbean Free Trade Bill, could be combined into a single piece of legislation. I don't think that there is any point to having the same debate six separate times.

The areas are different, people might want free trade somewhere but not somewhere else. This seperates it in case.

Well, if that's the case, then the Senate could just amend the bill by removing the section that it disapproves. At the very least, even if the Senate is going to vote on the six separately, it makes sense to consider and debate them together.

Another possibility is to introduce a general free trade bill, which would apply not to a specific group of countries, but to the whole world.

Well I'm not going to do it and I'll just leave the bills I introduced in order and we'll go like that.

[Emsworth]

More free trade fun.  This will catch Atlasia up with the U.S. in terms of free trade agreements, I think.
...
*Note:  The U.S. also has a free trade agreement with Chile, but that is covered in MasterJedi's South American Free Trade Bill.

I think that there are a couple of other sovereignty-infringing free trade agreements that need to be replaced with proper free trade bills, namely, the U.S.-Israel and U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreements.

Also, the U.S. is in the process of negotiating free trade agreements with Malaysia, Morocco, and Oman.

[Democratic Hawk]

Might these Free Trade Bills not be more correctly styled Atlasia rather than Atlasian

'Hawk'