Talk Elections

Atlas Fantasy Elections => Regional Governments => Topic started by: Barnes on September 27, 2009, 05:17:16 PM



Title: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on September 27, 2009, 05:17:16 PM
()

Welcome to the Northeast Assembly! :)

Once the Representatives have taken their oaths (or at least a majority of Reps.), business can begin! :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on September 27, 2009, 07:37:35 PM
Here is the official page for the Assembly: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Northeast_Assembly#Assemblies


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 28, 2009, 05:34:38 AM
I, Antonio V, solemnly swear...

Well, what should I swear ? :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on September 28, 2009, 09:01:10 AM
I, Antonio V, solemnly swear...

Well, what should I swear ? :P

To do a damn fine job?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 28, 2009, 09:40:12 AM

Ok, let's go ! :D


Is the session officially opened, Mister Lt Gov ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 28, 2009, 09:57:31 AM

I think we should adress Lt. Governor "Mr. President", as he's a presiding officer of the assembly, but it's just a protoloc ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 28, 2009, 10:05:55 AM

I think we should adress Lt. Governor "Mr. President", as he's a presiding officer of the assembly, but it's just a protoloc ;)

Right.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on September 28, 2009, 10:09:03 AM
Not to clutter the Assembly floor, but could someone kindly provide a basic primer on how the Northeast Assembly changes our current regional process of passing law?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: HappyWarrior on September 28, 2009, 12:17:13 PM
Well as your first order of business you should probably establish legislative rules such as leadership in the chamber, just as we did in the First Mideast Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 28, 2009, 12:32:12 PM
Well as your first order of business you should probably establish legislative rules such as leadership in the chamber, just as we did in the First Mideast Assembly.

I think they are expressed clearly enough on the Amendment : First we discuss, then we vote. Lt Governor is the President of the Assembly and votes only to break a tie.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on September 28, 2009, 01:11:05 PM
Just a friendly reminder to the Assembly. Elections will be coming up next month, I know this just started, but all of those who are interested in staying past next month should make sure to declare.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 28, 2009, 01:39:09 PM
Smid for Speaker/Preisding Officer!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 28, 2009, 01:43:54 PM
Just a friendly reminder to the Assembly. Elections will be coming up next month, I know this just started, but all of those who are interested in staying past next month should make sure to declare.

Well, we have until Friday 9, right ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on September 28, 2009, 01:49:36 PM
Just a friendly reminder to the Assembly. Elections will be coming up next month, I know this just started, but all of those who are interested in staying past next month should make sure to declare.

Well, we have until Friday 9, right ?

That is correct.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 28, 2009, 03:35:35 PM
I'd like to say, that I'll be seeking the position of Deputy President of the Assembly. As you all remember, I raised a topic to needs of such position long before passing of the amendment and be happy to work in this, if elected.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 28, 2009, 03:46:41 PM
Sorry fellow Representatives, looks like I acted little to quickly this time ;)

Since Smid is running for the position I'll drop out and support him 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on September 28, 2009, 04:16:25 PM
With all Representatives having taken their oaths, the Assembly is now in session.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 28, 2009, 04:32:56 PM
Mr. President, fellow Representatives

I would like to take a floor for a moment just in order to express my deep satisfaction, as our Region citizes, to see finally well-needed Assembly in work and, as a Representative, to express my great pride that I can serve in this first, historic session.

I strongly believe that we can all together, regardless of our political positions and party affilation, work for a creation of needed and wise laws. A great responsibility was bested upon us: not only to create a laws, but to prove by our work to citizens that creation of the Assembly was a right choice.

Thank you


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on September 28, 2009, 04:39:40 PM
We shall first elect a Deputy Presiding Officer. Representatives have twenty-four hours to nominate a candidate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on September 28, 2009, 07:47:04 PM
Sorry fellow Representatives, looks like I acted little to quickly this time ;)

Since Smid is running for the position I'll drop out and support him 

Nonsense! You were not at all too hasty. I think it would be poor form for democracy for you to drop out after playing such an active role in the establishment of the legislature. I would be happy to perform the duties of office if my fellow Representatives choose me, but I'm equally happy if we choose another candidate from our midst.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 29, 2009, 12:57:26 AM
Shouldn't we be passing enabling legislation before selecting a Speaker? 
-------
Here's what Representative Kalwejt's proposed President pro tempore amendment said (I've replaced "President pro tempore" with "Speaker" and cleaned up some of the language):

Northeast Assembly Speaker Act

1. The Northeast Assembly shall elect a Speaker from among its members at the start of each new Northeast Assembly term.
2. The Speaker shall assume the role of presiding officer of the Northeast Assembly whenever the Lieutenant Governor publicly confirms he will be absent from the Northeast Assembly or the Lieutenant Governor otherwise publicly designates the Speaker to this role for a specified period.
3. The Speaker shall serve until the end of the Northeast Assembly term, unless the Speaker is removed or resigns from the office of the Speaker.
4. The Speaker may be removed from office by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly.
5. If the office of the Speaker is vacant for any reason, the Northeast Assembly shall elect a new Speaker from among its members as soon as possible.
---------
Question: Do we want the Speaker to be elected by a clear majority or is a plurality vote okay?  Or do we want some sort of proportional voting?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 29, 2009, 01:22:30 AM
Absolute majority is better.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 29, 2009, 01:29:24 AM

I think so too.  If we all think so, the law should read:

Northeast Assembly Speaker Act

1. The Northeast Assembly shall elect a Speaker from among its members by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly at the start of each new Northeast Assembly term.
2. The Speaker shall assume the role of presiding officer of the Northeast Assembly whenever the Lieutenant Governor publicly confirms he will be absent from the Northeast Assembly or the Lieutenant Governor otherwise publicly designates the Speaker to this role for a specified period.
3. The Speaker shall serve until the end of the Northeast Assembly term, unless the Speaker is removed or resigns from the office of the Speaker.
4. The Speaker may be removed from office by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly.
5. If the office of the Speaker becomes vacant for any reason, the Northeast Assembly shall elect a new Speaker from among its members by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly as soon as possible.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 29, 2009, 01:49:47 AM
Well, this is good. ;)
I think we can immediately start voting, to rapidly have our speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 29, 2009, 02:09:43 AM
Shouldn't we be passing enabling legislation before selecting a Speaker? 
-------
Here's what Representative Kalwejt's proposed President pro tempore amendment said (I've replaced "President pro tempore" with "Speaker" and cleaned up some of the language):

Northeast Assembly Speaker Act

1. The Northeast Assembly shall elect a Speaker from among its members at the start of each new Northeast Assembly term.
2. The Speaker shall assume the role of presiding officer of the Northeast Assembly whenever the Lieutenant Governor publicly confirms he will be absent from the Northeast Assembly or the Lieutenant Governor otherwise publicly designates the Speaker to this role for a specified period.
3. The Speaker shall serve until the end of the Northeast Assembly term, unless the Speaker is removed or resigns from the office of the Speaker.
4. The Speaker may be removed from office by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly.
5. If the office of the Speaker is vacant for any reason, the Northeast Assembly shall elect a new Speaker from among its members as soon as possible.
---------
Question: Do we want the Speaker to be elected by a clear majority or is a plurality vote okay?  Or do we want some sort of proportional voting?

Plurality.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 29, 2009, 08:20:59 AM
Plularity


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 29, 2009, 10:22:32 AM

??

Plurality is unfair.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 29, 2009, 10:27:59 AM

I know, but I also don't think we should put this issue on the edge


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 29, 2009, 12:19:44 PM

Plus, someone elected with only a plurality could easily be removed by a majority at any time - unless we require removal by a supermajority like 2/3rds or 3/4ths.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 29, 2009, 12:56:23 PM
That's make a sense. So after a deliberation I support simple majority requirement (and simple majority requirement to remove)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 29, 2009, 12:59:14 PM
Quote
Northeast Assembly Speaker Act

1. The Northeast Assembly shall elect a Speaker from among its members by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly at the start of each new Northeast Assembly term.
2. The Speaker shall assume the role of presiding officer of the Northeast Assembly whenever the Lieutenant Governor publicly confirms he will be absent from the Northeast Assembly or the Lieutenant Governor otherwise publicly designates the Speaker to this role for a specified period.
3. The Speaker shall serve until the end of the Northeast Assembly term, unless the Speaker is removed or resigns from the office of the Speaker.
4. The Speaker may be removed from office by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly.
5. If the office of the Speaker becomes vacant for any reason, the Northeast Assembly shall elect a new Speaker from among its members by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly as soon as possible.

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 29, 2009, 01:10:46 PM
AYE

(just remember I have my part in this bill too ;))


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 29, 2009, 01:15:30 PM

Sorry, I just wanted it to go faster. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 29, 2009, 01:21:34 PM

And good, because we need to fully organize ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 29, 2009, 01:27:28 PM

This proceeding is perfectly legal. We don't need voting booths and stuff.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 29, 2009, 01:45:23 PM

I know, I haven't mind this, just good we're moving on with establishing deputy presiding officer position


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 29, 2009, 02:06:02 PM
Northeast Assembly Speaker Act: Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 29, 2009, 02:24:40 PM
3/5 votes : this will officially pas as soon as Mr President will certify results.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 29, 2009, 02:30:40 PM
3/5 votes : this will officially pas as soon as Mr President will certify results.

I'm so glad we are making first steps :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 29, 2009, 02:49:39 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on September 29, 2009, 03:39:30 PM
With four voting in favor, zero against, and one not voting, the Northeast Assembly Speaker Act has officially passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 29, 2009, 03:42:29 PM
Nominate Smid for Speaker


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 29, 2009, 03:49:56 PM
Mr. President, I'd like to ask a question of formal nature.

Is this a bill, which would require gubernatorial signature? If so, we obviously cannot chose Speaker right now.

Or is this just a part of internat Assembly rule?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 29, 2009, 03:51:24 PM
Mr. President, I'd like to ask a question of formal nature.

Is this a bill, which would require gubernatorial signature? If so, we obviously cannot chose Speaker right now.

Or is this just a part of internat Assembly rule?

WE make our own rules in this chamber


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 29, 2009, 04:00:06 PM
Mr. President, I'd like to ask a question of formal nature.

Is this a bill, which would require gubernatorial signature? If so, we obviously cannot chose Speaker right now.

Or is this just a part of internat Assembly rule?

WE make our own rules in this chamber

All right, because "Act" word may be mireaded there


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on September 29, 2009, 04:02:45 PM
Mr. President, I'd like to ask a question of formal nature.

Is this a bill, which would require gubernatorial signature? If so, we obviously cannot chose Speaker right now.

Or is this just a part of internat Assembly rule?

 Which do not require the Governor's signature.
WE make our own rules in this chamber

I believe it to simply be rules of procedure.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 29, 2009, 04:22:50 PM
I've skimmed the Senate's complex rules (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Official_Senate_Procedural_Resolution) regarding debate and voting procedures - the often-amended OSPR.   Yikes! 

I don't think a regional Assembly needs a Standing Order that is quite that complex.  In fact, I can't find any equivalent resolution passed by the Mideast Assembly.  Nevertheless, I think we should enact some sort of Standing Order on Assembly Procedure (SOAP), though - at a minimum, limiting the number of bills that can be on the floor at one time (1? 2? 3?), the order in which they shall be taken up (chronologically in the order proposed?  Lt. Governor's discretion?), and specifying a period for debate (72 hours?) and a voting period (24 hours?).   Otherwise, there may be chaos going forward.

Edit:  Whoops!  I meant to add this as a new response, not edit this post.  The original post basically said I'd look into what the Senate's procedural rules say on this matter.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 29, 2009, 04:25:22 PM
Votes open for a minimum of 24 hours.
Ability to change vote only until the final tally.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 29, 2009, 04:29:57 PM
Votes open for a minimum of 24 hours.
Ability to change vote only until the final tally.


Except for emergency action, perhaps?  The Senate seems to have a rule allowing shorter votes for emergency bills.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 29, 2009, 04:31:03 PM
Votes open for a minimum of 24 hours.
Ability to change vote only until the final tally.


Except for emergency action, perhaps?  The Senate seems to have a rule allowing shorter votes for emergency bills.

We can do that if it is felt to be necessary.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on September 29, 2009, 04:48:06 PM
The Question before us is: "Shall Smid be made Speaker of this Assembly?"
Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 29, 2009, 04:48:26 PM
AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 29, 2009, 05:05:07 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on September 29, 2009, 07:26:56 PM
I think it best to refer to the rules by which the Speaker is chosen to be part of the Standing Orders. Examples of real standing orders can be seen here (plus numerous other locations). In each case, the election of Speaker is detailed in the Standing Orders (the Australian House of Reps one goes into the wording of motions and so on, very interesting and very precise):

-Australian House of Reps: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/pubs/standos/index.htm
-Australian Senate: (not standing orders, but some of the rules of debate - has links to standing orders) http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/guides/briefno04.htm
-Victorian Leg. Assembly: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/assembly/standing_orders/2004-03/
-Queensland Leg Assembly: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/legislativeAssembly/procedures.asp - click for Standing Orders. Other interesting documents also located there.
-British House of Commons: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmstords/2/2.pdf
-Canadian House of Commons: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/house/standingorders/toc-e.htm

As you can see from the examples, the rules are only binding on the House that passed them - so if at some time in the future, the Northeast had an Upper House/Regional Senate (not that I can see that happening), the rules/standing orders would not be binding on them.

Regarding the length of time open for debate and votes, and particularly the matter of urgency motions, I think it's important to keep the vote open for 24 hours. This is particularly the case for foreign members, as we are in different time zones.

In this sense, it's similar to Queensland Parliament's Standing Order 128 (found on page 39), which notes in point 8 that a Bill must be tabled for at least 13 calendar days after the introductory speech.

Note, however, that Standing Order 159 (page 44) allows for a majority of Members to vote that a Bill be considered urgent and therefore reduce the time requirments under SO128. This could be something we consider.

Although it has already passed, I'd like express my support for the Standing Orders relating to the election of Speaker.

I also accept the nomination for Speaker of our Assembly, and abstain from voting.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 29, 2009, 07:34:29 PM
I think that after election of the Speaker, we should consider including the office to the order of succession and order of precedence alike.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 29, 2009, 07:40:02 PM
I think that after election of the Speaker, we should consider including the office to the order of succession and order of precedence alike.

Unnecessary. We simply elect a new one if Smid resigns


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on September 29, 2009, 07:42:00 PM
I think that after election of the Speaker, we should consider including the office to the order of succession and order of precedence alike.

Unnecessary. We simply elect a new one if Smid resigns.

I think he is referring to Gubernatorial succession.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 29, 2009, 07:42:34 PM
I think that after election of the Speaker, we should consider including the office to the order of succession and order of precedence alike.

Unnecessary. We simply elect a new one if Smid resigns.

I think he is referring to Gubernatorial succession.

Exactly. And don;t forget order of precedence


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 29, 2009, 07:45:55 PM
Governor-Lt. Governor-CJO

We don't need to change it


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 29, 2009, 07:50:51 PM

Why not, for example

Governor - Lt. Governor - CJO - Speaker?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on September 29, 2009, 07:53:29 PM
I know we are still voting on the confirmation of Smid, but I will not be here for most of tonight and tomorrow. So, I think it is necessary for someone to "watch after" the Assembly.

Therefore, I hereby designate Smid as Acting Speaker of the Assembly, effective at Ten o' clock tonight and in force until I expressly state I am able to preside over the Assembly.

Also, Smid, if you are elected Speaker, and are still Acting Speaker, go ahead and consider yourself the "real" Speaker.

I hope to not cause any controversy over this, but I just want the Assembly to run smoothly. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on September 29, 2009, 10:28:16 PM
BTW, line of sucsession goes Governor, Lt. Governor, CJO. As Rep. Hamilton stated, there is no need to change it. In my entire time here in the Northeast, the only time that its gone far down to CJO was after Fezzy resigned as Governor, and Rin resigned as Lt. Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 30, 2009, 12:10:00 AM
Aye on Smid for Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 30, 2009, 12:49:23 AM
The Question before us is: "Shall Smid be made Speaker of this Assembly?"
Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

Aye

Btw, has the speaker the right to certify results in the place of Lt Gov ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 30, 2009, 12:50:28 AM
Smid is officially Speaker of the Northeast Assembly!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 30, 2009, 01:11:48 AM
I've skimmed the Senate's complex rules (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Official_Senate_Procedural_Resolution) regarding debate and voting procedures - the often-amended OSPR.   Yikes! 

I don't think a regional Assembly needs a Standing Order that is quite that complex.  In fact, I can't find any equivalent resolution passed by the Mideast Assembly.  Nevertheless, I think we should enact some sort of Standing Order on Assembly Procedure (SOAP), though - at a minimum, limiting the number of bills that can be on the floor at one time (1? 2? 3?), the order in which they shall be taken up (chronologically in the order proposed?  Lt. Governor's discretion?), and specifying a period for debate (72 hours?) and a voting period (24 hours?).   Otherwise, there may be chaos going forward.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 30, 2009, 01:14:31 AM
I've skimmed the Senate's complex rules (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Official_Senate_Procedural_Resolution) regarding debate and voting procedures - the often-amended OSPR.   Yikes! 

I don't think a regional Assembly needs a Standing Order that is quite that complex.  In fact, I can't find any equivalent resolution passed by the Mideast Assembly.  Nevertheless, I think we should enact some sort of Standing Order on Assembly Procedure (SOAP), though - at a minimum, limiting the number of bills that can be on the floor at one time (1? 2? 3?), the order in which they shall be taken up (chronologically in the order proposed?  Lt. Governor's discretion?), and specifying a period for debate (72 hours?) and a voting period (24 hours?).   Otherwise, there may be chaos going forward.

I can accept all of these standards.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on September 30, 2009, 01:35:26 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp_kwUt7awo


I've skimmed the Senate's complex rules (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Official_Senate_Procedural_Resolution) regarding debate and voting procedures - the often-amended OSPR.   Yikes! 

I don't think a regional Assembly needs a Standing Order that is quite that complex.  In fact, I can't find any equivalent resolution passed by the Mideast Assembly.  Nevertheless, I think we should enact some sort of Standing Order on Assembly Procedure (SOAP), though - at a minimum, limiting the number of bills that can be on the floor at one time (1? 2? 3?), the order in which they shall be taken up (chronologically in the order proposed?  Lt. Governor's discretion?), and specifying a period for debate (72 hours?) and a voting period (24 hours?).   Otherwise, there may be chaos going forward.

I agree that we need a simple list of Standing Orders (SOAP). I would suggest we debate a single Bill at a time and for the order to be decided chronologically in the order proposed - perhaps having a separate thread for Bills drafted (and then debated in the order they appear in that thread). A Bill could perhaps be given urgency to be debated out of order (and with a shortened time period) by a simple majority vote on a motion to do so, something along the lines of:

Mover of the Bill: I move that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended that would prevent the [Name of Bill] Bill receiving the consideration of the House.

Speaker/Lt Gov: All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No".

(voting accordingly. Vote ceases once a majority is attained or a majority have voted against, or 24 hours have elapsed).

Speaker/Lt Gov: I think the Ayes have it.

Mover of the Bill: I move that the [Name of Bill] Bill be read a second time (debate thus commences).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 30, 2009, 07:44:03 AM
That seems good. Is someone going to write it ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 30, 2009, 10:27:05 AM

I'll draft something when I get a chance, hopefully later today.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 30, 2009, 11:32:38 AM

I'll draft something when I get a chance, hopefully later today.

Great. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on September 30, 2009, 01:25:42 PM
This is moving along nicely. I'll hopefully get the Northeast regional report up this week. :) Good job everyone.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 30, 2009, 02:08:01 PM
Here's my first draft:

Standing Order on Assembly Procedure

1. Proposed Legislation Thread
(a) The Lt. Governor shall open a new Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread at the start of each Northeast Assembly term.
(b) Representatives shall post the full text of any proposed legislation in a response to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread for the current term.  Each response shall contain only one piece of proposed legislation. 
(c) Nothing shall be posted to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread except proposed legislation.

2. Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor
(a) Except as provided in subsection (c), the Lt. Governor shall introduce legislation from the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread on the Northeast Assembly floor in chronological order, starting with the earliest piece of proposed legislation, except that the Lt. Governor shall not introduce more than two (2) pieces of legislation from the same Representative before introducing legislation from other Representatives that has been proposed before the date such third piece of proposed legislation would have otherwise been brought to the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) Only one piece of legislation shall be placed on the Northeast Assembly floor at a time.
(c)  Any Representative may make a motion to suspend section 2(a) of this Standing Order to move a piece proposed legislation to the top of the queue.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for 24 hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the Lt. Governor shall move such piece of proposed legislation to the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after any legislation then currently on the Northeast Assembly floor is voted upon or tabled.

3. Legislative Debates and Voting
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation shall be open for debate until seventy-two (72) hours after the Lt. Governor introduces it to the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) During debate, Representatives may suggest amendments to proposed legislation.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation publicly deems the amendment friendly, no vote on the amendment shall be required.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation does not publicly deem the amendment friendly, a vote on the amendment shall be taken at the end of the debate period.
(c) The sponsor of a proposed amendment may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before the end of the debate period.
(d) A vote will be held on all proposed amendments not deemed friendly at the end of the debate period.  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  An amendment shall pass  if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(e)  The sponsor of a piece of proposed legislation may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before a final vote is taken on the proposed legislation.
(f) A final vote the proposed legislation shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period).  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  A piece of proposed legislation shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(g) The Lt. Governor shall certify the results of any vote within twenty-four (24) hours of the end of the voting period.
(h) Any Representative may make a motion to suspend sections 3(a), 3(d) or 3(f) of this Standing Order to increase or decrease the time of the debate or voting period.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for 24 hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the relevant period shall be changed.

4. Terminology
(a) All legislation regarding the rules of the Northeast Assembly shall be called Standing Orders.
(b) All proposed legislation that requires the signature of the Governor shall be called a Bill until signed and thereafter an Act.
(c) The Lt. Governor shall maintain a public list of Standing Orders, unsuccessful bills actually voted upon, and Acts in the Atlasia Wiki for the Northeast, with a link to the text of such legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 30, 2009, 02:16:37 PM
Here's my first draft:

Standing Order on Assembly Procedure

1. Proposed Legislation Thread
(a) The Lt. Governor shall open a new Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread at the start of each Northeast Assembly term.
(b) Representatives shall post the full text of any proposed legislation in a response to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread for the current term.  Each response shall contain only one piece of proposed legislation. 
(c) Nothing shall be posted to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread except proposed legislation.

2. Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor
(a) Except as provided in subsection (c), the Lt. Governor shall introduce legislation from the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread on the Northeast Assembly floor in chronological order, starting with the earliest piece of proposed legislation, except that the Lt. Governor shall not introduce more than two (2) pieces of legislation from the same Representative before introducing legislation from other Representatives that has been proposed before the date such third piece of proposed legislation would have otherwise been brought to the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) Only one piece of legislation shall be placed on the Northeast Assembly floor at a time.
(c)  Any Representative may make a motion to suspend section 2(a) of this Standing Order to move a piece proposed legislation to the top of the queue.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for 24 hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the Lt. Governor shall move such piece of proposed legislation to the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after any legislation then currently on the Northeast Assembly floor is voted upon or tabled.

3. Legislative Debates and Voting
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation shall be open for debate until seventy-two (72) hours after the Lt. Governor introduces it to the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) During debate, Representatives may suggest amendments to proposed legislation.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation publicly deems the amendment friendly, no vote on the amendment shall be required.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation does not publicly deem the amendment friendly, a vote on the amendment shall be taken at the end of the debate period.
(c) The sponsor of a proposed amendment may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before the end of the debate period.
(d) A vote will be held on all proposed amendments not deemed friendly at the end of the debate period.  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  An amendment shall pass  if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(e)  The sponsor of a piece of proposed legislation may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before a final vote is taken on the proposed legislation.
(f) A final vote the proposed legislation shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period).  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  A piece of proposed legislation shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(g) The Lt. Governor shall certify the results of any vote within twenty-four (24) hours of the end of the voting period.
(h) Any Representative may make a motion to suspend sections 3(a), 3(d) or 3(f) of this Standing Order to increase or decrease the time of the debate or voting period.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for 24 hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the relevant period shall be changed.

4. Terminology
(a) All legislation regarding the rules of the Northeast Assembly shall be called Standing Orders.
(b) All proposed legislation that requires the signature of the Governor shall be called a Bill until signed and thereafter an Act.
(c) The Lt. Governor shall maintain a public list of Standing Orders, unsuccessful bills actually voted upon, and Acts in the Atlasia Wiki for the Northeast, with a link to the text of such legislation.

I will support these rules


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on September 30, 2009, 02:22:14 PM
No one answered or addressed my question the first time, so allow me to repeat it (with some rephrasing): Are citizens still able to propose legislation with signatories, or are we now just a mini-fed?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 30, 2009, 02:30:36 PM
No one answered or addressed my question the first time, so allow me to repeat it (with some rephrasing): Are citizens still able to propose legislation with signatories, or are we now just a mini-fed?

That's one of the two things I'm checking into - what the final amendment said on that and veto overrides.  Both would need to be built into the queue somehow.  I suspect we'd take up overrides immediately after a bill is vetoed, regardless of whether anything else is on the floor and we'd put citizen legislation to the top of the queue.
----------
Edit: 2 citizens may propose legislation for the Assembly to take up, as may the Governor.  Both have to be added to the queue somehow.  Proposal: Governor waits like everyone else, citizens get bills put to the top of the queue after current business is voted upon.  We'd have to have separate procedures for amendments, since nothing would be friendly unless we let the Governor and/or those citizens participate when their legislation is on the floor.

On veto overrides, it appears that if we vote for a piece of legislation a second time, the Governor's veto is ineffective (See Article IV(xi)).   That's not so great for the governor's powers, but I propose we take up veto overrides immediately simultaneously with any other legislation on the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 30, 2009, 02:56:15 PM
Here's my first draft:

Standing Order on Assembly Procedure

1. Proposed Legislation Thread
(a) The Lt. Governor shall open a new Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread at the start of each Northeast Assembly term.
(b) Representatives shall post the full text of any proposed legislation in a response to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread for the current term.  Each response shall contain only one piece of proposed legislation. 
(c) Nothing shall be posted to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread except proposed legislation.

2. Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor
(a) Except as provided in subsection (c), the Lt. Governor shall introduce legislation from the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread on the Northeast Assembly floor in chronological order, starting with the earliest piece of proposed legislation, except that the Lt. Governor shall not introduce more than two (2) pieces of legislation from the same Representative before introducing legislation from other Representatives that has been proposed before the date such third piece of proposed legislation would have otherwise been brought to the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) Only one piece of legislation shall be placed on the Northeast Assembly floor at a time.
(c)  Any Representative may make a motion to suspend section 2(a) of this Standing Order to move a piece proposed legislation to the top of the queue.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for 24 hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the Lt. Governor shall move such piece of proposed legislation to the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after any legislation then currently on the Northeast Assembly floor is voted upon or tabled.

3. Legislative Debates and Voting
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation shall be open for debate until seventy-two (72) hours after the Lt. Governor introduces it to the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) During debate, Representatives may suggest amendments to proposed legislation.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation publicly deems the amendment friendly, no vote on the amendment shall be required.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation does not publicly deem the amendment friendly, a vote on the amendment shall be taken at the end of the debate period.
(c) The sponsor of a proposed amendment may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before the end of the debate period.
(d) A vote will be held on all proposed amendments not deemed friendly at the end of the debate period.  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  An amendment shall pass  if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(e)  The sponsor of a piece of proposed legislation may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before a final vote is taken on the proposed legislation.
(f) A final vote the proposed legislation shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period).  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  A piece of proposed legislation shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(g) The Lt. Governor shall certify the results of any vote within twenty-four (24) hours of the end of the voting period.
(h) Any Representative may make a motion to suspend sections 3(a), 3(d) or 3(f) of this Standing Order to increase or decrease the time of the debate or voting period.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for 24 hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the relevant period shall be changed.

4. Terminology
(a) All legislation regarding the rules of the Northeast Assembly shall be called Standing Orders.
(b) All proposed legislation that requires the signature of the Governor shall be called a Bill until signed and thereafter an Act.
(c) The Lt. Governor shall maintain a public list of Standing Orders, unsuccessful bills actually voted upon, and Acts in the Atlasia Wiki for the Northeast, with a link to the text of such legislation.

Why should the Lieutenant Governor be the only one to officially introduce pieces of legislation ? This should be done by any representative whenever he wants.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 30, 2009, 02:57:24 PM
Second Draft (new language in red)

Standing Order on Assembly Procedure

1. Proposed Legislation Thread
(a) The Lt. Governor shall open a new Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread at the start of each Northeast Assembly term.
(b) Representatives, the Governor and any concerned Northeast citizen shall post the full text of any proposed legislation in a response to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread for the current term.  Each response shall contain only one piece of proposed legislation. 
(c) Nothing shall be posted to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread except proposed legislation or a Northeast citizen's signature for proposed citizen legislation.

2. Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor
(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) , (d) and (e), the Lt. Governor shall introduce legislation from the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread on the Northeast Assembly floor in chronological order, starting with the earliest piece of proposed legislation, except that the Lt. Governor shall not introduce more than two (2) pieces of legislation from the same Representative, initial sponsoring citizen, or the Governor before introducing legislation from other Representatives or the Governor that has been proposed before the date such third piece of proposed legislation would have otherwise been brought to the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (e), only one piece of legislation shall be placed on the Northeast Assembly floor at a time.
(c)  Any Representative may make a motion to suspend section 2(a) of this Standing Order to move a piece proposed legislation to the top of the queue.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for 24 hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the Lt. Governor shall move such piece of proposed legislation to the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after any legislation then currently on the Northeast Assembly floor is voted upon or tabled.
(d) Except as provided in subsection (a), the Lt. Governor shall place legislation successfully proposed by citizens on the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after any current legislation then on the Northeast Assembly floor is finally voted upon or tabled.
(e) The Lt. Governor shall place any legislation that is vetoed by the Governor on the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after such veto.  Veto override votes may occur while other legislation is on the Northeast Assembly floor.

3. Legislative Debates and Voting
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation other than veto override votes shall be open for debate until seventy-two (72) hours after the Lt. Governor introduces it to the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) During debate, Representatives may suggest amendments to proposed legislation.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation publicly deems the amendment friendly, no vote on the amendment shall be required.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation does not publicly deem the amendment friendly, a vote on the amendment shall be taken at the end of the debate period.
(c) The sponsor of a proposed amendment may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before the end of the debate period.
(d) A vote will be held on all proposed amendments not deemed friendly at the end of the debate period.  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  An amendment shall pass  if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(e)  The sponsor of a piece of proposed legislation may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before a final vote is taken on the proposed legislation.
(f) A final vote on the proposed legislation shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period).  A final vote on veto overrides shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such votes shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  A piece of proposed legislation or veto override shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(g) The Lt. Governor shall certify the results of any vote within twenty-four (24) hours of the end of the voting period.
(h) Any Representative may make a motion to suspend sections 3(a), 3(d) or 3(f) of this Standing Order to increase or decrease the time of the debate or voting period.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the relevant period shall be changed.

4. Terminology
(a) All legislation regarding the rules of the Northeast Assembly shall be called Standing Orders.
(b) All proposed legislation that requires the signature of the Governor shall be called a Bill until signed and thereafter an Act.
(c) The Lt. Governor shall maintain a public list of Standing Orders, unsuccessful bills actually voted upon, and Acts in the Atlasia Wiki for the Northeast, with a link to the text of such legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 30, 2009, 03:01:43 PM
Why should the Lieutenant Governor be the only one to officially introduce pieces of legislation ? This should be done by any representative whenever he wants.

Under Section 15 of the Constitutional Amendment creating this Assembly (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102445.0), the Lt. Governor runs the Assembly floor.  Therefore, he should move legislation from the proposed legislation thread to the Assembly floor.   

That's all I meant by introduces, though it might not be the right term.  The person who initially sponsors a bill in the proposed legislation thread would have all say on amendments and the like, not the Lt. Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 30, 2009, 03:08:19 PM
I like the SOAP, cinyc.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 30, 2009, 03:11:03 PM
Why should the Lieutenant Governor be the only one to officially introduce pieces of legislation ? This should be done by any representative whenever he wants.

Under Section 15 of the Constitutional Amendment creating this Assembly (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102445.0), the Lt. Governor runs the Assembly floor.  Therefore, he should move legislation from the proposed legislation thread to the Assembly floor.   

That's all I meant by introduces, though it might not be the right term.  The person who initially sponsors a bill in the proposed legislation thread would have all say on amendments and the like, not the Lt. Governor.

Well, I think I know this Amendment, since I wrote most of it. ;)
What I meant is just that LG certifies the vote results, just as did the CJO previously. I understand you point, but you should replace the verb "introduce" by something different, to make clear that Lt Gov hasn't any "right of veto" on this (I obviously don't fear anything from Barnes :) but yu never know).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 30, 2009, 03:15:12 PM
Why should the Lieutenant Governor be the only one to officially introduce pieces of legislation ? This should be done by any representative whenever he wants.

Under Section 15 of the Constitutional Amendment creating this Assembly (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102445.0), the Lt. Governor runs the Assembly floor.  Therefore, he should move legislation from the proposed legislation thread to the Assembly floor.   

That's all I meant by introduces, though it might not be the right term.  The person who initially sponsors a bill in the proposed legislation thread would have all say on amendments and the like, not the Lt. Governor.

Well, I think I know this Amendment, since I wrote most of it. ;)
What I meant is just that LG certifies the vote results, just as did the CJO previously. I understand you point, but you should replace the verb "introduce" by something different, to make clear that Lt Gov hasn't any "right of veto" on this (I obviously don't fear anything from Barnes :) but yu never know).

Is "move" better than "introduce" or is there some other verb you have in mind?  I can't think of another one.  Maybe "place"?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on September 30, 2009, 07:25:47 PM
Cinyc - exceptionally well done on these Standing Orders! Sensational work!

How about "invites the sponsor to move or moves if the sponsor is a concerned citizen or the Governor" rather than "introduces"? That leaves the Lt Gov in charge of ordering the introduction of Bills to the House, but leaves him/her bound by the SOAP - preventing them from potentially vetoing a Bill by refusing to introduce it?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 30, 2009, 10:57:24 PM
Cinyc - exceptionally well done on these Standing Orders! Sensational work!

How about "invites the sponsor to move or moves if the sponsor is a concerned citizen or the Governor" rather than "introduces"? That leaves the Lt Gov in charge of ordering the introduction of Bills to the House, but leaves him/her bound by the SOAP - preventing them from potentially vetoing a Bill by refusing to introduce it?

What happens if a sponsor is absent and doesn't move it ASAP?  Should we have a time limit before the Lt. Gov moves on to the next bill?  Or should we just let the Lt. Gov place it on the floor?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 01, 2009, 12:06:36 AM
Cinyc - exceptionally well done on these Standing Orders! Sensational work!

How about "invites the sponsor to move or moves if the sponsor is a concerned citizen or the Governor" rather than "introduces"? That leaves the Lt Gov in charge of ordering the introduction of Bills to the House, but leaves him/her bound by the SOAP - preventing them from potentially vetoing a Bill by refusing to introduce it?

What happens if a sponsor is absent and doesn't move it ASAP?  Should we have a time limit before the Lt. Gov moves on to the next bill?  Or should we just let the Lt. Gov place it on the floor?

How about whoever gets to it first so that we can proceed as quickly as possible?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 01, 2009, 12:48:43 AM
Cinyc - exceptionally well done on these Standing Orders! Sensational work!

How about "invites the sponsor to move or moves if the sponsor is a concerned citizen or the Governor" rather than "introduces"? That leaves the Lt Gov in charge of ordering the introduction of Bills to the House, but leaves him/her bound by the SOAP - preventing them from potentially vetoing a Bill by refusing to introduce it?

We could just write that someone who introduces a bill shall do it in both the threads immediately. Could it work ? ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 01, 2009, 12:49:56 AM
Cinyc - exceptionally well done on these Standing Orders! Sensational work!

How about "invites the sponsor to move or moves if the sponsor is a concerned citizen or the Governor" rather than "introduces"? That leaves the Lt Gov in charge of ordering the introduction of Bills to the House, but leaves him/her bound by the SOAP - preventing them from potentially vetoing a Bill by refusing to introduce it?

We could just write that someone who introduces a bill shall do it in both the threads immediately. Could it work ? ;)

No. We don't want to clutter the floor too much.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 01, 2009, 12:52:02 AM
Cinyc - exceptionally well done on these Standing Orders! Sensational work!

How about "invites the sponsor to move or moves if the sponsor is a concerned citizen or the Governor" rather than "introduces"? That leaves the Lt Gov in charge of ordering the introduction of Bills to the House, but leaves him/her bound by the SOAP - preventing them from potentially vetoing a Bill by refusing to introduce it?

We could just write that someone who introduces a bill shall do it in both the threads immediately. Could it work ? ;)

No. We don't want to clutter the floor too much.

Any Rep has the right to introduce bills. This right should be fully guaranteed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 01, 2009, 12:54:35 AM
Cinyc - exceptionally well done on these Standing Orders! Sensational work!

How about "invites the sponsor to move or moves if the sponsor is a concerned citizen or the Governor" rather than "introduces"? That leaves the Lt Gov in charge of ordering the introduction of Bills to the House, but leaves him/her bound by the SOAP - preventing them from potentially vetoing a Bill by refusing to introduce it?

We could just write that someone who introduces a bill shall do it in both the threads immediately. Could it work ? ;)

No. We don't want to clutter the floor too much.

Any Rep has the right to introduce bills. This right should be fully guaranteed.

No


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 01, 2009, 01:09:41 AM
Cinyc - exceptionally well done on these Standing Orders! Sensational work!

How about "invites the sponsor to move or moves if the sponsor is a concerned citizen or the Governor" rather than "introduces"? That leaves the Lt Gov in charge of ordering the introduction of Bills to the House, but leaves him/her bound by the SOAP - preventing them from potentially vetoing a Bill by refusing to introduce it?

We could just write that someone who introduces a bill shall do it in both the threads immediately. Could it work ? ;)

I don't think we should have tons of legislation on the floor at the same time, which may happen if we let Representatives just propose legislation in both threads.  Having more than one bill open for discussion would clutter up the Assembly thread and make things confusing.    Unlike the Atlasian Senate, we have only one Assembly thread to conduct all floor business.   The nature of the Atlas Fantasy Elections sub-board doesn't lend itself to a regional legislature having more than one or two threads - things would get lost to the second or third page of the sub-board if Representatives don't comment on it for a day or so.

I'd prefer that the President of the Senate (i.e. the Lt. Governor unless designated to the Speaker) move items from the proposed legislation thread on the Assembly floor whenever a bill is passed or tabled.  This is similar to what the President Pro Tempore does in the Senate - which seems to work fine there.  We can make sure the Lt. Governor has no discretion over which items to place on the floor by using a proper phrasing like "place on the Northeast Assembly floor" or "place on the Northeast Assembly floor on behalf (and stating the name) of the sponsor", and specifying the order in which items must be placed on the floor (which Section 2 of my proposed bill already does).  Or perhaps by just adding a sentence stating that the Lt. Governor has no power to change the order in which items are placed on the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 01, 2009, 01:14:39 AM
Why have a second thread? If legislation is proposed the Speaker of President can place it on a queue with links that can be reposted intermittently with the pending order of business. That way things are kept orderly, but you don't clog the entire board. Between the Mideast and Northeast legislatures, along with member offices, you are looking at 11 threads! No reason to add another.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 01, 2009, 01:16:10 AM
Why have a second thread? If legislation is proposed the Speaker of President can place it on a queue with links that can be reposted intermittently with the pending order of business. That way things are kept orderly, but you don't clog the entire board. Between the Mideast and Northeast legislatures, along with member offices, you are looking at 11 threads! No reason to add another.

There should be a regional government board for all the regional governments to post on.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 01, 2009, 01:22:00 AM
Why have a second thread? If legislation is proposed the Speaker of President can place it on a queue with links that can be reposted intermittently with the pending order of business. That way things are kept orderly, but you don't clog the entire board. Between the Mideast and Northeast legislatures, along with member offices, you are looking at 11 threads! No reason to add another.

The reason for a separate proposed legislation thread is so that everyone knows where to find all proposed NE legislation and can easily figure out what should be up next should the Lt. Governor/Speaker try to play games with the agenda.  Links are only as good as the person who maintains them, and proposing legislation in the NE Assembly floor thread would clutter this thread and could lead to confusion as to which bill is actually being debated at any given time.

We're not asking for much.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 01, 2009, 01:30:29 AM
Why have a second thread? If legislation is proposed the Speaker of President can place it on a queue with links that can be reposted intermittently with the pending order of business. That way things are kept orderly, but you don't clog the entire board. Between the Mideast and Northeast legislatures, along with member offices, you are looking at 11 threads! No reason to add another.

The reason for a separate proposed legislation thread is so that everyone knows where to find all proposed NE legislation and can easily figure out what should be up next should the Lt. Governor/Speaker try to play games with the agenda.  Links are only as good as the person who maintains them, and proposing legislation in the NE Assembly floor thread would clutter this thread and could lead to confusion as to which bill is actually being debated at any given time.

We're not asking for much.

Just making sure you realize that 3 ME assemblymen threads + ME Assembly + NE Assembly + NE Assembly Legislation + 6 NE assemblymen = 12 threads. The first page of this board can hold thirteen non-stickied threads.

Perhaps a regional government sub-board will soon be necessary. A thought for the mods to bring up to Dave perhaps. If one more region passes a legislature it will definitely be needed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: big bad fab on October 01, 2009, 03:20:01 AM
Why have a second thread? If legislation is proposed the Speaker of President can place it on a queue with links that can be reposted intermittently with the pending order of business. That way things are kept orderly, but you don't clog the entire board. Between the Mideast and Northeast legislatures, along with member offices, you are looking at 11 threads! No reason to add another.

The reason for a separate proposed legislation thread is so that everyone knows where to find all proposed NE legislation and can easily figure out what should be up next should the Lt. Governor/Speaker try to play games with the agenda.  Links are only as good as the person who maintains them, and proposing legislation in the NE Assembly floor thread would clutter this thread and could lead to confusion as to which bill is actually being debated at any given time.

We're not asking for much.

Just making sure you realize that 3 ME assemblymen threads + ME Assembly + NE Assembly + NE Assembly Legislation + 6 NE assemblymen = 12 threads. The first page of this board can hold thirteen non-stickied threads.

Perhaps a regional government sub-board will soon be necessary. A thought for the mods to bring up to Dave perhaps. If one more region passes a legislature it will definitely be needed.

I allow myself to post in this thread, just to concur with PS, as Mideast assemblyman.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 01, 2009, 06:06:37 AM
Cinyc - exceptionally well done on these Standing Orders! Sensational work!

How about "invites the sponsor to move or moves if the sponsor is a concerned citizen or the Governor" rather than "introduces"? That leaves the Lt Gov in charge of ordering the introduction of Bills to the House, but leaves him/her bound by the SOAP - preventing them from potentially vetoing a Bill by refusing to introduce it?

We could just write that someone who introduces a bill shall do it in both the threads immediately. Could it work ? ;)

I don't think we should have tons of legislation on the floor at the same time, which may happen if we let Representatives just propose legislation in both threads.  Having more than one bill open for discussion would clutter up the Assembly thread and make things confusing.    Unlike the Atlasian Senate, we have only one Assembly thread to conduct all floor business.   The nature of the Atlas Fantasy Elections sub-board doesn't lend itself to a regional legislature having more than one or two threads - things would get lost to the second or third page of the sub-board if Representatives don't comment on it for a day or so.

I'd prefer that the President of the Senate (i.e. the Lt. Governor unless designated to the Speaker) move items from the proposed legislation thread on the Assembly floor whenever a bill is passed or tabled.  This is similar to what the President Pro Tempore does in the Senate - which seems to work fine there.  We can make sure the Lt. Governor has no discretion over which items to place on the floor by using a proper phrasing like "place on the Northeast Assembly floor" or "place on the Northeast Assembly floor on behalf (and stating the name) of the sponsor", and specifying the order in which items must be placed on the floor (which Section 2 of my proposed bill already does).  Or perhaps by just adding a sentence stating that the Lt. Governor has no power to change the order in which items are placed on the floor.

Seems good. :)


Why have a second thread? If legislation is proposed the Speaker of President can place it on a queue with links that can be reposted intermittently with the pending order of business. That way things are kept orderly, but you don't clog the entire board. Between the Mideast and Northeast legislatures, along with member offices, you are looking at 11 threads! No reason to add another.

The reason for a separate proposed legislation thread is so that everyone knows where to find all proposed NE legislation and can easily figure out what should be up next should the Lt. Governor/Speaker try to play games with the agenda.  Links are only as good as the person who maintains them, and proposing legislation in the NE Assembly floor thread would clutter this thread and could lead to confusion as to which bill is actually being debated at any given time.

We're not asking for much.

Just making sure you realize that 3 ME assemblymen threads + ME Assembly + NE Assembly + NE Assembly Legislation + 6 NE assemblymen = 12 threads. The first page of this board can hold thirteen non-stickied threads.

Well, 12 or 13 doesn't change so much.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Badger on October 01, 2009, 07:37:02 AM
Why have a second thread? If legislation is proposed the Speaker of President can place it on a queue with links that can be reposted intermittently with the pending order of business. That way things are kept orderly, but you don't clog the entire board. Between the Mideast and Northeast legislatures, along with member offices, you are looking at 11 threads! No reason to add another.

The reason for a separate proposed legislation thread is so that everyone knows where to find all proposed NE legislation and can easily figure out what should be up next should the Lt. Governor/Speaker try to play games with the agenda.  Links are only as good as the person who maintains them, and proposing legislation in the NE Assembly floor thread would clutter this thread and could lead to confusion as to which bill is actually being debated at any given time.

We're not asking for much.

Just making sure you realize that 3 ME assemblymen threads + ME Assembly + NE Assembly + NE Assembly Legislation + 6 NE assemblymen = 12 threads. The first page of this board can hold thirteen non-stickied threads.

Perhaps a regional government sub-board will soon be necessary. A thought for the mods to bring up to Dave perhaps. If one more region passes a legislature it will definitely be needed.

I allow myself to post in this thread, just to concur with PS, as Mideast assemblyman.

What Fab said.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 01, 2009, 12:42:09 PM
Third Draft (new language from the first draft in red)

Standing Order on Assembly Procedure

1. Proposed Legislation Thread
(a) The Lt. Governor shall open a new Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread at the start of each Northeast Assembly term.
(b) Representatives, the Governor and any concerned Northeast citizen shall post the full text of any proposed legislation in a response to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread for the current term.  Each response shall contain only one piece of proposed legislation. 
(c) Nothing shall be posted to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread except proposed legislation or a Northeast citizen's signature for proposed citizen legislation.

2. Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor
(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) , (d), (e) and (f), the Lt. Governor shall place legislation from the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread on the Northeast Assembly floor (on behalf and stating the name of the sponsor) in chronological order, starting with the earliest piece of proposed legislation, except that the Lt. Governor shall not place more than two (2) pieces of legislation from the same Representative, initial sponsoring citizen, or the Governor before placing legislation from other Representatives or the Governor that has been proposed before the date such third piece of proposed legislation would have otherwise been brought to the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (e) and (f), only one piece of legislation shall be placed on the Northeast Assembly floor at a time.
(c)  Any Representative may make a motion to suspend section 2(a) of this Standing Order to move a piece proposed legislation to the top of the queue.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for 24 hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the Lt. Governor shall place such piece of proposed legislation on the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after any legislation then currently on the Northeast Assembly floor is voted upon or tabled.
(d) Any Representative may make a motion to suspend section 2(b) of this Standing Order to place more than one piece of legislation on the Northeast Assembly floor at any given time.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for 24 hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the Lt. Governor shall place such additional pieces of proposed legislation on the Northeast Assembly floor immediately at the end of the voting period.
(e) Except as provided in subsection (a), the Lt. Governor shall place legislation successfully proposed by citizens on the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after any current legislation then on the Northeast Assembly floor is finally voted upon or tabled.
(f) The Lt. Governor shall place any legislation that is vetoed by the Governor on the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after such veto.  Veto override votes may occur while other legislation is on the Northeast Assembly floor.
(g) Nothing in this Section 2 shall allow the Lt. Governor to do anything but place proposed legislation on the Northeast Assembly floor on behalf of the sponsor of such legislation.

3. Legislative Debates and Voting
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation other than veto override votes shall be open for debate until seventy-two (72) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) During debate, Representatives may suggest amendments to proposed legislation.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation publicly deems the amendment friendly, no vote on the amendment shall be required.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation does not publicly deem the amendment friendly, a vote on the amendment shall be taken at the end of the debate period.
(c) The sponsor of a proposed amendment may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before the end of the debate period.
(d) A vote will be held on all proposed amendments not deemed friendly at the end of the debate period.  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  An amendment shall pass  if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(e)  The sponsor of a piece of proposed legislation may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before a final vote is taken on the proposed legislation.
(f) A final vote on the proposed legislation shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period).  A final vote on veto overrides shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such votes shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  A piece of proposed legislation or veto override shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(g) The Lt. Governor shall certify the results of any vote within twenty-four (24) hours of the end of the voting period.
(h) Any Representative may make a motion to suspend sections 3(a), 3(d) or 3(f) of this Standing Order to increase or decrease the time of the debate or voting period.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the relevant period shall be changed.

4. Terminology
(a) All legislation regarding the rules of the Northeast Assembly shall be called Standing Orders.
(b) All proposed legislation that requires the signature of the Governor shall be called a Bill until signed and thereafter an Act.
(c) The Lt. Governor shall maintain a public list of Standing Orders, unsuccessful bills actually voted upon, and Acts in the Atlasia Wiki for the Northeast, with a link to the text of such legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 01, 2009, 12:47:16 PM
I think my Third Draft of the SOAP is complete enough to be put to a vote should the Speaker deem it possible at this time.

The two main changes from the second draft were to change "introduce" to "place" and add a section allowing Representatives to make a motion to place more than one piece of proposed legislation on the Senate floor at any given time.  I've also added a subsection making it clear that the only power the Lt. Governor has is to place items on the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 01, 2009, 12:51:12 PM
I think my Third Draft of the SOAP is complete enough to be put to a vote should the Speaker deem it possible at this time.

The two main changes from the second draft were to change "introduce" to "place" and add a section allowing Representatives to make a motion to place more than one piece of proposed legislation on the Senate floor at any given time.  I've also added a subsection making it clear that the only power the Lt. Governor has is to place items on the floor.

Seems great. I would like to congratulate you for your work. :)


Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 01, 2009, 01:19:59 PM
Can we vote?

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 01, 2009, 02:01:41 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 01, 2009, 02:09:20 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 01, 2009, 02:12:17 PM
We got it. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 02, 2009, 12:53:13 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 02, 2009, 12:55:02 AM
When do my colleagues wish to begin debating "real" legislation?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 02, 2009, 01:49:35 AM
When do my colleagues wish to begin debating "real" legislation?

In absence of a legislation introduction thread, I'll post this here.

Bipartisan Safe Sex Education Bill

Section A: Exemptions


1.   This act only applies to public high schools (grades 9/10-12)
2.   This act does not apply to schools with less than 400 enrolled students.
3.   This requirements included in this act take effect starting with the class of 2015.

Section B: Safe Sex Education Requirements


1.   Completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.
2.   The course must teach about methods of contraception, including condoms and birth-control pills, as well as proper usage of said methods.
3.   The course must teach that abstinence is the safest way to avoid venereal diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
4.   The course must teach sexual anatomy, including the functions of male and female reproductive organs.
5.   The course must teach the common indicators of breast cancer and prostate cancer, as well as how to check the body for irregularities that are common indicators.

Section C: Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention Education Requirements


1.   The course must teach how HIV/AIDS is contracted, the effects of HIV/AIDS, and how to best avoid HIV/AIDS.
2.   The course must also cover herpes, chlamydia, syphilis, hepatitis, and human papilloma virus (HPV).
3.   The course must provide a list of local clinics that provide testing for STDs.

Section D: Pregnancy Education Requirements


1.   The course must teach the developmental process of the pregnancy, including zygotes, embryos, and fetuses.
2.   The course must teach that adoption and abortion are both options for unwanted pregnancies.
3.   The course must provide a list of pregnancy help clinics that provide counseling and information regarding how to handle being pregnant.
4.   All women under the age of 18 seeking the termination of a pregnancy are required to attend a 90 minute counseling session that covers the actual procedure, the risk involved, how to handle an abortion and maintain mental and physical health, and alternative options to abortion such as adoption.

Section E: Privacy Requirements


1.   The course must respect the students’ right to privacy.
2.   Students must NOT be pressured into answering questions they are uncomfortable with.
3.   Teachers are expected and required not to reveal any private details from private conversations related to the course material.

Section F: Clarification


1.     This act replaces all existing overlapping policy in the Northeast region as soon as it takes effect.

Sponsors:
Rep. Hamilton and Rep. Kalwejt


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 02, 2009, 05:29:09 AM
The motion is that the Bill be considered.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No." I think the Ayes have it.

The sponsor, Representative Hamilton, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 02, 2009, 05:40:08 AM
I think the bill is a good mandate for our youth. Teenagers often make poor decisions, especially regarding sex, and I think this mandate will demonstrate the seriousness of the issue. We must work to educate, not pressure, but teach with good faith, our youth about the risks that come along with sex. This bill aims to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and encourage frequent testing, reduce abortions and teen pregnancies, encourage abstinence without forcing it, and overall teaching our youth how to keep their bodies healthy and safe. It also seeks to offer information about where teenagers can go for help- local clinics, etc.

There may be some "controversial" provisions but there is nothing in this bill that is extreme or anti-religious. This is a bipartisan development that reaches across the aisle to address concerns shared by Northeasterners of all ideologies- teen pregnancy, STD prevention, breast/prostate cancer, contraception, and the recently explosive issue-- abortion. But these issues are considered in manner that is essentially nonideological and seeks to do nothing more than educate and protect Northeastern citizens and minimize risk for our children.

I urge my colleagues to consider and eventually support this bill. I now will yield to cosponsor Rep. Kalwejt. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 02, 2009, 06:15:42 AM
Mr. Speaker, fellow Representatives

The history teach us that ignoring this issue and pretending, that if we would not talk about teenage population sex life, nothing would happen, is a great mistake. Unwanted pregnancies in very young age, when the people are simply not ready for such responsibility like parenity, transmition of sexual dieases, etc. etc. We cannot force teenagers to not have a sexual relationships and in fact this is their rights. But we need to do whatever we can to help them understand the seriousness of this matter. And we can only help them by providing this needed knowledge how to avoid such "troubles".

I agree with my colleague from Massachusetts that this is not political matter and can be dealed with without partisianship. This is about our youth and we were sworn-in to serve all of our citizens. Long-time lack of such legislation was wrong thing, but now we have a chance to repair this.

Thank you. I yeild the florr to whatever Representative designated to speak now ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 02, 2009, 07:41:43 AM
What is the rationale behind exempting schools with less than 400 students?

Further, I know that the Northeast has a lot of pro-life relics on the books from its halycon days. Since this bill deals with abortions and those under the age of 18, I ask: Do we have a parental notification law in place?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ebowed on October 02, 2009, 09:06:28 AM
4.   All women under the age of 18 seeking the termination of a pregnancy are required to attend a 90 minute counseling session that covers the actual procedure, the risk involved, how to handle an abortion and maintain mental and physical health, and alternative options to abortion such as adoption.

1.   The course must respect the students’ right to privacy.

One of these provisions will have to be removed to resolve the inherent contradiction.  I would recommend the former.

(Unless the former provision is not taking place at the school, in which case I have to wonder exactly why mandatory counseling is included in a bill about public school sex education.  Also, will pupils under 18 who opt for adoption be required to undergo mandatory counseling where they will be notified of the potential physical and mental risks involved in continuing the pregnancy?)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 02, 2009, 09:16:09 AM
I tend to agree with my former Vice President.  Make this bill be about sex ed in schools, and not about what pregnant teens have to do.

I'd also like to amend the bill to ensure that school address homosexuality in a reality-based, non-moralistic way.  In my past sex-ed experience, homosexuality wasn't addressed at all, aside from an admission that it exists and a warning not to participate in anal sex.  (It was an uncomfortable mini-discussion, as you might imagine.)

(I'll figure out said amendment in the near future.)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 02, 2009, 11:14:47 AM
When do my colleagues wish to begin debating "real" legislation?

In absence of a legislation introduction thread, I'll post this here.

Bipartisan Safe Sex Education Bill

Section A: Exemptions


1.   This act only applies to public high schools (grades 9/10-12)
2.   This act does not apply to schools with less than 400 enrolled students.
3.   This requirements included in this act take effect starting with the class of 2015.

Section B: Safe Sex Education Requirements


1.   Completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.
2.   The course must teach about methods of contraception, including condoms and birth-control pills, as well as proper usage of said methods.
3.   The course must teach that abstinence is the safest way to avoid venereal diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
4.   The course must teach sexual anatomy, including the functions of male and female reproductive organs.
5.   The course must teach the common indicators of breast cancer and prostate cancer, as well as how to check the body for irregularities that are common indicators.

Section C: Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention Education Requirements


1.   The course must teach how HIV/AIDS is contracted, the effects of HIV/AIDS, and how to best avoid HIV/AIDS.
2.   The course must also cover herpes, chlamydia, syphilis, hepatitis, and human papilloma virus (HPV).
3.   The course must provide a list of local clinics that provide testing for STDs.

Section D: Pregnancy Education Requirements


1.   The course must teach the developmental process of the pregnancy, including zygotes, embryos, and fetuses.
2.   The course must teach that adoption and abortion are both options for unwanted pregnancies.
3.   The course must provide a list of pregnancy help clinics that provide counseling and information regarding how to handle being pregnant.
4.   All women under the age of 18 seeking the termination of a pregnancy are required to attend a 90 minute counseling session that covers the actual procedure, the risk involved, how to handle an abortion and maintain mental and physical health, and alternative options to abortion such as adoption.

Section E: Privacy Requirements


1.   The course must respect the students’ right to privacy.
2.   Students must NOT be pressured into answering questions they are uncomfortable with.
3.   Teachers are expected and required not to reveal any private details from private conversations related to the course material.

Section F: Clarification


1.     This act replaces all existing overlapping policy in the Northeast region as soon as it takes effect.

Sponsors:
Rep. Hamilton and Rep. Kalwejt

This is great. I approve it at 100%. :)


Btw, we need Mr resident's notification to make the SOAP officially pass. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 02, 2009, 12:03:20 PM
I can't support this bill without a right for parents with religious objections to opt out of all or a portion of this class.  Not every family with strong religious convictions can afford to send their children to private schools.  They should not be punished by having their children forced to sit through classes that teach methods of birth control other than abstinence.

As an aside, Rep. Smid is Mr. President right now.  He could open up the proposed legislation thread if he wishes, since the Lt. Governor has temporarily devolved his power to him.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 02, 2009, 12:05:31 PM
First: Motion to strike section A, subsection 2 in its entirity.

There's no need to limit this to schools with 401+ students.  If anything, it's the rural populations that need access to this information even more.

Second: Motion to strike section A, subsection 3 in its entirity, and replace it with:
2. The requirements included in this act take effect with the school year starting September 2011.


Certainly, districts will need to create a curriculum and text book publishers will need time to create materials to conform to the requirements of this act.  Once in place, there's no need to exclude people in the class of 2014, 13, and 12.

Motion to amend by insertion as Section B.6:
6. The course must address the issue of homosexuality and concerns specific to that portion of the student population, such as how same-sex partners can limit the risk of transmission of sexually transmitted disease, "coming out," and sexual discrimination.



Section B.5, motion to amend:
5.   The course must teach the common indicators of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and testicular cancer, as well as how to check the body for irregularities that are common indicators.


Testicular cancer is a far greater risk to this age population, and can be detected much easier via self-examination.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 02, 2009, 12:10:27 PM
Oh, and motion to strike Section D.4.  I'd gladly debate its merit as a separate bill, but it seems ill-placed in this one.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 02, 2009, 02:30:51 PM
I can't support this bill without a right for parents with religious objections to opt out of all or a portion of this class.  Not every family with strong religious convictions can afford to send their children to private schools.  They should not be punished by having their children forced to sit through classes that teach methods of birth control other than abstinence.

Anyone has the right to keep their opinion and beliefs, but anyone should be given the information to make their choice. Parents haven't the right to keep their children in ignocance for religious reasons.


Quote
As an aside, Rep. Smid is Mr. President right now.  He could open up the proposed legislation thread if he wishes, since the Lt. Governor has temporarily devolved his power to him.

Well, he didn't certify the results anyways.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 02, 2009, 03:00:12 PM
With five ayes, zero nays, and one no vote, I hereby certify that the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure has passed.

Sorry about begin gone, but I will also be gone most of Saturday (taking a trip to Warm Springs), but after that I should be around. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 02, 2009, 03:07:13 PM
With five ayes, zero nays, and one no vote, I hereby certify that the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure has passed.

Sorry about begin gone, but I will also be gone most of Saturday (taking a trip to Warm Springs), but after that I should be around. :)

Can you please open the Northeast Assembly Proposed Legislation thread? 

Thanks.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 02, 2009, 03:12:51 PM
With five ayes, zero nays, and one no vote, I hereby certify that the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure has passed.

Sorry about begin gone, but I will also be gone most of Saturday (taking a trip to Warm Springs), but after that I should be around. :)

Can you please open the Northeast Assembly Proposed Legislation thread? 

Thanks.

Done.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 02, 2009, 03:19:16 PM
First: Motion to strike section A, subsection 2 in its entirity.

There's no need to limit this to schools with 401+ students.  If anything, it's the rural populations that need access to this information even more.

Second: Motion to strike section A, subsection 3 in its entirity, and replace it with:
2. The requirements included in this act take effect with the school year starting September 2011.


Certainly, districts will need to create a curriculum and text book publishers will need time to create materials to conform to the requirements of this act.  Once in place, there's no need to exclude people in the class of 2014, 13, and 12.

Motion to amend by insertion as Section B.6:
6. The course must address the issue of homosexuality and concerns specific to that portion of the student population, such as how same-sex partners can limit the risk of transmission of sexually transmitted disease, "coming out," and sexual discrimination.



Section B.5, motion to amend:
5.   The course must teach the common indicators of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and testicular cancer, as well as how to check the body for irregularities that are common indicators.


Testicular cancer is a far greater risk to this age population, and can be detected much easier via self-examination.

Hmm, when you try to be reasonable you actually are pretty good at this. My respect for you grew immeasurably from that one post.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 02, 2009, 03:32:39 PM
I can't support this bill without a right for parents with religious objections to opt out of all or a portion of this class.  Not every family with strong religious convictions can afford to send their children to private schools.  They should not be punished by having their children forced to sit through classes that teach methods of birth control other than abstinence.

Anyone has the right to keep their opinion and beliefs, but anyone should be given the information to make their choice. Parents haven't the right to keep their children in ignocance for religious reasons.

Agreed. We exempted private schools but there is no reason people with strong religious convictions should be objecting to this. I mean, they obviously created the kid in the first place so they're having sex. Their kids also need to know how to approach sex safely and intelligently.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 02, 2009, 03:34:29 PM
First: Motion to strike section A, subsection 2 in its entirity.

There's no need to limit this to schools with 401+ students.  If anything, it's the rural populations that need access to this information even more.

Second: Motion to strike section A, subsection 3 in its entirity, and replace it with:
2. The requirements included in this act take effect with the school year starting September 2011.


Certainly, districts will need to create a curriculum and text book publishers will need time to create materials to conform to the requirements of this act.  Once in place, there's no need to exclude people in the class of 2014, 13, and 12.

Motion to amend by insertion as Section B.6:
6. The course must address the issue of homosexuality and concerns specific to that portion of the student population, such as how same-sex partners can limit the risk of transmission of sexually transmitted disease, "coming out," and sexual discrimination.



Section B.5, motion to amend:
5.   The course must teach the common indicators of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and testicular cancer, as well as how to check the body for irregularities that are common indicators.


Testicular cancer is a far greater risk to this age population, and can be detected much easier via self-examination.

Hmm, when you try to be reasonable you actually are pretty good at this. My respect for you grew immeasurably from that one post.

All other accepted as friendly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 02, 2009, 04:00:54 PM
I can't support this bill without a right for parents with religious objections to opt out of all or a portion of this class.  Not every family with strong religious convictions can afford to send their children to private schools.  They should not be punished by having their children forced to sit through classes that teach methods of birth control other than abstinence.

Anyone has the right to keep their opinion and beliefs, but anyone should be given the information to make their choice. Parents haven't the right to keep their children in ignocance for religious reasons.

Agreed. We exempted private schools but there is no reason people with strong religious convictions should be objecting to this. I mean, they obviously created the kid in the first place so they're having sex. Their kids also need to know how to approach sex safely and intelligently.

Christian teaching on birth control and sex outside of marriage differs from what you'd propose students be required to be lectured about in school.  Parents should have the ultimate authority on their childrens' moral education, not the state.  Therefore, I simply can't support this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 02, 2009, 04:03:15 PM
I can't support this bill without a right for parents with religious objections to opt out of all or a portion of this class.  Not every family with strong religious convictions can afford to send their children to private schools.  They should not be punished by having their children forced to sit through classes that teach methods of birth control other than abstinence.

Anyone has the right to keep their opinion and beliefs, but anyone should be given the information to make their choice. Parents haven't the right to keep their children in ignocance for religious reasons.

Agreed. We exempted private schools but there is no reason people with strong religious convictions should be objecting to this. I mean, they obviously created the kid in the first place so they're having sex. Their kids also need to know how to approach sex safely and intelligently.

Christian teaching on birth control and sex outside of marriage differs from what you'd propose students be required to be lectured about in school.  Parents should have the ultimate authority on their childrens' moral education, not the state.  Therefore, I simply can't support this bill.

This bill doesn't impose morals on students. It merely teaches techniques of safety and protection of health and life changing consequences. Christians surely don't more teen pregnancies and abortions than would happen with this bill in effect, do they?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 02, 2009, 04:24:46 PM
I can't support this bill without a right for parents with religious objections to opt out of all or a portion of this class.  Not every family with strong religious convictions can afford to send their children to private schools.  They should not be punished by having their children forced to sit through classes that teach methods of birth control other than abstinence.

Anyone has the right to keep their opinion and beliefs, but anyone should be given the information to make their choice. Parents haven't the right to keep their children in ignocance for religious reasons.

Agreed. We exempted private schools but there is no reason people with strong religious convictions should be objecting to this. I mean, they obviously created the kid in the first place so they're having sex. Their kids also need to know how to approach sex safely and intelligently.

Which approachment is not limited to their teenage period.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 02, 2009, 04:48:06 PM
I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 02, 2009, 05:11:53 PM
I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 02, 2009, 05:17:18 PM
I'd like to point out that the Kern High School District requires sexual education. The KHSD is run by theocrats-- literally, people who spend millions to put "In God We Trust" in every classroom and seeks to implement school prayer, and containing a board member who punched out a Prop 8 opponent (a homosexual 20 something).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 02, 2009, 05:18:08 PM
I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.
Under the SOAP (which this bill may or may not be subject to), we vote on all unfriendly amendments at the end of the 72-hour debate period.

Am I correct that this and the homosexuality amendment are the two unfriendly ones and everything else proposed so far was accepted?

On the merits my amendment - I don't think the law is constitutional without it.  I believe it violates the Atlasian and Northeast Constitution's prohibitions on enacting laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion in its current form.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 02, 2009, 05:19:21 PM
I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.
Under the SOAP (which this bill may or may not be subject to), we vote on all unfriendly amendments at the end of the 72-hour debate period.

Am I correct that this and the homosexuality amendment are the two unfriendly ones and everything else proposed so far was accepted?

On the merits my amendment - I don't think the law is constitutional without it.  I believe it violates the Atlasian and Northeast Constitution's prohibitions on enacting laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion in its current form.

This bill doesn't have anything to do with religion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 02, 2009, 05:27:17 PM
I'd like to point out that the Kern High School District requires sexual education. The KHSD is run by theocrats-- literally, people who spend millions to put "In God We Trust" in every classroom and seeks to implement school prayer, and containing a board member who punched out a Prop 8 opponent (a homosexual 20 something).

Really?  Here's what the Kern County HS District's own website (http://www.kernhigh.org/hivweb/index.htm) says about the "required" HIV/AIDS Prevention Course:

Quote from: KHSD
Parents are notified of our instruction with a bilingual letter mailed to each student’s home, two to three weeks prior to instruction. The informative letter outlines the curriculum content, time of instruction, and the date and time of a special parent night. Parent nights are held at four different school sites (four separate nights) to facilitate easy access for interested parents and guardians. The 90-minute presentation features all four HIV instructors and the program coordinator explaining, lesson by lesson, what their sons and/or daughters will be offered. The parent letter also allows the guardian to opt their child out of our instruction by filling out a short form and delivering it back to the school site.


It forces children to attend a sex education class despite their parents' legitimate religious objections to what is being taught about things like contraception.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 02, 2009, 05:31:11 PM
I attended a KHSD school. The HIV/AIDS is a 3 day class. The sexual health class is a semester long, which most students take as a freshman or in summer school. I personally did not attend the HIV/AIDS seminar but HIV/AIDS is covered in the sexual health class.

There should be no religious objections to promoting safer sexual practices as an alternative to risky sexual practices. There should be no religious objections to presenting alternatives to abortion such as adoption. There should be no religious objections to teaching how to look for cancers such as breast cancer.

EDIT: I didn't even have my parents sign the form to opt out of the 3 day seminar, I just didn't do it. It isn't "required" or part of a grade or anything. Every single student was required to take the semester course to graduate though.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 02, 2009, 05:38:10 PM

Kind of off-topic, but holy ѕhit, the Wikipedia article for that is one of the worst things I've ever read.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 02, 2009, 05:58:28 PM
I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.

Such amendment would kill the entire idea of the bill


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 02, 2009, 06:01:05 PM
I attended a KHSD school. The HIV/AIDS is a 3 day class. The sexual health class is a semester long, which most students take as a freshman or in summer school. I personally did not attend the HIV/AIDS seminar but HIV/AIDS is covered in the sexual health class.

There should be no religious objections to promoting safer sexual practices as an alternative to risky sexual practices. There should be no religious objections to presenting alternatives to abortion such as adoption. There should be no religious objections to teaching how to look for cancers such as breast cancer.

EDIT: I didn't even have my parents sign the form to opt out of the 3 day seminar, I just didn't do it. It isn't "required" or part of a grade or anything. Every single student was required to take the semester course to graduate though.

Again, even in ultra-liberal California, the law (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/se/faq.asp) gives parents the right to opt their children out of high school sexual health education classes:

Quote from: California Department of Education
EC sections 51937 and 51938 explain that parents or guardians must be notified (passive consent) by the school at the beginning of the school year about planned comprehensive sexual health education and HIV/AIDS prevention education, be given an opportunity to review materials, and be given the opportunity to request in writing that their child not participate in the instruction.

My amendment requests nothing less.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 02, 2009, 06:02:31 PM
I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.

Such amendment would kill the entire idea of the bill

Yes. The whole point of the bill is that it includes provisions that can satisfy everybody in someway. The idea of religious exemption will ultimately kill the bill, as there will no longer be the support needed to pass this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 02, 2009, 11:48:37 PM
I rise to speak in favour of the Bill, and look forward to debating the foreshadowed amendments.

A comprehensive sexual education programme in high schools will no doubt reduce the prevalance of abortion in the Northeast. I believe that this is a worthwhile goal and that this Bill will establish such an education programme.

I believe that nothing in this Bill imposes a constraint on the religious practices of parents, nor students, however I recognise the right of parents to make that decision for themselves and if necessary, opt-out of classes taught at their child's school.

The teaching of contraceptives and safe sex practices will not merely reduce the teen pregnancy rate in the Northeast, but that when the current students are married or in a long-term committed relationship, they will have a thorough understanding of the means of preventing an unplanned pregnancy if they so choose. As young adult couples are represented in abortion statistics, in years ahead, this Bill will help to reduce not just teen abortion figures, but also the number of abortions sought by young adult couples.

Despite my support for the teaching of contraceptive and safe sex methods, I am particularly pleased that abstinence will still be encouraged of the students and that such encouragement will not be taught from a moral or religious perspective - as this is certainly a matter for parental instruction - but will rather be taught from a practical perspective as a certain means of preventing both pregnancy and STDs.

I commend this Bill to the House.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 03, 2009, 01:55:52 AM
I attended a KHSD school. The HIV/AIDS is a 3 day class. The sexual health class is a semester long, which most students take as a freshman or in summer school. I personally did not attend the HIV/AIDS seminar but HIV/AIDS is covered in the sexual health class.

There should be no religious objections to promoting safer sexual practices as an alternative to risky sexual practices. There should be no religious objections to presenting alternatives to abortion such as adoption. There should be no religious objections to teaching how to look for cancers such as breast cancer.

EDIT: I didn't even have my parents sign the form to opt out of the 3 day seminar, I just didn't do it. It isn't "required" or part of a grade or anything. Every single student was required to take the semester course to graduate though.

Again, even in ultra-liberal California, the law (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/se/faq.asp) gives parents the right to opt their children out of high school sexual health education classes:

Quote from: California Department of Education
EC sections 51937 and 51938 explain that parents or guardians must be notified (passive consent) by the school at the beginning of the school year about planned comprehensive sexual health education and HIV/AIDS prevention education, be given an opportunity to review materials, and be given the opportunity to request in writing that their child not participate in the instruction.

My amendment requests nothing less.

CA is not ultra-liberal. Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York are "ultra-liberal". :P

That particular example, again, applies only to the specific 3-day or week-long seminars focusing mostly on HIV/AIDS. This bill is requiring this as a class to graduate from high school. CA kids still have to take the regular class.

This bill can be considered "public safety." Anything we can do to encourage frequent testing and safe sex practices, as well as anything that may lower the STD rate, protect not only individuals, but the community and region as a whole. Unless a couple is each others' only partner EVER, they are getting mixed in with everyone else's potential diseases. Obviously we can't legislate STDs and abortions and pregnancies and breast cancer out of existence, but we sure can try as hard as we can at the regional level to minimize their reach.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 03, 2009, 05:02:23 AM
I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.

Such amendment would kill the entire idea of the bill

Precisely. I will never support this because it makes no sense.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 03, 2009, 05:03:56 AM
I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.

Such amendment would kill the entire idea of the bill

Precisely. I will never support this because it makes no sense.

We can give it a fair vote but I doubt it passes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 03, 2009, 06:17:01 AM
I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

I know that this amendment will not have enough support to pass but go ahead and vote.

Such amendment would kill the entire idea of the bill

Precisely. I will never support this because it makes no sense.

We can give it a fair vote but I doubt it passes.

It won't.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 03, 2009, 06:20:25 AM
Can we end debate on this amendment? :P

Or better yet, can it get tabled? :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 03, 2009, 06:30:21 AM

Well, it still ended in fact.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 03, 2009, 01:16:59 PM
CA is not ultra-liberal. Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York are "ultra-liberal". :P

That particular example, again, applies only to the specific 3-day or week-long seminars focusing mostly on HIV/AIDS. This bill is requiring this as a class to graduate from high school. CA kids still have to take the regular class.

This bill can be considered "public safety." Anything we can do to encourage frequent testing and safe sex practices, as well as anything that may lower the STD rate, protect not only individuals, but the community and region as a whole. Unless a couple is each others' only partner EVER, they are getting mixed in with everyone else's potential diseases. Obviously we can't legislate STDs and abortions and pregnancies and breast cancer out of existence, but we sure can try as hard as we can at the regional level to minimize their reach.

You're wrong about CA's law.  It gives a parental opt-out for all sex ed classes, not just HIV education.

And funny you should mention Vermont - their law has a parental opt-out (http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=16&Chapter=001&Section=00134):
Quote from: VT Title 16, Chap 1, Sec 134
Any pupil whose parent shall present to the school principal a signed statement that the teaching of disease, its symptoms, development and treatment, conflicts with the parents' religious convictions shall be exempt from such instruction, and no child so exempt shall be penalized by reason of that exemption.

As do the laws of Maine (http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/22/title22ch406.pdf):
Quote from: ME Title 22, Sec 1911
To the extent that comprehensive family life education takes place in a school, a parent may choose to not have that parent's child participate in a comprehensive family life education program.

and Connecticut (http://search.cga.state.ct.us/dtsearch_pub_statutes.asp?cmd=getdoc&DocId=79399&Index=I%3a%5czindex%5csurs&HitCount=3&hits=16e+41c+592+&hc=5572&req=10&Item=39):
Quote from: Chap 164, Sec 10-16e
No student shall be required by any local or regional board of education to participate in any such family life program which may be offered within such public schools. A written notification to the local or regional board by the student's parent or legal guardian shall be sufficient to exempt the student from such program in its entirety or from any portion thereof so specified by the parent or legal guardian.

Rhode Island (http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE16/16-22/16-22-18.HTM):
Quote from: Sections 16-22-17(c) (AIDS) and 16-22-18(c) (Health & Family Life
A parent or legal guardian may exempt his or her child from the program by written directive to the principal of the school. No child so exempted shall be penalized academically by reason of the exemption.

Massachusetts (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/71-32a.htm):
Quote from: Titl XII, Chapter 71, Section 32A
Every city, town, regional school district or vocational school district implementing or maintaining curriculum which primarily involves human sexual education or human sexuality issues shall adopt a policy ensuring parental/guardian notification. Such policy shall afford parents or guardians the flexibility to exempt their children from any portion of said curriculum through written notification to the school principal. No child so exempted shall be penalized by reason of such exemption.

AND New York (http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/default.aspx?cnt=Document&db=NY%2DCRR%2DF%2DTOC%3BTOCDUMMY&docname=341836578&findtype=W&fn=%5Ftop&ifm=NotSet&pbc=4BF3FCBE&rlt=CLID%5FFQRLT118551713310&rp=%2FSearch%2Fdefault%2Ewl&rs=WEBL9%2E09&service=Find&spa=nycrr%2D1000&vr=2%2E0)
Quote from: NYS Education Regulations Sec 135.3(b)(2) & (c)(1)(i)
No pupil shall be required to receive instruction concerning the methods of prevention of AIDS if the parent or legal guardian of such pupil has filed with the principal of the school which the pupil attends a written request that the pupil not participate in such instruction, with an assurance that the pupil will receive such instruction at home.

In fact, almost every state (http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SE.pdf) that does not require solely abstinence-only sex education provides for some form of  parental opt-out.   And in my opinion, the law in the remaining handful of states is suspect.

Why shouldn't the Northeast law provide an opt-out?  It would put our law in line with almost all others.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 03, 2009, 01:22:32 PM

Your law was proposed at 02:49:35 am Eastern on Friday, October 2.  Under the SOAP, it should be open for debate until 02:49:35 am Eastern on Monday, October 5.  Votes on the two(?) unfriendly amendments should occur from that time until 02:49:35 am on Tuesday, October 6.  A vote on the final bill will be held thereafter, open for 24 hours after the Lt. Governor promptly certifies the vote on the unfriendly amendments - likely some time on Wednesday, October 7.

Unless you want to move to hold a vote earlier.  That vote would have to be open for 24 hours, which will move the votes on the amendments up to tomorrow, if successful.  Not much of a change, really - maybe half-a-day.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 03, 2009, 01:42:17 PM
In fact, almost every state (http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SE.pdf) that does not require solely abstinence-only sex education provides for some form of  parental opt-out.   And in my opinion, the law in the remaining handful of states is suspect.

Why shouldn't the Northeast law provide an opt-out?  It would put our law in line with almost all others.

Perhaps it's because the Northeast is more courageous on this issue?

I understand the want to cop out for "religious reasons," but the truth is that there's really nothing to be taught in the original that specifically conflicts with religion.  There's nothing in the bible that says that boys don't have penises, and there's nothing in the bible that says condoms don't prevent the spread of disease.

It's a clear priority of the class to mention that abstinence is the only way to prevent disease and pregnancy for sure.  If parents have concerns, they should supplement the class with their own teachings that, even though condoms are available, it's morally wrong to have sex before you're married, or that homosexuality is a sinful choice, or whatever.

This class does not lecture about morals, it simply provides factual information that, frankly, it's crucial people wind up hearing.  Opt-out is a relic of our conservative, puritan heritage.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 03, 2009, 02:03:34 PM
Perhaps it's because the Northeast is more courageous on this issue?

I understand the want to cop out for "religious reasons," but the truth is that there's really nothing to be taught in the original that specifically conflicts with religion.  There's nothing in the bible that says that boys don't have penises, and there's nothing in the bible that says condoms don't prevent the spread of disease.

It's a clear priority of the class to mention that abstinence is the only way to prevent disease and pregnancy for sure.  If parents have concerns, they should supplement the class with their own teachings that, even though condoms are available, it's morally wrong to have sex before you're married, or that homosexuality is a sinful choice, or whatever.

This class does not lecture about morals, it simply provides factual information that, frankly, it's crucial people wind up hearing.  Opt-out is a relic of our conservative, puritan heritage.

Many Christian churches teach that sex outside of wedlock is a sin, the ONLY permissible, 100% effective method of birth control is abstinence, and the use of condoms or other birth control methods is sinful.  It is in the Bible - spilling the seed and all that.  This class WILL lecture about morals - or more accurately, amorality - that using birth control is just a-okay, when many religious traditions teach otherwise.

If parents have concerns that the state will teach their children differently on moral matters, then they should be able to take them out of those classes without penalty.   Parents have the primary responsibility for the moral education of their children, not the state.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 03, 2009, 02:27:26 PM
Many Christian churches teach that sex outside of wedlock is a sin, the ONLY permissible, 100% effective method of birth control is abstinence, and the use of condoms or other birth control methods is sinful.  It is in the Bible - spilling the seed and all that.  This class WILL lecture about morals - or more accurate, amorality - that using birth control is just a-okay, when many religious traditions teach otherwise.

If parents have concerns that the state will teach their children differently on moral matters, then they should be able to take them out of those classes without penalty.   Parents have the primary responsibility for the moral education of their children, not the state.

The course presumably does not teach that it is "okay" that people have sex outside of wedlock, and it does not teach that condoms are not a sin—simply the mechanics of how they work and how they prevent disease.

The idea is to present information without judgement.  Parents are free, like I said, to supplement the class by providing the lecture about morality.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 03, 2009, 03:14:14 PM
Abstinence only sex education never worked and never will work. He have to face the reality. Proposed concessions, like parents contest, would change nothing. So what's the point of passing such act with such amendments?

We need a courage to move on now. We don't have to look at other solutions. We have to create our solution.

I'm ready to face any criticism during election season from those, who disagree with me and I know supporting such bill (not to mention co-authoring) may turn some voters against me, but until I'm the Representative, I will stand up for what I think (and I'm not alone there) is right for the people.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 03, 2009, 03:29:19 PM
In fact, almost every state (http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SE.pdf) that does not require solely abstinence-only sex education provides for some form of  parental opt-out.   And in my opinion, the law in the remaining handful of states is suspect.

Why shouldn't the Northeast law provide an opt-out?  It would put our law in line with almost all others.

Perhaps it's because the Northeast is more courageous on this issue?

This.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 04, 2009, 05:36:46 AM
Bump.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 04, 2009, 04:33:06 PM
Representative Alexander Hamilton:

Here are the three sets of proposed amendments.  Can you please specify which you have taken as friendly so that we know which need to proceed to a vote:

First: Motion to strike section A, subsection 2 in its entirity.

There's no need to limit this to schools with 401+ students.  If anything, it's the rural populations that need access to this information even more.

Second: Motion to strike section A, subsection 3 in its entirity, and replace it with:
2. The requirements included in this act take effect with the school year starting September 2011.


Certainly, districts will need to create a curriculum and text book publishers will need time to create materials to conform to the requirements of this act.  Once in place, there's no need to exclude people in the class of 2014, 13, and 12.

Motion to amend by insertion as Section B.6:
6. The course must address the issue of homosexuality and concerns specific to that portion of the student population, such as how same-sex partners can limit the risk of transmission of sexually transmitted disease, "coming out," and sexual discrimination.



Section B.5, motion to amend:
5.   The course must teach the common indicators of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and testicular cancer, as well as how to check the body for irregularities that are common indicators.


Testicular cancer is a far greater risk to this age population, and can be detected much easier via self-examination.

Oh, and motion to strike Section D.4.  I'd gladly debate its merit as a separate bill, but it seems ill-placed in this one.

I move to amend the bill as follows (even though it will be viewed as unfriendly and be put to a vote):

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

As I understand, you've deemed the proposed Teaching About Homosexualty and Freedom of Conscience amendments unfriendly.  What about the Proposed Amendment striking Section D.4?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 04, 2009, 11:07:13 PM
I apologize, but I simply cannot be up at 2:49 AM to bring the Amendments to the Safe Sex Education Bill. I will do so now, and since it appears there is no further debate, I do not believe it would block any Representative from sharing their opinions of the Bill.

Also, since Representative Hamilton has not confirmed which Amendments are friendly, and which are not, they shall all be brought to a vote:

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

Spon: Rep. cinyc

Motion to strike section A, subsection 2 in its entirity.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate

Motion to strike section A, subsection 3 in its entirity, and replace it with:
2. The requirements included in this act take effect with the school year starting September 2011.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate

Motion to amend by insertion as Section B.6:
6. The course must address the issue of homosexuality and concerns specific to that portion of the student population, such as how same-sex partners can limit the risk of transmission of sexually transmitted disease, "coming out," and sexual discrimination.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate

Section B.5, motion to amend:
5.   The course must teach the common indicators of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and testicular cancer, as well as how to check the body for irregularities that are common indicators.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please vote Aye, nay, or Abstain. Voting last twenty-four hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 04, 2009, 11:35:47 PM
Before voting begins, please allow me to make one last plea for my Freedom of Conscience Amendment.

As many of you know, the Atlasian Supreme Court recently decided a controversial case called Peter v. Atlasia, striking down an Act that would have otherwise prohibited minors from attending places that try to make someone who thinks they are gay not be gay.  Justice Sam Spade struck down that Act in part because it "violate[d] a parent’s fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of his children in the manner he sees fit."

Without my amendment, the Safe Sex Education Bill suffers from a similar flaw and is Constitutionally suspect.  The Northeast Assembly's first act ought not to be to pass a constitutionally suspect law.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 04, 2009, 11:45:14 PM
Freedom of Conscience Amendment: Nay.



Motion to strike section A, subsection 2 in its entirity.: I believe this was accepted as friendly, but Aye, anyway.



Motion to strike section A, subsection 3 in its entirity, and replace it with: Again, this was accepted as friendly.  Aye.



Motion to amend by insertion as Section B.6:
6. The course must address the issue of homosexuality and concerns specific to that portion of the student population, such as how same-sex partners can limit the risk of transmission of sexually transmitted disease, "coming out," and sexual discrimination.


Aye.  Whether or not you agree that homosexuality is moral and acceptable, you have to realize that there currently are and always will be sexually active homosexual teens.  As such, it is crucial to provide information to this population regarding sexually transmitted diseases, especially considering that they are especially vulnerable to HIV transmission and are contracting the disease at a startlingly increasing rate.



Section B.5, motion to amend: Again, this was friendly.  Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 04, 2009, 11:51:03 PM
Curious bystander, what is the purpose of having a Speaker if the Lt. Governor is doing all the jobs of the Speaker?

Forgive me if I missed something, as I have been quite busy and haven't had the opportunity to look over the SOAP guidelines. Was the Speaker eliminated in favor of the President of the Assembly?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 04, 2009, 11:52:33 PM
I apologize, but I simply cannot be up at 2:49 AM to bring the Amendments to the Safe Sex Education Bill. I will do so now, and since it appears there is no further debate, I do not believe it would block any Representative from sharing their opinions of the Bill.

Also, since Representative Hamilton has not confirmed which Amendments are friendly, and which are not, they shall all be brought to a vote:

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

Spon: Rep. cinyc

Motion to strike section A, subsection 2 in its entirity.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate

Motion to strike section A, subsection 3 in its entirity, and replace it with:
2. The requirements included in this act take effect with the school year starting September 2011.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate

Motion to amend by insertion as Section B.6:
6. The course must address the issue of homosexuality and concerns specific to that portion of the student population, such as how same-sex partners can limit the risk of transmission of sexually transmitted disease, "coming out," and sexual discrimination.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate

Section B.5, motion to amend:
5.   The course must teach the common indicators of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and testicular cancer, as well as how to check the body for irregularities that are common indicators.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please vote Aye, nay, or Abstain. Voting last twenty-four hours.


I think you missed the vote on the motion to strike Section D.4.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 04, 2009, 11:55:32 PM
Curious bystander, what is the purpose of having a Speaker if the Lt. Governor is doing all the jobs of the Speaker?

Forgive me if I missed something, as I have been quite busy and haven't had the opportunity to look over the SOAP guidelines. Was the Speaker eliminated in favor of the President of the Assembly?

The Lt. Governor usually presides over the Senate, but the Speaker takes over when the Lt. Governor publicly states he is unavailable.   

Presiding over the Senate (and casting tie votes) gives the Lt. Governor something to do.  His other Constitutional duties are fairly slim - pretty much just sitting around waiting for the Governor to resign.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 04, 2009, 11:56:33 PM
Curious bystander, what is the purpose of having a Speaker if the Lt. Governor is doing all the jobs of the Speaker?

Forgive me if I missed something, as I have been quite busy and haven't had the opportunity to look over the SOAP guidelines. Was the Speaker eliminated in favor of the President of the Assembly?

The Lt. Governor usually presides over the Senate, but the Speaker takes over when the Lt. Governor publicly states he is unavailable.   

Presiding over the Senate (and casting tie votes) gives the Lt. Governor something to do.  His other Constitutional duties are fairly slim - pretty much just sitting around waiting for the Governor to resign.

Thanks for clearing that up and I agree with the rationale.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 05, 2009, 12:05:57 AM
Presiding over the Senate (and casting tie votes) gives the Lt. Governor something to do.  His other Constitutional duties are fairly slim - pretty much just sitting around waiting for the Governor to resign.

The logical solution would then be to abolish the Lieutenant Governorship.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 05, 2009, 02:05:10 AM
Freedom of Conscience Amendment: Aye.

Not including this amendment renders the bill unconstitutional.

Motion to strike section A, subsection 2 in its entirity.:
I believe this was accepted as friendly, Aye.

Motion to strike section A, subsection 3 in its entirity, and replace it:
I believe this was accepted as friendly, so Aye.

Had it not been, I would be voting nay.  2011 is too soon to be phasing a new curriculum requirement in and may harm current students' chances to take AP or other courses.  There's not enough time to plan.  Any new curriculum requirement should start with incoming freshmen who have not yet begun to plan their schedules and have yet to take any similar classes that suddenly don't count due to some newfangled regional mandate.

Motion to amend by insertion as Section B.6:
Nay.

Another thing that's controversial and best left to be taught at home.

Motion to amend Section B.5:
I believe this was accepted as friendly, Aye.

Motion to strike Section D.4:
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 05, 2009, 03:04:18 AM
I assume we're voting on amendments now, not debating amendments now?

Freedom of Conscience Amendment: Aye

Motion to strike section A, subsection 2: Aye

Motion to strike section A, subsection 2 and replace it with other words: Aye

Motion to amend Section B, with the insertion of subsection 6: Nay

Motion to amend Section B, subsection 5: Aye

Motion to remove Section D, subsection 4: Nay

Personally, I believe that Section D, subsection 4 should be included in whatever act presently legalises abortion, however in absense of an amending Act, I am satisfied with including it here. I would ideally like to see an Act to Amend both this Act and the Act legalising abortion to include this subsection in that Act and to remove it from this Act.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 05, 2009, 06:17:49 AM
Freedom of Conscience Amendment - Nay

Motion to strike section A, subsection 2 in its entirity - Aye

Motion to amend by insertion as Section B.6 - Aye

Section B.5, motion to amend - Aye

As a cosponsor and also on behalf of not-present Rep. Hamilton I can confirm, that, beside Freedom of Conscience Amendment, these are friendly amendment to the bill 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 05, 2009, 08:11:18 AM
Personally, I believe that Section D, subsection 4 should be included in whatever act presently legalises abortion, however in absense of an amending Act, I am satisfied with including it here. I would ideally like to see an Act to Amend both this Act and the Act legalising abortion to include this subsection in that Act and to remove it from this Act.

If we're going to discuss abortion in this bill, then I'm going to want to insert some stuff on parental notification.  Frankly, I strongly suggest it get removed and re-introduced as a separate bill, or we're going to get bogged down on this bill for quite some time.  It's going to prove to be a distraction.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 05, 2009, 12:52:25 PM
Personally, I believe that Section D, subsection 4 should be included in whatever act presently legalises abortion, however in absense of an amending Act, I am satisfied with including it here. I would ideally like to see an Act to Amend both this Act and the Act legalising abortion to include this subsection in that Act and to remove it from this Act.

If we're going to discuss abortion in this bill, then I'm going to want to insert some stuff on parental notification.  Frankly, I strongly suggest it get removed and re-introduced as a separate bill, or we're going to get bogged down on this bill for quite some time.  It's going to prove to be a distraction.

We're not going to get bogged down on this bill for some time unless we amend the SOPA.  An up or down vote on the bill with all friendly and passed amendments is next.  There's no further opportunity for amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 05, 2009, 12:54:34 PM
We're not going to get bogged down on this bill for some time unless we amend the SOPA.  An up or down vote on the bill with all friendly and passed amendments is next.  There's no further opportunity for amendment.

Oh.  All the more reason to drop that section, then.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 05, 2009, 03:02:29 PM
Before voting begins, please allow me to make one last plea for my Freedom of Conscience Amendment.

As many of you know, the Atlasian Supreme Court recently decided a controversial case called Peter v. Atlasia, striking down an Act that would have otherwise prohibited minors from attending places that try to make someone who thinks they are gay not be gay.  Justice Sam Spade struck down that Act in part because it "violate[d] a parent’s fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of his children in the manner he sees fit."

Without my amendment, the Safe Sex Education Bill suffers from a similar flaw and is Constitutionally suspect.  The Northeast Assembly's first act ought not to be to pass a constitutionally suspect law.

Thank you.

For what it's worth, I'd be willing to defend this one in front of any court.

Parents do have some level of direction in choosing what their children are taught, it's true.  But this is expressed through representative government and laws passed by this legislature.  Parents do not have a fundamental right to refuse their child be taught math, or to refuse their child participate in a history class on World War I.

It's the legislature that designs core curricula for students.  This sexual education proposal is a new addition to that core curriculum.

In Peter v. Atlasia, you have a question of religious freedom.  Though I disagree with the ruling, you can see how the court attempted to extend "trying to make your child not be gay" as a religious "freedom."

The classroom is not teaching or preaching morality, nor is it preventing it from being taught elsewhere.  It is not saying that students should engage in sex (indeed, it says that abstinence is the only way to guarantee protection from pregnancy and disease).  It says that all students are required to obtain a basic level of knowledge in the realm of public health for the good of the whole.  To the best of my knowledge, there is no religion that says that boys and girls do not have sexual organs, there is no religion that disputes the mechanical workings of different birth control methods, there is no religion that states that gays simply do not exist.  It is a fact-based, not morality-based class.

Frankly, "religion" is used in this debate only as an excuse to mask adults being uncomfortable with someone talking to their kids about sex.  It's understandable that parents want some level of control in this arena, but we're talking about post-puberty kids here.  If their parents don't want to take this on, it does everyone a disservice in the form of higher rates of disease transmission and unwanted pregnancies.  You don't need a study to tell you that kids eventually figure out what goes where even if schools and parents stay silent.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 05, 2009, 08:54:36 PM
So far, only Representatives Hamilton and Antonio V have yet to vote on the Amendments. Voting lasts until 12:00 tonight.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 05, 2009, 10:27:32 PM
All non votes are counted as nay?  What planet is this?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 05, 2009, 10:31:03 PM
All non votes are counted as nay?  What planet is this?

Oh My GOD! I misread the SOAP! I apologize to the Assembly for lack of intelligence on my part. I shall delete the Bill and re tabulate the Amendment votes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 05, 2009, 11:01:55 PM
I apologize, but I simply cannot be up at 2:49 AM to bring the Amendments to the Safe Sex Education Bill. I will do so now, and since it appears there is no further debate, I do not believe it would block any Representative from sharing their opinions of the Bill.

Also, since Representative Hamilton has not confirmed which Amendments are friendly, and which are not, they shall all be brought to a vote:

Freedom of Conscience Amendment

Section B(1) shall be amended as follows:
1.  Except as provided in subsection B(6), completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.

A new Section B(6) shall be added:
6.  Before the beginning of the relevant semester, every school shall send a permission slip to parents or guardians of children who would otherwise be enrolled in sexual health class.  A parent or guardian shall be entitled to remove their child from all or any portion of a sexual health class, specifically including any portion of that class teaching methods of contraception, masturbation or homosexuality.   No school shall take any action against a student whose parent opts out of enrolling their child in all or any portion of a sexual health class, nor shall that student's grade, grade-point average, or ability to graduate be affected.

Spon: Rep. cinyc              NAY
 
Motion to strike section A, subsection 2 in its entirity.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate                 AYE

Motion to strike section A, subsection 3 in its entirity, and replace it with:
2. The requirements included in this act take effect with the school year starting September 2011.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate             NAY

Motion to amend by insertion as Section B.6:
6. The course must address the issue of homosexuality and concerns specific to that portion of the student population, such as how same-sex partners can limit the risk of transmission of sexually transmitted disease, "coming out," and sexual discrimination.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate                  NAY

Section B.5, motion to amend:
5.   The course must teach the common indicators of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and testicular cancer, as well as how to check the body for irregularities that are common indicators.

Spon: Rep. Mr. Moderate                   AYE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please vote Aye, nay, or Abstain. Voting last twenty-four hours.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 05, 2009, 11:01:56 PM
AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 05, 2009, 11:03:18 PM
All non votes are counted as nay?  What planet is this?

That's only true for extraordinary motions waiving the SOAP, like those asking for less debate time, a shorter voting period or taking up multiple bills on the floor simultaneously (basically, to make sure that an outright majority of the Assembly consent to things that could disenfranchise members who might not be around every waking hour of the day).  Otherwise, abstentions should be treated as abstentions - i.e. non-votes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 05, 2009, 11:04:38 PM
All non votes are counted as nay?  What planet is this?

That's only true for extraordinary motions waiving the SOAP, like those asking for less debate time, a shorter voting period or taking up multiple bills on the floor simultaneously (basically, to make sure that an outright majority of the Assembly consent to things that could disenfranchise members who might not be around every waking hour of the day).  Otherwise, abstentions should be treated as abstentions - i.e. non-votes.

Again, I apologize for my misreading of the rules. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 05, 2009, 11:05:01 PM

On what?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 05, 2009, 11:06:10 PM

When I introduced the Bill with incorrect Amendments. Hamilton has told me that his posts are showing up a long time after their actually made. Don't ask me! :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 05, 2009, 11:11:40 PM
I hereby open up  a final vote on this Bill. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

Bipartisan Safe Sex Education Bill

Section A: Exemptions

1.   This act only applies to public high schools (grades 9/10-12)
2. The requirements included in this act take effect with the school year starting September 2011.

Section B: Safe Sex Education Requirements

1.   Completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate.
2.   The course must teach about methods of contraception, including condoms and birth-control pills, as well as proper usage of said methods.
3.   The course must teach that abstinence is the safest way to avoid venereal diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
4.   The course must teach sexual anatomy, including the functions of male and female reproductive organs.
5.   The course must teach the common indicators of breast cancer, prostate cancer, and testicular cancer, as well as how to check the body for irregularities that are common indicators.

Section C: Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention Education Requirements

1.   The course must teach how HIV/AIDS is contracted, the effects of HIV/AIDS, and how to best avoid HIV/AIDS.
2.   The course must also cover herpes, chlamydia, syphilis, hepatitis, and human papilloma virus (HPV).
3.   The course must provide a list of local clinics that provide testing for STDs.

Section D: Pregnancy Education Requirements

1.   The course must teach the developmental process of the pregnancy, including zygotes, embryos, and fetuses.
2.   The course must teach that adoption and abortion are both options for unwanted pregnancies.
3.   The course must provide a list of pregnancy help clinics that provide counseling and information regarding how to handle being pregnant.
4.   All women under the age of 18 seeking the termination of a pregnancy are required to attend a 90 minute counseling session that covers the actual procedure, the risk involved, how to handle an abortion and maintain mental and physical health, and alternative options to abortion such as adoption.

Section E: Privacy Requirements

1.   The course must respect the students’ right to privacy.
2.   Students must NOT be pressured into answering questions they are uncomfortable with.
3.   Teachers are expected and required not to reveal any private details from private conversations related to the course material.

Section F: Clarification

1.   This act replaces all existing overlapping policy in the Northeast region as soon as it takes effect.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 05, 2009, 11:26:51 PM
Nay on the (likely unconstitutional) Safe Sex Education Bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 05, 2009, 11:35:45 PM
AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 05, 2009, 11:54:34 PM
Now hold on.  Before we can vote, the Lt. Governor needs to resolve our ties.  :\


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 06, 2009, 12:06:09 AM
Now hold on.  Before we can vote, the Lt. Governor needs to resolve our ties.  :\

There can't be ties with 5 votes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 06, 2009, 12:12:30 AM
Now hold on.  Before we can vote, the Lt. Governor needs to resolve our ties.  :\
If you include Alexander Hamilton's votes, there should be no ties.  Hamilton's vote should be counted, either because the vote should have been held open until 2:49AM or because Hamilton got it in within 24 hours of the Lt. Governor opening the vote at 12:07AM yesterday.

Including Hamilton's votes:
The Freedom of Conscience Amendment and Homosexuality Amendments (B.6) were voted down, 2 Aye to 3 Nay.
The Motion on D.4 was either never put to a vote or defeated 0-2.

The Motions to strike A.2 and amend B.5 passed unanimously (5-0).  
The Motion to amend A.3 passed 3-1.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 06, 2009, 06:12:43 AM
Aye

I also apologize for having been absent yesterday and the day before. I had both a lot of shcool work and connection problems.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 06, 2009, 07:21:32 AM
Now hold on.  Before we can vote, the Lt. Governor needs to resolve our ties.  :\
If you include Alexander Hamilton's votes, there should be no ties.  Hamilton's vote should be counted, either because the vote should have been held open until 2:49AM or because Hamilton got it in within 24 hours of the Lt. Governor opening the vote at 12:07AM yesterday.

I wasn't counting Hamilton's votes, because it was stated that the vote was to be closed at 12:00 and Hamilton got his in after that.  So, which is it: 12:00, 12:07, or 2:49?  Frankly this seems all too arbitrary for my taste, like we're making stuff up as we go along.

In any case, I don't think I have much use for this bill anymore.  I'll give my decision later today.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 06, 2009, 11:20:41 AM
Sorry, I might get lost

When will we end with amendments debate and vote on the bill?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 06, 2009, 11:33:05 AM
Sorry, I might get lost

When will we end with amendments debate and vote on the bill?

You're already lost.  I believe we're voting on final passage right now.

This body is in desperate need of new governing rules.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 06, 2009, 01:03:10 PM
Damn, so much chaos there

Anyway

AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 06, 2009, 01:16:48 PM
Sorry, I might get lost

When will we end with amendments debate and vote on the bill?

You're already lost.  I believe we're voting on final passage right now.

This body is in desperate need of new governing rules.

No - we just need the rules to be followed and to work out any kinks.

The main problem is that this bill was put on the floor by Hamilton before the vote on the SOAP was finalized very early in the morning for most of us, and the Lt. Governor changed the voting period from when it should have started.  No one should be expected to open voting at 2:49AM. 

I would expect the Lt. Governor to introduce the next bill at a more sane hour (between 9AM and 9PM Eastern) so that the schedule is clearer and cleaner.  We'll then have 72 hours to debate and propose amendments, followed by 24 hours to vote on any unfriendly amendments and 24 hours to vote on final passage.  4 or 5 days, depending on whether there are unfriendly amendments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 06, 2009, 01:25:55 PM
Nay.

I will say that I support what this bill is trying to do.  In truth, I am disappointed that it did not go far enough.

But though I support this idea behind it, I do not believe the Assembly followed appropriate procedure regarding this bill.  As was pointed out, my motion to strike D.4 was never brought to a vote.  This entire process was a confusing mess, with people being told they could vote in a way inconsistent with the standing rules of the body.

Without following proper procedure, this law will be rightfully rejected by the courts as illegitimate.  I have no interest in being a party to a vote for an unenforceable law such as this.

I encourage the sponsors of the bill to reintroduce the bill.  I will be glad to support it should it be presented to the Assembly in a fair way consistent with the rules.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 06, 2009, 01:28:38 PM
This entire process was a confusing mess, with people being told they could vote in a way inconsistent with the standing rules of the body.

And by your vote you are making it even more so.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 06, 2009, 01:40:55 PM
This entire process was a confusing mess, with people being told they could vote in a way inconsistent with the standing rules of the body.

And by your vote you are making it even more so.

How so?  An aye vote is the one that propagates the mess.

Why should we expect the public to follow our rules when we don't even follow our own?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 06, 2009, 02:57:12 PM
So, now we need Smid to vote , and if he votes nay, then we'll need MR President to break the tie.
I predict a long time of legislative stagnation...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 06, 2009, 03:21:03 PM
I call for an emergency vote to revisit the SOAP to address its unconstitutionality.

The SOAP provides a mechanism for overriding the Governor's veto.  However, by Article IV, Section xi, the Legislature is constitutionally prohibited from doing so.  Once legislation has been vetoed, it is dead for good.

In addition to the constitutional issue, I have amended to remove the set-in-stone time requirement to give the LG more discretion for starting votes, so that votes need not be opened or closed in the middle of the night.  It further allows for him to, at his discretion, allow debate to continue past the firm 72-hour mark.

As such, I motion to amend as shown in red:




Standing Order on Assembly Procedure

1. Proposed Legislation Thread
(a) The Lt. Governor shall open a new Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread at the start of each Northeast Assembly term.
(b) Representatives, the Governor and any concerned Northeast citizen shall post the full text of any proposed legislation in a response to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread for the current term.  Each response shall contain only one piece of proposed legislation. 
(c) Nothing shall be posted to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread except proposed legislation or a Northeast citizen's signature for proposed citizen legislation.

2. Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor
(a) Except as provided in subsections (c), (d), and (e) and (f), the Lt. Governor shall place legislation from the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread on the Northeast Assembly floor (on behalf and stating the name of the sponsor) in chronological order, starting with the earliest piece of proposed legislation, except that the Lt. Governor shall not place more than two (2) pieces of legislation from the same Representative, initial sponsoring citizen, or the Governor before placing legislation from other Representatives or the Governor that has been proposed before the date such third piece of proposed legislation would have otherwise been brought to the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (e) and (f), only one piece of legislation shall be placed on the Northeast Assembly floor at a time.
(c)  Any Representative may make a motion to suspend section 2(a) of this Standing Order to move a piece proposed legislation to the top of the queue.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for 24 hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the Lt. Governor shall place such piece of proposed legislation on the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after any legislation then currently on the Northeast Assembly floor is voted upon or tabled.
(d) Any Representative may make a motion to suspend section 2(b) of this Standing Order to place more than one piece of legislation on the Northeast Assembly floor at any given time.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for 24 hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the Lt. Governor shall place such additional pieces of proposed legislation on the Northeast Assembly floor immediately at the end of the voting period.
(e) Except as provided in subsection (a), the Lt. Governor shall place legislation successfully proposed by citizens on the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after any current legislation then on the Northeast Assembly floor is finally voted upon or tabled.
(f) The Lt. Governor shall place any legislation that is vetoed by the Governor on the Northeast Assembly floor immediately after such veto.  Veto override votes may occur while other legislation is on the Northeast Assembly floor.
(f g) Nothing in this Section 2 shall allow the Lt. Governor to do anything but place proposed legislation on the Northeast Assembly floor on behalf of the sponsor of such legislation.

3. Legislative Debates and Voting
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation other than veto override votes shall be open for debate  for no less than until seventy-two (72) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.
(b) During debate, Representatives may suggest amendments to proposed legislation.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation publicly deems the amendment friendly, no vote on the amendment shall be required.  If the sponsor of the proposed legislation does not publicly deem the amendment friendly, a vote on the amendment shall be taken at the end of the debate period.
(c) The sponsor of a proposed amendment may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before the end of the debate period.
(d) A vote will be held on all proposed amendments not deemed friendly at the end of the debate period.  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  An amendment shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(e) The sponsor of a piece of proposed legislation may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before a final vote is taken on the proposed legislation.
(f) A final vote on the proposed legislation shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period).  A final vote on veto overrides shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such votes shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  A piece of proposed legislation or veto override shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
(g) The Lt. Governor shall certify the results of any vote within twenty-four (24) hours of the end of the voting period.
(h) Any Representative may make a motion to suspend sections 3(a), 3(d) or 3(f) of this Standing Order to increase or decrease the time of the debate or voting period.  The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the relevant period shall be changed.

4. Terminology
(a) All legislation regarding the rules of the Northeast Assembly shall be called Standing Orders.
(b) All proposed legislation that requires the signature of the Governor shall be called a Bill until signed and thereafter an Act.
(c) The Lt. Governor shall maintain a public list of Standing Orders, unsuccessful bills actually voted upon, and Acts in the Atlasia Wiki for the Northeast, with a link to the text of such legislation.



Based on my understanding, we are now to vote immediately on whether or not to allow a suspension of the rules and allow debate to reopen on the need for modification of the SOAP.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 06, 2009, 03:57:18 PM
I call for an emergency vote to revisit the SOAP to address its unconstitutionality.

The SOAP provides a mechanism for overriding the Governor's veto.  However, by Article IV, Section xi, the Legislature is constitutionally prohibited from doing so.  Once legislation has been vetoed, it is dead for good.

I don't see what you're claiming in Article IV, Clause xi.  Here's the text:
Quote
The Governor has veto power over any piece of legislation that the Northeast Assembly shall successfully vote in favour of. The Governor may not have the power to only veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. If the General Assembly of the Northeast Region is to have another successful vote on any piece of legislation previously vetoed, than the Governor must not veto it. The Governor is required to sign all pieces of legislation he supports into law after it passes a successful vote in the Legislative Assembly within one week of its passing. Once he or she has signed the legislation, it immediately becomes law unless otherwise stated in the legislation itself. If the Governor does not sign the successful legislation after one week, than it becomes law immediately.
(emphasis added)

In other words, as I read it, the GOVERNOR can't veto a bill a second time should the legislature pass it again - by a simple majority.  I see no prohibition on us putting vetoed legislation up to another vote.  What am I missing?  Is the General Assembly (not defined in the Constitution) some other body?

In addition to the constitutional issue, I have amended to remove the set-in-stone time requirement to give the LG more discretion for starting votes, so that votes need not be opened or closed in the middle of the night.  It further allows for him to, at his discretion, allow debate to continue past the firm 72-hour mark.

I have no problem with this amendment or your motion as long as you also amend the motion to allow other business to go forward while we debate this minor, common-sense change to the SOAP.  We have quite a queue building up, including on legislation requested by the GM.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 06, 2009, 04:27:21 PM
Well, instead of me trying to interpret that sentence, let me put it this way instead: It's an issue of separation of powers.  There is nothing in the Northeastern Constitution that provides for a veto override.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 06, 2009, 04:36:50 PM
Well, instead of me trying to interpret that sentence, let me put it this way instead: It's an issue of separation of powers.  There is nothing in the Northeastern Constitution that provides for a veto override.

The third sentence of Article IV, Clause xi allows the General Assembly of the Northeast to pass the law again, rendering it veto-proof.  That's equivalent an override.

We really should propose an amendment to the constitution cleaning up the language Article IV (what the heck is the General Assembly now - us, I'd assume, since there is no other Assembly?) and creating a veto override provision that makes more sense - perhaps requiring a 2/3rds vote.  The ond rules made sense because there would be at least a one month delay in between when a law was vetoed and came up again for a vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 06, 2009, 06:44:40 PM
Aye aye aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 06, 2009, 08:01:18 PM
I am very concerned about the lack of a freedom of conscience section in the Bill, however I believe the curriculum should be introduced into schools as a matter of priority, pending any legal challenge. I therefore vote in favour of the Sexual Education Bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 06, 2009, 08:07:24 PM
()

Since everyone has voted, there is no reason to keep voting open until Midnight. :)

With four Ayes and two Nays, I hereby certify that the Bipartisan Safe Sex Education Bill has received enough votes to pass.

I hereby present it to the Governor for his Signature or Veto.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 06, 2009, 08:12:09 PM
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 2009
Three sections shall be added to the Northeast Tax Code as follows:

1.  Investment Tax Credit
(a) All individual and corporate taxpayers shall be entitled to a tax credit equal to the full amount of any capital expenditure made during the 2009 tax year that would otherwise have been required to be depreciated over time under the Northeast Tax Code.
(b) This tax credit shall be subject to recapture if a taxpayer sells or otherwise disposes of the capital asset subject to this credit before the end of the period during which such capital asset would have been required to be depreciated under the Northeast Tax Code but for the provisions of Section 1(a).
(c) The Northeast Tax Commissioner shall have the power to issue regulations preventing the abuse of Section 1(a).

2. Making Work Pay Tax Credit
(a) All individual taxpayers shall be entitled to a $1,000 tax credit against earned income in the 2009 tax year.
(b) The availability of this credit shall not be subject to any income limitations otherwise provided in the Northeast Tax Code.
(c) This credit shall not be refundable.

3. Taxation of Unemployment Benefits
The first $25,000 of unemployment benefits received during each of the 2009 and 2010 tax years shall not be subject to tax under the Northeast Tax Code.

Effective Date
This Act shall be effective for income received during the 2009 and, where specified, 2010 tax years, regardless of whether earned before the date hereof.

Sponsor: Rep. cinyc

The motion is that the Bill be considered.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No." The Ayes have it.

The sponsor, Representative cinyc, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 06, 2009, 08:54:42 PM
Thank you, Mr. Lt. Governor.

This temporary tax cut bill is in response to GM Purple State's suggestion (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=101096.msg2175602#msg2175602) that the Northeast provide "a one-time tax credit for small businesses and middle-income workers" in order to fight the recession.   It is targeted to provide tax relief for ALL Atlasian taxpayers who pay taxes on earned income in 2009.

Section 1 provides for an investment tax credit to all Atlasian businesses,whether conducting business as a corporation, sole proprietorship, partnership or LLC.  It allows Atlasian businesses to expense the cost of any capital investment made in 2009 if it would otherwise have been required to be depreciated over a number of years.  It includes a recapture provision so that Atlasian businesses can't game the system buy buying capital assets and selling them later this year or next (i.e. they'd have to pay back the portion of the credit that they otherwise would not have been able to depreciate under current law to the government if they sell the property).  And it includes a provision for the Northeast Tax Commissioner to promulgate regulations to prevent any other abuse.

It's my hope that the Investment Tax Credit would cause Northeast businesses to buy big ticket items like computer systems, cars and equipment, helping fuel economic recovery in the Northeast and the rest of Atlasia.

Section 2 provides a $1,000"making work pay" tax credit to all Northeast citizens who worked for a living this year.  That is, working Northeast citizens will not be required to pay the first $1,000 in tax that they otherwise would have. 

It's my hope that Northeast citizens will use their tax savings to make ends meet, pay down debt and buy stuff, stimulating the Northeast and Atlasian economies.

Section 3 provides a tax break for those Northeast citizens who have lost their job and are collecting unemployment benefits in 2009 and 2010.  The last thing they need to worry about in these tough economic times is how they're going to pay Northeast taxes that would otherwise be owed on their unemployment benefits.   It's also important to provide this tax relief to put our unemployed citizens on rough par with working Atlasians who are entitled to the $1,000 "making work pay tax" credit in 2009.

Granted, these tax relief provisions may put our budget temporarily into deficit.  But all three provisions are temporary.  In fact, the Investment Tax Credit may actually increase potential tax collections in future years, since companies otherwise would be depreciating those assets over time, cutting their tax bill in those years and may be subject to recapture.  And providing tax relief is the right thing to do in these tough economic times.

Thank you.  I now open the floor to debate and amendments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 06, 2009, 09:07:42 PM
Since everyone has voted, there is no reason to keep voting open until Midnight. :)

With four Ayes and two Nays, I hereby certify that the Bipartisan Safe Sex Education Bill has received enough votes to pass.

I hereby present it to the Governor for his Signature or Veto.

The Governor has vetoed (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=71572.msg2181106#msg2181106) the Bipartisan Safe Sex Education Bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 06, 2009, 09:13:41 PM
The Question before us is:

"Shall the Governor's veto of the Bipartisan Safe Sex Education Bill be overridden?"

Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

Also, Reps. are still allowed to debate and propose Amendments to the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 2009, since this is a veto override.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 06, 2009, 09:18:50 PM
I move that the vote on the veto override be suspended until the vote on Representative Mr.  Moderate's motion to amend the SOAP is resolved.  (And vote Aye)

I also vote Aye on Rep. Mr. Moderate's motion to discuss amending the SOAP.

I think he needs another vote for it to come on the agenda. 

I also move that we discuss Rep. Mr. Moderate's motion to amend the SOAP simultaneously with the current bill on the floor.   (And vote Aye)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 06, 2009, 09:21:42 PM
I move that the vote on the veto override be suspended until the vote on Representative Mr.  motion to amend the SOAP is resolved.  (And vote Aye)

I also vote Aye on Rep. Mr. Moderate's motion to discuss amending the SOAP.

I think he needs another vote for it to come on the agenda. 

I also move that we discuss Rep. Mr. Moderate's motion to amend the SOAP simultaneously with the current bill on the floor.   (And vote Aye)

Good point. I will remove this form the agenda, UNTIL the SOAP discussion is finished. So, make it short guys. I don't want to be overriding this veto in November! ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 06, 2009, 09:22:54 PM
I move that the vote on the veto override be suspended until the vote on Representative Mr.  motion to amend the SOAP is resolved.  (And vote Aye)

I also vote Aye on Rep. Mr. Moderate's motion to discuss amending the SOAP.

I think he needs another vote for it to come on the agenda. 

I also move that we discuss Rep. Mr. Moderate's motion to amend the SOAP simultaneously with the current bill on the floor.   (And vote Aye)

Good point. I will remove this form the agenda, UNTIL the SOAP discussion is finished. So, make it short guys. I don't want to be overriding this veto in November! ;)

I don't think you can do this unilaterally.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 06, 2009, 09:28:48 PM
I move that the vote on the veto override be suspended until the vote on Representative Mr.  motion to amend the SOAP is resolved.  (And vote Aye)

I also vote Aye on Rep. Mr. Moderate's motion to discuss amending the SOAP.

I think he needs another vote for it to come on the agenda. 

I also move that we discuss Rep. Mr. Moderate's motion to amend the SOAP simultaneously with the current bill on the floor.   (And vote Aye)

Good point. I will remove this form the agenda, UNTIL the SOAP discussion is finished. So, make it short guys. I don't want to be overriding this veto in November! ;)

I don't think you can do this unilaterally.

You're probably right.

The Question Before us is:

"Shall the Assembly suspend voting on the override of the Governor's veto, until after debate on amending the SOAP has finished?" 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 06, 2009, 09:56:51 PM
Aye (on debating amendments to the SOAP).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 06, 2009, 11:37:29 PM
Aye (on debating amendments to the SOAP).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 07, 2009, 12:46:58 AM
Sigh... Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 07, 2009, 12:48:28 AM
Well, under the SOAP, we can't take up the amendments to it until after the current piece of legislation is off of it.  So we either have to agree to my motion to take SOAP amendments under consideration simultaneously with the current legislation on the floor, or I may have to table my bill.

And we still have to decide what to do about the override.  That's why I made my motion to suspend voting until after the SOAP amendment discussion is complete.  There's no sense trying to override if we conclude that we don't have that power.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 07, 2009, 12:49:10 AM

On what?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 07, 2009, 12:50:59 AM

Isn't it clear ? on debating amendments to the SOAP


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 07, 2009, 12:54:24 AM
Since we are amending SOAP, here is something to make us go faster. Debates have beeen really too long and we still have many things to debate...


Amendment to the SOAP

Section 3, subsection a) is amended as follows :

Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation other than veto override votes shall be open for debate for no less than until fourty-eight (48) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 07, 2009, 01:14:08 AM
Since nobody seems to want to vote on holding two votes simultaneously, I hereby table the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 2009 so that we can discuss amendments to the SOAP ASAP.

I propose one additional set of amendments to the SOAP.  Let's call them the "If everyone has Voted Amendment", which makes clear that Lt. Governor Barnes' position that he can close votes early if everyone has voted is correct:

Quote
The second sentence of Section 3(d) shall be amended as follows:
Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. 

The third sentence of Section 3(f) shall be amended as follows:
Such votes shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. 

The third sentence of Section 3(h) shall be amended as follows:
Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier.

I support Representative Antonio V's amendment limiting debate to 48 hours (subject to deleting the override language if we agree we don't have that power).  That's about all we needed on the first bill.

I still question whether we are constitutionally blocked from overriding vetoes.  Under my interpretation of the New Northeast Constitution, if the Assembly passes a bill again after a veto, it is effectively overridden.  Perhaps the SOAP's terminology isn't correct - instead of a veto override, we should be calling it re-passage of the bill.   I'd be interested in hearing other Representatives' thoughts on the matter.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 07, 2009, 01:18:15 AM
Since we are amending SOAP, here is something to make us go faster. Debates have beeen really too long and we still have many things to debate...


Amendment to the SOAP

Section 3, subsection a) is amended as follows :

Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation other than veto override votes shall be open for debate for no less than until fourty-eight (48) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.

Aye on this


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 07, 2009, 01:40:58 AM
Aye on the Lt. Governor's question:
"Shall the Assembly suspend voting on the override of the Governor's veto, until after debate on amending the SOAP has finished?"


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 07, 2009, 07:34:22 AM
Aye to suspend the override vote, however, I am amenable to having debate open and continue on the Economic Recovery Act.

I would also like to make known my support for the two proposed amendments to the SOAP by Rep. AntonioV and Rep. Cinyc.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 07, 2009, 08:01:45 AM
I have just introduced legislation in the New Legislation thread calling for an amendment to the constitution to address what I believe to be a major constitutional gap regarding veto overrides.  If possible, I would like to further suspend the rules to allow the Assembly to address the amendment, concurrent with debate on the SOAP, to expedite the process and allow its placement on the October ballot.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 07, 2009, 02:35:42 PM
I have just introduced legislation in the New Legislation thread calling for an amendment to the constitution to address what I believe to be a major constitutional gap regarding veto overrides.  If possible, I would like to further suspend the rules to allow the Assembly to address the amendment, concurrent with debate on the SOAP, to expedite the process and allow its placement on the October ballot.

Aye

Even though I think we have the power to override vetoes under the current constitution by passing the same bill twice, we need to reform the process.  A simple majority vote (or even a 2/3rds vote since that's the same thing in an Assembly of 6) shouldn't be enough to override a veto.  I look forward to working with you on the amendment, which should also clean up the inconsistent use of Assembly/Legislature in Article IV.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 07, 2009, 03:34:37 PM
Since we are amending SOAP, here is something to make us go faster. Debates have beeen really too long and we still have many things to debate...


Amendment to the SOAP

Section 3, subsection a) is amended as follows :

Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation other than veto override votes shall be open for debate for no less than until fourty-eight (48) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.

Aye


Quote
The second sentence of Section 3(d) shall be amended as follows:
Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. 

The third sentence of Section 3(f) shall be amended as follows:
Such votes shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. 

The third sentence of Section 3(h) shall be amended as follows:
Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier.

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 07, 2009, 05:40:10 PM
Since we are amending SOAP, here is something to make us go faster. Debates have beeen really too long and we still have many things to debate...


Amendment to the SOAP

Section 3, subsection a) is amended as follows :

Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation other than veto override votes shall be open for debate for no less than until fourty-eight (48) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.

Aye on this


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 07, 2009, 06:44:51 PM
Aye on all of the SOAP amendments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 07, 2009, 07:04:52 PM
Aye on all of the SOAP amendments, including the deletion of the veto override provisions.  If we want to override a veto under current law, all we need to do is reintroduce the bill the normal way and pass it again, in my opinion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 08, 2009, 04:46:42 AM
I think all this got at least 4 votes now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 12, 2009, 05:24:01 AM

We need to revive this, or this Assembly will be remembered as an epic fail.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 12, 2009, 05:24:55 AM

I'm about to go rogue and just start posting my legislation here and forcing debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 12, 2009, 05:25:50 AM
One of our Presidents please certify the results of the Amendments to the SOAP.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 12, 2009, 12:03:27 PM
IS THERE SOMEONE HERE ?!!!!!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 12, 2009, 01:48:01 PM
No.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 12, 2009, 03:32:46 PM
Oh hell, we didn't even had election and this is already desert...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 12, 2009, 07:16:16 PM
The Question is:

That - the amendments to the SOAP be accepted. All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No." The Ayes have it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 12, 2009, 07:32:52 PM
I have been reading through the SOAP and I am unsure whether we allow debate on the motion to over-ride the Governor's veto, or whether we merely vote to over-ride. As such, I believe the ordinary rules of procedure shall prevail, and am therefore allowing debate on the veto over-ride for a period of 24 hours. The Safe Sex Education Bill, as passed (and therefore as amended) is the Bill in question. Additional amendments to the Bill may not be moved as this would alter the Bill as vetoed. If amendments are moved and passed and incorporated into the Bill, the Bill would no longer be veto-proof and the Governor would still retain the right to veto. I am happy to hear debate on this ruling from the Chair, but I request that we limit debate to one comment per Representative. If I don't hear any opinions to the contrary on my ruling, I shall move debate on to the veto over-ride later today.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 12, 2009, 08:06:23 PM
This is why the Mideast has no SOAP. There is more debate on what it means than on actual legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 12, 2009, 08:12:47 PM
I suggest opening an override vote ASAP so we can move on, we have a lot on the table.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 12, 2009, 09:54:44 PM
I hereby open up a vote to override the Governor's veto to the Safe Sex Education Act. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 12, 2009, 09:55:24 PM
aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 12, 2009, 10:29:04 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 12, 2009, 10:44:42 PM

You can't vote wtf


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on October 12, 2009, 10:47:49 PM

I forgot I am not in the freedom loving pacific anymore. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 12, 2009, 10:48:51 PM

Pacific legislature doesn't do anything. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on October 12, 2009, 11:03:02 PM

Freedom from doing anything. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 12, 2009, 11:05:43 PM

The Gentlemen will suspend.

()

This Assembly is voting, not debating regional legislatures.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 13, 2009, 01:42:07 AM
Aye



I thought you supported this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 13, 2009, 01:44:30 AM

He probably doesn't support overriding what the Governor thinks is best. BUT I DO!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 13, 2009, 02:32:29 AM

I refer the honourable gentleman to a statement that I made in my office: 

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102893.msg2181176#msg2181176

I support the Bill and I support what it is trying to do, however I believe that it could be improved and I hope that the necessary amendments could be passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 13, 2009, 06:03:52 AM
Ok, now it's clear. Kal and Mod please hurry up.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 13, 2009, 06:04:47 AM

Barnes is gonna have to break our tie.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 13, 2009, 07:03:46 AM
Veto override?  We don't have the power to do that yet. We scrubbed the SOAP and the constitution is silent until the amendment gets a vote.

Abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 13, 2009, 11:24:04 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Vepres on October 13, 2009, 11:42:05 PM
This is great! An assembly totally revived the region. Purple State, I hope you're paying attention to this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 13, 2009, 11:44:43 PM
This is great! An assembly totally revived the region. Purple State, I hope you're paying attention to this.

The Chair thanks the Governor for his kind words. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 14, 2009, 12:33:43 AM
This is great! An assembly totally revived the region. Purple State, I hope you're paying attention to this.

As though I had nothing to do with this. ;)

I was always here watching and providing private pointers where needed. To quote one of the great animated shows of our generation, "If you've done things right, people won't be sure if you've done anything at all."


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 14, 2009, 08:43:32 AM
The overriding passed. Mr President please notify that and introduce the next bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 14, 2009, 10:03:15 AM
With three ayes, one nay, one abstention, and one no vote, the override of the Governor's veto has passed.

()


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 14, 2009, 10:12:00 AM
Amendment to the Northeast Pornography and Age of Consent Act

1. Section 2, Clause 1 is hereby amended to include "All those persons of 16 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons of 16 years of age or older."

2. "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 17 years or younger is guilty of statutory rape." is amended to read "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person younger than the age of 16 is guilty of statutory rape."

Sponsor: Rep. Hamilton

The motion is that the Bill be considered.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No." The Ayes have it.

The sponsor, Representative Hamilton, has the floor.




Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 14, 2009, 10:27:52 AM
Seems perfectly reasonable. At 16 you're responsible enough to freely decide this sort of things.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 10:29:56 AM
Pretty self-explanatory. The bill is a fair compromise and I see no reason to go higher or lower.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 14, 2009, 11:56:29 AM
Doesn't seem like urgent legislation or anything, but I definitely agree with it.  You have my support.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on October 14, 2009, 01:10:31 PM
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 14, 2009, 02:08:58 PM
I've been away for a bit.  For the record, I would have voted against the override.

I don't have a problem with the text of the current bill, though I'm undecided on how I will vote.  I do think that the tax bill I tabled to bring up the SOAP needs to be brought back on the floor at some point.  I move that we consider it next.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 14, 2009, 02:59:10 PM
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on October 14, 2009, 03:00:02 PM
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 14, 2009, 03:19:59 PM
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

Sorry, but this is absurd. I'm not especially mature, but I think I'm reasonable enough to decide whenever or not I want to have sex.

Hashemite, who is one of the most mature people around here, is just one year older.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 03:21:43 PM
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

You must be a virgin. Come on, if this weren't Atlas I'd be able to say we all had sex by then, but most people here aren't into girls for some reason. Either way, this is a great change.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on October 14, 2009, 03:23:46 PM
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

You must be a virgin. Come on, if this weren't Atlas I'd be able to say we all had sex by then, but most people here aren't into girls for some reason. Either way, this is a great change.

Yeah! Great change! Why stop at 16 though! Let's make it 8 years old!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 03:25:03 PM
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

You must be a virgin. Come on, if this weren't Atlas I'd be able to say we all had sex by then, but most people here aren't into girls for some reason. Either way, this is a great change.

Yeah! Great change! Why stop at 16 though! Let's make it 8 years old!

Because there is a big difference between 16 and 8, I doubt you even know the current legal standing anyways so you might as well be quiet. I could've made it 14. I was comfortable at that age and so are many others. Be happy with what you get.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on October 14, 2009, 03:27:17 PM
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

You must be a virgin. Come on, if this weren't Atlas I'd be able to say we all had sex by then, but most people here aren't into girls for some reason. Either way, this is a great change.

Yeah! Great change! Why stop at 16 though! Let's make it 8 years old!

Because there is a big difference between 16 and 8, I doubt you even know the current legal standing anyways so you might as well be quiet. I could've made it 14. I was comfortable at that age and so are many others. Be happy with what you get.

It's pretty sickening that you are "comfortable" with child porn.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 03:27:48 PM
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

You must be a virgin. Come on, if this weren't Atlas I'd be able to say we all had sex by then, but most people here aren't into girls for some reason. Either way, this is a great change.

Yeah! Great change! Why stop at 16 though! Let's make it 8 years old!

Because there is a big difference between 16 and 8, I doubt you even know the current legal standing anyways so you might as well be quiet. I could've made it 14. I was comfortable at that age and so are many others. Be happy with what you get.

It's pretty sickening that you are "comfortable" with child porn.

This has nothing to do with porn you idiot. This is age of consent. What are you smoking?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on October 14, 2009, 03:30:01 PM
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

You must be a virgin. Come on, if this weren't Atlas I'd be able to say we all had sex by then, but most people here aren't into girls for some reason. Either way, this is a great change.

Yeah! Great change! Why stop at 16 though! Let's make it 8 years old!

Because there is a big difference between 16 and 8, I doubt you even know the current legal standing anyways so you might as well be quiet. I could've made it 14. I was comfortable at that age and so are many others. Be happy with what you get.

It's pretty sickening that you are "comfortable" with child porn.

This has nothing to do with porn you idiot. This is age of consent. What are you smoking?

When you have old men having sex with 14 year old girls that is pretty much child porn.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 03:30:45 PM
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

You must be a virgin. Come on, if this weren't Atlas I'd be able to say we all had sex by then, but most people here aren't into girls for some reason. Either way, this is a great change.

Yeah! Great change! Why stop at 16 though! Let's make it 8 years old!

Because there is a big difference between 16 and 8, I doubt you even know the current legal standing anyways so you might as well be quiet. I could've made it 14. I was comfortable at that age and so are many others. Be happy with what you get.

It's pretty sickening that you are "comfortable" with child porn.

This has nothing to do with porn you idiot. This is age of consent. What are you smoking?

When you have old men having sex with 14 year old girls that is pretty much child porn.

First of all, no it isn't.
Second of all, the legislation actually prevents that, legally.
Third of all, if you don't know ANYTHING about ANYTHING, don't speak up on it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 14, 2009, 03:32:59 PM
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

You must be a virgin. Come on, if this weren't Atlas I'd be able to say we all had sex by then, but most people here aren't into girls for some reason. Either way, this is a great change.

I never had sex, I never came close to have. I just want to feel free to do as soon as I'll want this and have the occasion.


This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

You must be a virgin. Come on, if this weren't Atlas I'd be able to say we all had sex by then, but most people here aren't into girls for some reason. Either way, this is a great change.

Yeah! Great change! Why stop at 16 though! Let's make it 8 years old!

This argument is totally senseless. Nobody spoke about 8 years old.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 03:34:00 PM
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

You must be a virgin. Come on, if this weren't Atlas I'd be able to say we all had sex by then, but most people here aren't into girls for some reason. Either way, this is a great change.

I never had sex, I never came close to have. I just want to feel free to do as soon as I'll want this and have the occasion.

You're 16, you still have time ;)

This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

Kids ? Am I a kid ?!?

Yes a 16 year old is a kid.

You must be a virgin. Come on, if this weren't Atlas I'd be able to say we all had sex by then, but most people here aren't into girls for some reason. Either way, this is a great change.

Yeah! Great change! Why stop at 16 though! Let's make it 8 years old!

This argument is totally senseless. Nobody spoke about 8 years old.

Rowan is senseless. I can't wait to see him lose in December.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on October 14, 2009, 03:38:59 PM
It feels so lonely being one of the only people here with any sense of morals or values.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 03:39:43 PM
It feels so lonely being one of the only people here with any sense of morals or values.

You have no morals or values. Also, you're a terrible Senator. And a terrible Northeasterner. You don't eve know the current law on this issue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on October 14, 2009, 03:40:38 PM
It feels so lonely being one of the only people here with any sense of morals or values.

You have no morals or values. Also, you're a terrible Senator. And a terrible Northeasterner. You don't eve know the current law on this issue.

Oh right, wanting young teenagers to have sex with adults is having morals, I forgot. Silly me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 03:42:54 PM
It feels so lonely being one of the only people here with any sense of morals or values.

You have no morals or values. Also, you're a terrible Senator. And a terrible Northeasterner. You don't eve know the current law on this issue.

Oh right, wanting young teenagers to have sex with adults is having morals, I forgot. Silly me.

16 year olds are young adults. Don't be an idiot. Maybe I'll withdraw this bill and let the 12 year olds continue having sex just to spite you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 14, 2009, 03:46:30 PM
It feels so lonely being one of the only people here with any sense of morals or values.

I have a great sense of morals and values, don't care if you don't believe me. I just think morals and values are a personal question and have nothing to do with politics.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 14, 2009, 04:04:31 PM
It feels so lonely being one of the only people here with any sense of morals or values.

You have no morals or values. Also, you're a terrible Senator. And a terrible Northeasterner. You don't eve know the current law on this issue.

Section 3 of the current law (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=25617.0):
Quote
Section 3: Additions to Rape definitions

Any person of 16 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 12 years of age or younger is guilty of statutory rape.
Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 17 years or younger is guilty of statutory rape.

It's not clear that your proposal changes this section - you don't mention it by name in the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 04:07:15 PM
The bill was supposed to say Section 3. The other part has nothing to do with age of consent.

I amend my own bill to read:

Amendment to the Northeast Pornography and Age of Consent Act


1. Section 3, Clause 1 is hereby amended to include "All those persons of 16 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons of 16 years of age or older."

2. "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 17 years or younger is guilty of statutory rape." is amended to read "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person younger than the age of 16 is guilty of statutory rape."

And it's friendly.

Maybe made a typo but I think it still does the same thing anyways


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 14, 2009, 04:16:08 PM
The bill was supposed to say Section 3. The other part has nothing to do with age of consent.

I amend my own bill to read:

Amendment to the Northeast Pornography and Age of Consent Act


1. Section 3, Clause 1 is hereby amended to include "All those persons of 16 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons of 16 years of age or older."

2. "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 17 years or younger is guilty of statutory rape." is amended to read "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person younger than the age of 16 is guilty of statutory rape."

And it's friendly.

Maybe made a typo but I think it still does the same thing anyways

You're still not deleting the first clause of Section 3.

I see why current law needs to be tweaked a bit - under the law, a college senior who just turned  21 can theoretically end up going to jail for having sex with an incoming freshman who has yet to turn 18.  I'm not sure a blanket change for 16-year-olds is necessary - though it is the most common age of consent in the US.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 15, 2009, 12:18:32 AM
Bump.

I think all is clear now, but we have to wait for another entire day because of rules...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 15, 2009, 12:51:42 AM
Bump.

I think all is clear now, but we have to wait for another entire day because of rules...

Yeah - that's to make sure we all have a chance to see the legislation and propose changes - and know when we will hold a vote.  I was gone for about a day and missed the override vte since it passed by so fast.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 15, 2009, 07:58:40 AM
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

I don't want to speak for everyone, but when I was 16, yes, pretty much every moment was spent with pornography.  I mean, hello, we're talking about sixteen-year-olds.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 15, 2009, 11:41:53 AM
Bump.

I think all is clear now, but we have to wait for another entire day because of rules...

Yeah - that's to make sure we all have a chance to see the legislation and propose changes - and know when we will hold a vote.  I was gone for about a day and missed the override vte since it passed by so fast.

Anyone who is absent is responsible for being. When I was, I apologized without complaining for what I missed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 15, 2009, 06:27:38 PM
This is terrible. At 16 kids are still in high school. Do they go home from school and then do porn at night?

I don't want to speak for everyone, but when I was 16, yes, pretty much every moment was spent with pornography.  I mean, hello, we're talking about sixteen-year-olds.

Lately, it seems like most of my conversations have been about porn. This is odd.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 15, 2009, 07:46:04 PM
The Veto Over-ride vote passed.

()

The question is:

That - Debate on the Economic Recovery Tax Bill 2009 be now resumed.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "no," I believe the Ayes have it.

Debate is resumed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 15, 2009, 10:40:31 PM
The Veto Over-ride vote passed.

The question is:

That - Debate on the Economic Recovery Tax Bill 2009 be now resumed.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "no," I believe the Ayes have it.

Debate is resumed.

Actually, I think we're getting ready to vote on the age of consent bill.  I would appreciate it if my Economic Recovery Tax Bill of 2009 is taken up next, though.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 15, 2009, 10:41:36 PM
The Veto Over-ride vote passed.

The question is:

That - Debate on the Economic Recovery Tax Bill 2009 be now resumed.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "no," I believe the Ayes have it.

Debate is resumed.

Actually, I think we're getting ready to vote on the age of consent bill.  I would appreciate it if my Economic Recovery Tax Bill of 2009 is taken up next, though.

We need a final vote. And your bill is next.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 15, 2009, 10:50:44 PM
The Veto Over-ride vote passed.

The question is:

That - Debate on the Economic Recovery Tax Bill 2009 be now resumed.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "no," I believe the Ayes have it.

Debate is resumed.

Actually, I think we're getting ready to vote on the age of consent bill.  I would appreciate it if my Economic Recovery Tax Bill of 2009 is taken up next, though.

We need a final vote. And your bill is next.

That's correct. Debating on the Age of Consent Bill ends tomorrow, and then a final vote lasts for twenty-four hours. And I will be placing the Economic Recovery Tax Bill of 2009 as the next Bill to be considered.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 15, 2009, 10:51:39 PM
Can we get a final vote now? There is no debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 15, 2009, 11:26:55 PM
Can we get a final vote now? There is no debate.

Rep. Kalwejt  hasn't said anything since the bill was brought to the floor.  One of the reasons we have a 48-hour debate period is to allow all of us time to check in and give input on a bill.  Not every Representative is constantly online when the real world dictates otherwise.

And I still don't think you've struck the old 12-year-old age of consent close-in exception to my satisfaction.   I think you need to say something like "Section 3, Clause 1 is deleted and replaced with the following . . ." instead of "Section 3, Clause 1 is hereby amended to include . . ."


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 15, 2009, 11:30:25 PM
Can we get a final vote now? There is no debate.

Rep. Kalwejt  hasn't said anything since the bill was brought to the floor.  One of the reasons we have a 48-hour debate period is to allow all of us time to check in and give input on a bill.  Not every Representative is constantly online when the real world dictates otherwise.

And I still don't think you've struck the old 12-year-old age of consent close-in exception to my satisfaction.   I think you need to say something like "Section 3, Clause 1 is deleted and replaced with the following . . ." instead of "Section 3, Clause 1 is hereby amended to include . . ."

Kalwejt posted a leave of absence. I'll accept your amendment as friendly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 16, 2009, 08:06:57 AM
As I stated, my computer was broken and I was for one week off-line

Now, I'm back


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 16, 2009, 03:09:08 PM
As I stated, my computer was broken and I was for one week off-line

Now, I'm back

GOod


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 16, 2009, 05:09:40 PM
While I believe that the age of consent should be 15, not 16, I support the amendment to move on


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 17, 2009, 07:36:28 AM
Good.

I think the idea of keeping debating is hopeless, since nobody evolved in his positions, nor had a reason to do. We should just vote it now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 17, 2009, 11:31:39 AM
I hereby open up a final vote on this bill, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

Amendment to the Northeast Pornography and Age of Consent Act

1. Section 3, Clause 1 is deleted and replaced with the following "All those persons of 16 years of age or older, not incarcerated for crimes, shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons of 16 years of age or older."

2. "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 17 years or younger is guilty of statutory rape." is amended to read "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person younger than the age of 16 is guilty of statutory rape."


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 17, 2009, 11:34:12 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 17, 2009, 01:14:28 PM
Aye, because the bill drops the close-in exception for 12-year-olds.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 17, 2009, 01:20:37 PM
AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 17, 2009, 01:23:21 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 17, 2009, 01:37:53 PM
This passed. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 17, 2009, 02:17:40 PM
Aye, FTR.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 17, 2009, 02:30:50 PM

Not FTR - the vote is open until 12:31 PM tomorrow unless everyone votes sooner (Smid, that is).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 17, 2009, 02:31:41 PM

Not FTR - the vote is open until 12:31 PM tomorrow unless everyone votes sooner (Smid, that is).

We need to find someone to put our work in the wiki. Maybe each bill's sponsor can update the wiki if their bill passes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 17, 2009, 04:00:00 PM

Not FTR - the vote is open until 12:31 PM tomorrow unless everyone votes sooner (Smid, that is).

We need to find someone to put our work in the wiki. Maybe each bill's sponsor can update the wiki if their bill passes.

I believe this is part of the job responsibilities of the Lt. Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 17, 2009, 04:47:14 PM

Not FTR - the vote is open until 12:31 PM tomorrow unless everyone votes sooner (Smid, that is).

We need to find someone to put our work in the wiki. Maybe each bill's sponsor can update the wiki if their bill passes.

I'll do as soon as mine will pass. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 17, 2009, 05:06:16 PM

Not FTR - the vote is open until 12:31 PM tomorrow unless everyone votes sooner (Smid, that is).

We need to find someone to put our work in the wiki. Maybe each bill's sponsor can update the wiki if their bill passes.

I believe this is part of the job responsibilities of the Lt. Governor.

Okay. Barnes can do it then!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Hash on October 17, 2009, 05:12:35 PM
Remember to use categories people.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 17, 2009, 07:30:36 PM

Yes, article on me have no category at all :/


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 18, 2009, 12:30:49 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 18, 2009, 12:40:46 AM
With all Representatives having voted, I end voting on this bill.

With six ayes, and zero nays, this Bill has passed unanimously.

()

Since, this is an Amendment to an already existing law, does it require the Governor's signature?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 18, 2009, 12:41:23 AM
It should. It is a law in its own right as well.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 18, 2009, 12:59:17 AM
Yes, it still requires the Governor's signature. At least, that's how it typically works in real life, anyway.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 18, 2009, 02:23:17 AM
Next bill ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 18, 2009, 03:51:55 AM

We've got tax cuts coming up.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 18, 2009, 11:05:05 AM
Alright, well I present the Bill to the Governor for his signature or veto.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 18, 2009, 11:06:55 AM
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 2009
Three sections shall be added to the Northeast Tax Code as follows:

1.  Investment Tax Credit
(a) All individual and corporate taxpayers shall be entitled to a tax credit equal to the full amount of any capital expenditure made during the 2009 tax year that would otherwise have been required to be depreciated over time under the Northeast Tax Code.
(b) This tax credit shall be subject to recapture if a taxpayer sells or otherwise disposes of the capital asset subject to this credit before the end of the period during which such capital asset would have been required to be depreciated under the Northeast Tax Code but for the provisions of Section 1(a).
(c) The Northeast Tax Commissioner shall have the power to issue regulations preventing the abuse of Section 1(a).

2. Making Work Pay Tax Credit

(a) All individual taxpayers shall be entitled to a $1,000 tax credit against earned income in the 2009 tax year.
(b) The availability of this credit shall not be subject to any income limitations otherwise provided in the Northeast Tax Code.
(c) This credit shall not be refundable.

3. Taxation of Unemployment Benefits
The first $25,000 of unemployment benefits received during each of the 2009 and 2010 tax years shall not be subject to tax under the Northeast Tax Code.

Effective Date
This Act shall be effective for income received during the 2009 and, where specified, 2010 tax years, regardless of whether earned before the date hereof.

Sponsor: Rep. Ciync

The motion is that the Bill be considered.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No." The Ayes have it.

The sponsor, Representative cinyc, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 18, 2009, 11:26:31 AM
I have a question for the President.

Is there a schedulde for order of bill for consideration and, if so, can you publish that order

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 18, 2009, 11:31:29 AM
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 2009
Three sections shall be added to the Northeast Tax Code as follows:

1.  Investment Tax Credit
(a) All individual and corporate taxpayers shall be entitled to a tax credit equal to the full amount of any capital expenditure made during the 2009 tax year that would otherwise have been required to be depreciated over time under the Northeast Tax Code.
(b) This tax credit shall be subject to recapture if a taxpayer sells or otherwise disposes of the capital asset subject to this credit before the end of the period during which such capital asset would have been required to be depreciated under the Northeast Tax Code but for the provisions of Section 1(a).
(c) The Northeast Tax Commissioner shall have the power to issue regulations preventing the abuse of Section 1(a).

2. Making Work Pay Tax Credit

(a) All individual taxpayers shall be entitled to a $1,000 tax credit against earned income in the 2009 tax year.
(b) The availability of this credit shall not be subject to any income limitations otherwise provided in the Northeast Tax Code.
(c) This credit shall not be refundable.

3. Taxation of Unemployment Benefits
The first $25,000 of unemployment benefits received during each of the 2009 and 2010 tax years shall not be subject to tax under the Northeast Tax Code.

Effective Date
This Act shall be effective for income received during the 2009 and, where specified, 2010 tax years, regardless of whether earned before the date hereof.

Sponsor: Rep. Ciync

The motion is that the Bill be considered.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No." The Ayes have it.

The sponsor, Representative cinyc, has the floor.


I have no problem with making unemployment benefits tax deductible... I think that's a great idea that saves people a lot of trouble down the road.  I'm a little bit concerned about the $1,000 giveaway.

That's a lot of money.  Like, a lot of money.  Especially when you multiply it by the population of the Northeast, and especially when you consider that we're just the regional government.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 18, 2009, 11:42:45 AM
I have a question for the President.

Is there a schedulde for order of bill for consideration and, if so, can you publish that order

Thank you.

Well, I'm trying to do it by the order in which they were introduced in the Legislation thread.  And since cinyc very kindly tabled his Bill, so we could debate changes to the SOAP, I feel obliged to go back to it.

Certain things, I believe, require immediate attention, such as the Constitutional Amendment to limit the number of Reps., proposed by Hamilton. Which will probably be the first or second Bill considered in the next Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 18, 2009, 01:33:25 PM
I have no problem with making unemployment benefits tax deductible... I think that's a great idea that saves people a lot of trouble down the road.  I'm a little bit concerned about the $1,000 giveaway.

That's a lot of money.  Like, a lot of money.  Especially when you multiply it by the population of the Northeast, and especially when you consider that we're just the regional government.

Well, we can discuss lowering it if you think it's too much.  But, as drafted, if our tax rate is 5% (which would be about right for a Northeast US state), it will have the effect of exempting the first $20,000 in taxable earned income (after deductions - which the Northeast might not even have) from tax.  It was supposed to be the rough equivalent of not taxing the first $25,000 in unemployment compensation.

What is our tax rate?  Best I can tell, it's a flat 5.5% (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Northeast_March_2005_Tax_Initiative) - meaning the bill would exempt the first $18,182 in earned income from taxes.

My statement on the tax bill is back on page 13, here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102877.msg2181104#msg2181104).  Basically, this bill is partially in response to GM Purple State's suggestion that we provide tax relief to help the Northeast weather the recession.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 18, 2009, 02:26:10 PM
Certain things, I believe, require immediate attention, such as the Constitutional Amendment to limit the number of Reps., proposed by Hamilton. Which will probably be the first or second Bill considered in the next Assembly.

Don't. I'm working with him on a better version right now, and Hamilton will probably renounce to his Amendment as soon as we'll reach an agreement.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 18, 2009, 02:40:45 PM
I've been crunching the numbers.  Yeah - $1,000 seems a bit high.  According to the GM (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=101096.msg2124143#msg2124143), our budget was balanced at $780 million.  Our population is 77 million.  Assume half of our citizens would be eligible for this credit.  (Assume the others aren't because they are minors who don't work, citizens who earn too little to take full advantage of it, or only have investment income which isn't eligible for the credit).  A $1,000 credit would cost about $38.5 billion - or 5% of expected tax revenues.  That's too high, even though we're likely to get $7 billion in stimulus funding.

A $250 credit seems about right - under my assumptions, it would cost about $9.6 billion, or 1.2% of expected  tax revenues - and would be partially offset by stimulus funds.  

I doubt the investment tax credit will cost a ton - maybe a billion - and we might get some sales taxes revenue on increased purchases and increased corporate taxes in the future.   Plus, it will put people to work making and buying stuff.  

The cost of exempting the first $25,000 in unemployment benefits from tax will depend on the unemployment rate.   As of right now, with 7.5% unemployment, it might cost us $4 billion in lost tax revenue (assuming half of our citizens are in the workforce) - IF all unemployed citizens collect $25,000 in the first place.  Hopefully, most get jobs and never come close.

The GM said we'd probably have to go into temporary deficit with our stimulus efforts - and if we don't, sales tax revenues would fall next year anyway, putting us into deficit.

I'd appreciate other input before further amending the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 18, 2009, 03:59:07 PM
Certain things, I believe, require immediate attention, such as the Constitutional Amendment to limit the number of Reps., proposed by Hamilton. Which will probably be the first or second Bill considered in the next Assembly.

Don't. I'm working with him on a better version right now, and Hamilton will probably renounce to his Amendment as soon as we'll reach an agreement.

Yeah Antonio and I already agreed on a final version to introduce


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 18, 2009, 04:00:26 PM
I am completely content with this bill and so far see nothing I'd like to change.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 18, 2009, 04:36:57 PM
Certain things, I believe, require immediate attention, such as the Constitutional Amendment to limit the number of Reps., proposed by Hamilton. Which will probably be the first or second Bill considered in the next Assembly.

Don't. I'm working with him on a better version right now, and Hamilton will probably renounce to his Amendment as soon as we'll reach an agreement.

Yeah Antonio and I already agreed on a final version to introduce

Alright then. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 18, 2009, 04:46:10 PM
As for the tax credit, I'm pretty torn : on the one hand, this could be very helpful to restore growth, but on the other one, this will consistently reduce our breathing space, especially about helping the most disadvantaged. This was my priority during my campaign, and I don't want to be obliged to explain people that I can't keep my promises because government hasn't money anymore.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 18, 2009, 06:22:46 PM
I can't vote for $1,000, but I think I would vote for a more reasonable $400.  I'd like enough to provide a stimulus, but not too much so we break the bank.  Fiscal responsibility and prudency is one of the strengths of this region—I'd like to keep it that way.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 18, 2009, 06:23:44 PM
I can't vote for $1,000, but I think I would vote for a more reasonable $400.  I'd like enough to provide a stimulus, but not too much so we break the bank.  Fiscal responsibility and prudency is one of the strengths of this region—I'd like to keep it that way.


Maybe instead of all taxpayers we can direct the tax credit to whatever brackets are considered upper middle class and down from there.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 18, 2009, 07:30:47 PM
I can't vote for $1,000, but I think I would vote for a more reasonable $400.  I'd like enough to provide a stimulus, but not too much so we break the bank.  Fiscal responsibility and prudency is one of the strengths of this region—I'd like to keep it that way.


Maybe instead of all taxpayers we can direct the tax credit to whatever brackets are considered upper middle class and down from there.

That won't save much and would run contrary to the traditional flat tax we have in this region.  People shouldn't be penalized for making a good living - remember, this credit is only on earned, not investment income.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 18, 2009, 07:31:27 PM
I can't vote for $1,000, but I think I would vote for a more reasonable $400.  I'd like enough to provide a stimulus, but not too much so we break the bank.  Fiscal responsibility and prudency is one of the strengths of this region—I'd like to keep it that way.


Maybe instead of all taxpayers we can direct the tax credit to whatever brackets are considered upper middle class and down from there.

That won't save much and would run contrary to the traditional flat tax we have in this region.  People shouldn't be penalized for making a good living - remember, this credit is only on earned, not investment income.

Okay, you're right. I don't support a change in this bill at all. It's perfect.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 19, 2009, 12:29:59 AM
Wait... we use a flat income tax in the Northeast ?? This absolutely needs to be changed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 12:30:38 AM
Wait... we use a flat income tax in the Northeast ?? This absolutely needs to be changed.

No. It's worked for us so far. We have a balanced budget.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 19, 2009, 05:27:58 AM
Wait... we use a flat income tax in the Northeast ?? This absolutely needs to be changed.

No. It's worked for us so far. We have a balanced budget.

That's not the point. Flat tax is horribly unfair.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 19, 2009, 01:10:49 PM
Wait... we use a flat income tax in the Northeast ?? This absolutely needs to be changed.

As best I can tell, we do - but the Wiki for Northeast legislation hasn't been updated since 2007.

I will accept Mr. Moderate's amendment to lower the Making Work Pay tax credit to $400 as friendly.

The bill on the floor, as amended:
1. Investment Tax Credit
(a) All individual and corporate taxpayers shall be entitled to a tax credit equal to the full amount of any capital expenditure made during the 2009 tax year that would otherwise have been required to be depreciated over time under the Northeast Tax Code.
(b) This tax credit shall be subject to recapture if a taxpayer sells or otherwise disposes of the capital asset subject to this credit before the end of the period during which such capital asset would have been required to be depreciated under the Northeast Tax Code but for the provisions of Section 1(a).
(c) The Northeast Tax Commissioner shall have the power to issue regulations preventing the abuse of Section 1(a).

2. Making Work Pay Tax Credit
(a) All individual taxpayers shall be entitled to a $400 tax credit against earned income in the 2009 tax year.
(b) The availability of this credit shall not be subject to any income limitations otherwise provided in the Northeast Tax Code.
(c) This credit shall not be refundable.

3. Taxation of Unemployment Benefits
The first $25,000 of unemployment benefits received during each of the 2009 and 2010 tax years shall not be subject to tax under the Northeast Tax Code.

Effective Date
This Act shall be effective for income received during the 2009 and, where specified, 2010 tax years, regardless of whether earned before the date hereof.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 19, 2009, 01:18:32 PM
Terrific.  The bill has my full support, then.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 19, 2009, 01:32:20 PM
This is also fine with me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 19, 2009, 01:42:09 PM

Ok then


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 19, 2009, 03:12:46 PM
I know we start a new session tomorrow, but we will continue working on the Tax Bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 03:13:47 PM
Seems like this has the support to pass. I hope we can vote on this before the next session begins.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 03:16:08 PM
I'd like to see an emergency vote take place to limit the amount of Reps. to 6. 6 is a good number.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 19, 2009, 03:18:30 PM
Since I'll be leaving office tomorrow, I'll leave it up to one of you good folk to pick up my sponsored legislation on the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 03:20:28 PM
Since I'll be leaving office tomorrow, I'll leave it up to one of you good folk to pick up my sponsored legislation on the floor.

I'll take up sponsorship of the Cape Wind Resolution. Thanks for all the help getting us newer member acquainted with procedural matters. You've been a great asset to the new Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 19, 2009, 03:23:09 PM
Since I'll be leaving office tomorrow, I'll leave it up to one of you good folk to pick up my sponsored legislation on the floor.

I wouldn't be so sure about that if the Assembly expands to 8 members...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 03:25:32 PM
Since I'll be leaving office tomorrow, I'll leave it up to one of you good folk to pick up my sponsored legislation on the floor.

I wouldn't be so sure about that if the Assembly expands to 8 members...

He didn't accept write-ins.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 19, 2009, 03:25:59 PM
Since I'll be leaving office tomorrow, I'll leave it up to one of you good folk to pick up my sponsored legislation on the floor.

I wouldn't be so sure about that if the Assembly expands to 8 members...

Well, that's why a Constitutional Amendment will be near the top of our Agenda. Hopefully, the coming Assembly is the biggest it will ever get.  And, either five or six is a good number for me. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 03:27:05 PM
Since I'll be leaving office tomorrow, I'll leave it up to one of you good folk to pick up my sponsored legislation on the floor.

I wouldn't be so sure about that if the Assembly expands to 8 members...

Well, that's why a Constitutional Amendment will be near the top of our Agenda. Hopefully, the coming Assembly is the biggest it will ever get.  And, either five or six is a good number for me. :)


6 is better. It allows for a bit more, and we are fully capable of having six. It also allows you to have more input breaking ties :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 19, 2009, 04:04:20 PM
I'd like to see an emergency vote take place to limit the amount of Reps. to 6. 6 is a good number.

I see you never deleted your old Amendment, nor introduced the new one as you told me you would. Congratulations for pretending to pay attention about other people's opinions and then totally ignore them.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 04:05:09 PM
I'd like to see an emergency vote take place to limit the amount of Reps. to 6. 6 is a good number.

I see you never deleted your old Amendment, nor introduced the new one as you told me you would. Congratulations for pretending to pay attention about other people's opinions and then totally ignore them.

I thought you were going to introduce it! Ok I will right now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 19, 2009, 04:07:50 PM
I'd like to see an emergency vote take place to limit the amount of Reps. to 6. 6 is a good number.

I see you never deleted your old Amendment, nor introduced the new one as you told me you would. Congratulations for pretending to pay attention about other people's opinions and then totally ignore them.

I thought you were going to introduce it! Ok I will right now.

All right. The essential is not to have two different Amendments introduced on the same subject at the same time (and, partly, by the same people)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 19, 2009, 04:43:56 PM
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker

When will we know official results of the election?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 04:53:01 PM
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker

When will we know official results of the election?

When you go read the voting booth :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 19, 2009, 05:02:38 PM
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker

When will we know official results of the election?

When you go read the voting booth :P

Oh, I'm sorry for confusion, but where's official certification from the responsible authorities. Official message who get elected :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 05:03:11 PM
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker

When will we know official results of the election?

When you go read the voting booth :P

Oh, I'm sorry for confusion, but where's official certification from the responsible authorities. Official message who get elected :P

I don't know. But I want to know as well. Hope I didn't lose.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 19, 2009, 05:38:39 PM
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker

When will we know official results of the election?

When you go read the voting booth :P

Oh, I'm sorry for confusion, but where's official certification from the responsible authorities. Official message who get elected :P

I don't know. But I want to know as well. Hope I didn't lose.

LOL You certainly know you're ahead with more than twice the quota.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 05:39:08 PM
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker

When will we know official results of the election?

When you go read the voting booth :P

Oh, I'm sorry for confusion, but where's official certification from the responsible authorities. Official message who get elected :P

I don't know. But I want to know as well. Hope I didn't lose.

LOL You certainly know you're ahead with more than twice the quota.

:D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 19, 2009, 06:24:56 PM
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker

When will we know official results of the election?

When you go read the voting booth :P

Oh, I'm sorry for confusion, but where's official certification from the responsible authorities. Official message who get elected :P

I don't know. But I want to know as well. Hope I didn't lose.

LOL You certainly know you're ahead with more than twice the quota.

:D

Seriously, someone like Lt. Governor, Speaker of CJO should say that vote is over, votes counted and who is elected. Formality! Formaliry!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 19, 2009, 06:26:21 PM
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker

When will we know official results of the election?

When you go read the voting booth :P

Oh, I'm sorry for confusion, but where's official certification from the responsible authorities. Official message who get elected :P

I don't know. But I want to know as well. Hope I didn't lose.

LOL You certainly know you're ahead with more than twice the quota.

:D

Seriously, someone like Lt. Governor, Speaker of CJO should say that vote is over, votes counted and who is elected. Formality! Formaliry!

Don't worry. We're working on it.

I'm not great at counting votes, but the Governor already said he'd do it. I'll post all of the elected representatives, as soon as I get the information. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 19, 2009, 06:34:37 PM
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker

When will we know official results of the election?

When you go read the voting booth :P

Oh, I'm sorry for confusion, but where's official certification from the responsible authorities. Official message who get elected :P

I don't know. But I want to know as well. Hope I didn't lose.

LOL You certainly know you're ahead with more than twice the quota.

:D

Seriously, someone like Lt. Governor, Speaker of CJO should say that vote is over, votes counted and who is elected. Formality! Formaliry!

Don't worry. We're working on it.

I'm not great at counting votes, but the Governor already said he'd do it. I'll post all of the elected representatives, as soon as I get the information. :)

Thank you. I raised this because we need to have a clear procedures (also I'm curious if shall the new assembly start tommorow if there are no officially elected Reps)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 19, 2009, 06:37:08 PM
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker

When will we know official results of the election?

When you go read the voting booth :P

Oh, I'm sorry for confusion, but where's official certification from the responsible authorities. Official message who get elected :P

I don't know. But I want to know as well. Hope I didn't lose.

LOL You certainly know you're ahead with more than twice the quota.

:D

Seriously, someone like Lt. Governor, Speaker of CJO should say that vote is over, votes counted and who is elected. Formality! Formaliry!

Don't worry. We're working on it.

I'm not great at counting votes, but the Governor already said he'd do it. I'll post all of the elected representatives, as soon as I get the information. :)

Thank you. I raised this because we need to have a clear procedures (also I'm curious if shall the new assembly start tommorow if there are no officially elected Reps)

Well, the Constitution clearly states that all elected officials in the Northeast take office the Tuesday immediately following their election. So, the Assembly starts tomorrow.  I won't proceed with official business until a quorum is sworn in, though.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 19, 2009, 06:43:57 PM
I'll try to take an oath as soon as possible (assuming I';m reelected :P)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 06:45:43 PM
I'll try to take an oath as soon as possible (assuming I';m reelected :P)

I think you might have lost.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on October 19, 2009, 08:46:02 PM
i am taking a look at the results now and they should be ready shortly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 19, 2009, 10:16:20 PM
Technically, all bills should be reintroduced on the proposed legislation thread for the new session.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 19, 2009, 10:18:16 PM
Technically, all bills should be reintroduced on the proposed legislation thread for the new session.

Sounds good to me. But just as an FYI, Constitutional Amendments are going near the top of consideration list. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 19, 2009, 10:36:08 PM
Technically, all bills should be reintroduced on the proposed legislation thread for the new session.

Sounds good to me. But just as an FYI, Constitutional Amendments are going near the top of consideration list. :)

Sponsors should make sure to introduce them first, before sponsoring other legislation, then.  I will make sure the current tax bill gets back to the floor ASAP, and will be introducing Mr. Moderate's Veto Override Amendment should he not win reelection.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 19, 2009, 10:37:57 PM
Technically, all bills should be reintroduced on the proposed legislation thread for the new session.

Sounds good to me. But just as an FYI, Constitutional Amendments are going near the top of consideration list. :)

Sponsors should make sure to introduce them first, before sponsoring other legislation, then.  I will make sure the current tax bill gets back to the floor ASAP, and will be introducing Mr. Moderate's Veto Override Amendment should he not win reelection.

OK, sounds good. But the first order of business has to be elected a Speaker. The Speaker Bill says one has to be elected a the start of each session. If no one wants to challenge Smid, it shouldn't take more than a day. If they do, that's a different story. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 10:40:03 PM
If I am re-elected, I will run should Smid not seek another term as Speaker. However, if he does, I will gladly and proudly support him for the position.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 19, 2009, 10:42:50 PM
The following have been duly elected:

Antonio V
Hamilton
Kalwejt
Smid
Cinyc
Fezzyfestoon

With the Assembly size increased to Eight, the Governor needs to appoint two Reps. :)

The New Assembly starts at Midnight, or about 17 minutes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 19, 2009, 10:44:14 PM
The following have been duly elected:

Antonio V
Hamilton
Kalwejt
Smid
Cinyc
Fezzyfestoon

With the Assembly size increased to Eight, the Governor needs to appoint two Reps. :)

The New Assembly starts at Midnight, or about 17 minutes.

Why wouldn't the election determine the other two new members?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 10:44:19 PM
Not if we decrease the Assembly size. In the meantime, FallenMorgan would be a good appointee to the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 10:44:41 PM
The following have been duly elected:

Antonio V
Hamilton
Kalwejt
Smid
Cinyc
Fezzyfestoon

With the Assembly size increased to Eight, the Governor needs to appoint two Reps. :)

The New Assembly starts at Midnight, or about 17 minutes.

Why wouldn't the election determine the other two new members?

They didn't accept write-ins therefore those votes aren't valid.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 19, 2009, 10:48:39 PM
They didn't accept write-ins therefore those votes aren't valid.

Dr. Cynic voted for himself, which I thought was the equivalent of accepting write-ins.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 10:51:22 PM
They didn't accept write-ins therefore those votes aren't valid.

Dr. Cynic voted for himself, which I thought was the equivalent of accepting write-ins.

I'm not sure if we have that rule. We could. And I'm not sure if those who don't meet quota are rejected.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 19, 2009, 11:20:45 PM
They didn't accept write-ins therefore those votes aren't valid.

Dr. Cynic voted for himself, which I thought was the equivalent of accepting write-ins.

I'm not sure if we have that rule. We could. And I'm not sure if those who don't meet quota are rejected.

I'm not even sure we have an acceptance of write-ins rule - that's a federal thing. Article V, Section v of the New Northeast Constitution only says "Candidates for the Legislative Assembly will be given until the second Friday of the month in which he or she wishes to run in an election thereof to announce his candidacy. This is to be done by officially declaring his or her's candidacy in the Candidate Declaration Thread. "    It says nothing about write-ins.  

The old Northeastern Voting Regulations (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Northeastern_Voting_Regulations) only says "In order to be listed on the ballot, a candidate must have announced an intention to run 7 days before the day appointed for the election to begin. If the candidate has not announced an intention before this deadline and wishes to run, that citizen should have write in candidacy status. " - but that pre-New Northeast Constitution law arguably only applies to the Governor's race and is probably superseded by the New Northeast Constitution.

The law requiring acceptance of write-in votes is a federal one, not a Northeastern one.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 11:22:20 PM
They didn't accept write-ins therefore those votes aren't valid.

Dr. Cynic voted for himself, which I thought was the equivalent of accepting write-ins.

I'm not sure if we have that rule. We could. And I'm not sure if those who don't meet quota are rejected.

I'm not even sure we have an acceptance of write-ins rule - that's a federal thing. Article V, Section v of the New Northeast Constitution only says "Candidates for the Legislative Assembly will be given until the second Friday of the month in which he or she wishes to run in an election thereof to announce his candidacy. This is to be done by officially declaring his or her's candidacy in the Candidate Declaration Thread. "    It says nothing about write-ins.  

The old Northeastern Voting Regulations (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Northeastern_Voting_Regulations) only says "In order to be listed on the ballot, a candidate must have announced an intention to run 7 days before the day appointed for the election to begin. If the candidate has not announced an intention before this deadline and wishes to run, that citizen should have write in candidacy status. " - but that pre-New Northeast Constitution law arguably only applies to the Governor's race and is probably superseded by the New Northeast Constitution.

The law requiring acceptance of write-in votes is a federal one, not a Northeastern one.


In that case, we should work on amending this to resolve this confusion. Write-ins should have to be accepted.

And what about quota issues? I don't think they are addressed either.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 19, 2009, 11:29:45 PM
In that case, we should work on amending this to resolve this confusion. Write-ins should have to be accepted.

And what about quota issues? I don't think they are addressed either.

Quota issues meaning what?  Tallying of votes? The New Northeast Constitution expressly adopted Sections 4-17 of the federal Proportional Representation Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Proportional_Representation_Act), unless this Assembly decides otherwise.

Note that we didn't adopt Section 3 of the PRA, which would have adopted the federal write-in rules through the back door.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Hatman 🍁 on October 19, 2009, 11:46:42 PM
it is precedent in the Northeast to need write ins to be confirmed through votes. Just look at the February 2009 Lt Governor race, where the top vote getter did not win.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 19, 2009, 11:49:06 PM
it is precedent in the Northeast to need write ins to be confirmed through votes. Just look at the February 2009 Lt Governor race, where the top vote getter did not win.

Votes for themselves?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Hatman 🍁 on October 19, 2009, 11:50:51 PM
it is precedent in the Northeast to need write ins to be confirmed through votes. Just look at the February 2009 Lt Governor race, where the top vote getter did not win.

Votes for themselves?

Yeah


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 19, 2009, 11:59:31 PM
it is precedent in the Northeast to need write ins to be confirmed through votes. Just look at the February 2009 Lt Governor race, where the top vote getter did not win.

Votes for themselves?

Yeah

Well Dr. Cynic did that.  Connor Flynn/Montag may have if Rocky is for some unknown reason (to me) him.  Mr. Moderate did not.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 20, 2009, 12:00:20 AM
it is precedent in the Northeast to need write ins to be confirmed through votes. Just look at the February 2009 Lt Governor race, where the top vote getter did not win.

Votes for themselves?

Yeah

Well Dr. Cynic did that.  Connor Flynn/Montag may have if Rocky is for some unknown reason him.  Mr. Moderate did not.

Conor Flynn/Montag/Rocky/Rockefeller Republican is all the same person.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 20, 2009, 10:23:00 AM
The following have been duly elected:

Antonio V
Hamilton
Kalwejt
Smid
Cinyc
Fezzyfestoon

With the Assembly size increased to Eight, the Governor needs to appoint two Reps. :)

The New Assembly starts at Midnight, or about 17 minutes.

So there are 3 ProCons, 2 JCP-ers and, now, 1 LFN?



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 20, 2009, 12:10:12 PM
Why would Dr. Cynic and Rocky Republican not be the seventh and eighth members, respectively?  Why does the Governor get to appoint, even though the public just voted?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on October 20, 2009, 12:32:08 PM
If the size of the assembly were to add 2 additional members by the time of the election, they would be elected to it if they stated that they are accepting write in votes. I could easily just appoint the two of them if they are still interested. They just need to let me know.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 20, 2009, 12:56:53 PM
We don't need to appoint two members, but just to make work normal electoral proceedings : Dr Cynic and Conor Flynn are elected since they both accepted write-ins.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 20, 2009, 01:50:12 PM
The following have been duly elected:

Antonio V
Hamilton
Kalwejt
Smid
Cinyc
Fezzyfestoon

With the Assembly size increased to Eight, the Governor needs to appoint two Reps. :)

The New Assembly starts at Midnight, or about 17 minutes.

So there are 3 ProCons, 2 JCP-ers and, now, 1 LFN?



I'm an independent.  It's 2/2/1/1, pending the election of Dr. Cynic and Conor Flynn.  If those two are deemed elected, the composition should be 2 PCP, 2 JCP, 2 LFN (+Dr. Cynic), 1 DA (+ Conor/Rocky/Montag/whatever he's calling himself these days) and 1 independent.

The composition of the first Assembly at the time of nomination was 2 PCP, 2 JCP, 2 independents.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 20, 2009, 01:52:51 PM
The following have been duly elected:

Antonio V
Hamilton
Kalwejt
Smid
Cinyc
Fezzyfestoon

With the Assembly size increased to Eight, the Governor needs to appoint two Reps. :)

The New Assembly starts at Midnight, or about 17 minutes.

So there are 3 ProCons, 2 JCP-ers and, now, 1 LFN?



I'm an independent.  It's 2/2/1/1, pending the election of Dr. Cynic and Conor Flynn.  If those two are deemed elected, the composition should be 2 PCP, 2 JCP, 2 LFN (+Dr. Cynic), 1 DA (+ Conor/Rocky/Montag/whatever he's calling himself these days) and 1 independent.

The composition of the first Assembly at the time of nomination was 2 PCP, 2 JCP, 2 independents.

Nice to see how balaced the composition is.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 20, 2009, 06:41:23 PM
Since most of elected (if not all) Representatives took an oath, I believe that we're now on the session.

If so (of course correct me if I'm wrong :)), we should proceed with election of Speaker for the current term. From my side I'd like to say, if Smid is going to run again, I shall suport him. Otherwise, I'm considering running for speaker myself.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 20, 2009, 06:43:30 PM
If I am re-elected, I will run should Smid not seek another term as Speaker. However, if he does, I will gladly and proudly support him for the position.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 20, 2009, 06:44:41 PM
Since most of elected (if not all) Representatives took an oath, I believe that we're now on the session.

If so (of course correct me if I'm wrong :)), we should proceed with election of Speaker for the current term. From my side I'd like to say, if Smid is going to run again, I shall suport him. Otherwise, I'm considering running for speaker myself.

Has it been determined if the 7th and 8th seats were elected, or if the Governor has to appoint them?

And, yes, the Speakership election will be the first order of business. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 20, 2009, 06:48:01 PM
Since most of elected (if not all) Representatives took an oath, I believe that we're now on the session.

If so (of course correct me if I'm wrong :)), we should proceed with election of Speaker for the current term. From my side I'd like to say, if Smid is going to run again, I shall suport him. Otherwise, I'm considering running for speaker myself.

Has it been determined if the 7th and 8th seats were elected, or if the Governor has to appoint them?

And, yes, the Speakership election will be the first oder of business. :)

They were elected.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 20, 2009, 07:01:06 PM
Since most of elected (if not all) Representatives took an oath, I believe that we're now on the session.

If so (of course correct me if I'm wrong :)), we should proceed with election of Speaker for the current term. From my side I'd like to say, if Smid is going to run again, I shall suport him. Otherwise, I'm considering running for speaker myself.

Has it been determined if the 7th and 8th seats were elected, or if the Governor has to appoint them?

And, yes, the Speakership election will be the first oder of business. :)

They were elected.

Saying it's so doesn't make it so.  The Governor has not issued any new certification.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 20, 2009, 07:03:19 PM
Since most of elected (if not all) Representatives took an oath, I believe that we're now on the session.

If so (of course correct me if I'm wrong :)), we should proceed with election of Speaker for the current term. From my side I'd like to say, if Smid is going to run again, I shall suport him. Otherwise, I'm considering running for speaker myself.

Has it been determined if the 7th and 8th seats were elected, or if the Governor has to appoint them?

And, yes, the Speakership election will be the first oder of business. :)

They were elected.

Saying it's so doesn't make it so.  The Governor has not issued any new certification.

They were the 7th and 8th vote getters, so I don't see how they aren't elected based on recent evidence of write-in rules.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 20, 2009, 07:05:52 PM
Quote from: Atlasia's new Machiavelli (LNF-MA)
They were the 7th and 8th vote getters, so I don't see how they aren't elected based on recent evidence of write-in rules.

Nor do I, but the Governor, as agent for the CJO, has certified nothing of the sort. We need a certification first.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 20, 2009, 10:58:16 PM
Actually, the large Assembly could be cool as long as we can find more candidates next time. The Committee idea will work better this way.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 20, 2009, 11:03:47 PM
Congratulations to Reps. Dr. Cynic, Conor/Rocky/Montag/whatever he's calling himself today and fezzyfestoon.

Let's get to work.  I nominate Smid for Assembly Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 20, 2009, 11:06:00 PM
Actually, being chosen to join you all was rather a shock to me. I wrote my own name in because I could not think of another person at that time. Having others write me in was surprising when I learned it. So much so, I didn't believe our President when he informed me.

In any case, I'm glad to be here and am anxious to get to business.

I'd like to second the nomination.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 20, 2009, 11:06:49 PM
I will third the re-nomination of Speaker Smid.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 21, 2009, 12:05:05 AM
After electing a Speaker, I would advise this body: a) pass some sort of tax cuts and then b) focus solely on amendments to fix the mess that is the Northeast Constitution.

Small, region-oriented legislation can wait. It is most important to create some sort of stability and legal structure that the region can abide by to avoid confusion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 21, 2009, 08:47:23 AM
Fellow Representatives,
For the new session beginning, I've decided to run for he office of Speaker of the Assembly. I have absolutely nothing against Smid, for which I have a lot of respect, and who certainly did a good job last session. However, as I promised during my campaign, I find necessary to make the delays the shortest possible for vote openings and closures. We have an enourmous amout of bills that need to be discussed and put on vote before the end of the session, and I would like to help making this assembly work faster and better. As soon as elected, I will start with opening the vote on Tax Credit Act.


Actually, being chosen to join you all was rather a shock to me. I wrote my own name in because I could not think of another person at that time. Having others write me in was surprising when I learned it. So much so, I didn't believe our President when he informed me.

Yeah, you seemed to be a pretty good choice. Congratulations and good luck for your new office. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 21, 2009, 06:35:21 PM
Well, I know Smid hasn't sworn himself in yet, but I think it's safe to start business.

I hereby open up a vote for Speaker. (Only vote for one)

[ ] Rep. AntonioV
[ ] Rep. Smid



Voting lasts twenty-four hours



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 21, 2009, 07:02:42 PM
  • Rep. Smid


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 21, 2009, 07:05:08 PM
  • Rep. AntonioV
[ ] Rep. Smid


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 21, 2009, 11:40:48 PM


[X] Rep. AntonioV
[ ] Rep. Smid


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: fezzyfestoon on October 22, 2009, 08:36:07 AM
Smid


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 22, 2009, 11:29:49 AM
[X] Rep. AntonioV
[ ] Rep. Smid


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 22, 2009, 05:43:15 PM
Smid.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 22, 2009, 09:20:40 PM
I just want to say, that despite changing party affilation neither my views or legislative priorities changed


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 22, 2009, 09:24:17 PM
The Final Vote for the Speaker election are as follows:

Smid: Three Votes (cinyc, fezzyfestoon, Smid)
AntonioV: Three Votes (Kalwejt, Doctor Cynic, AntonioV)
No Votes: Two (Hamilton, Montag)

Yea! A Tie! I believe my Constitutional power applies to breaking ties for elections to positions. I'll be announcing my choice very soon (maximum of an hour).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 22, 2009, 09:29:44 PM
The Final Vote for the Speaker election are as follows:

Smid: Three Votes (cinyc, fezzyfestoon, Smid)
AntonioV: Three Votes (Kalwejt, Doctor Cynic, AntonioV)
No Votes: Two (Hamilton, Montag)

Yea! A Tie! I believe my Constitutional power applies to breaking ties for elections to positions. I'll be announcing my choice very soon (maximum of an hour).

First tie-breaking vote to be cast

You're making history :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 22, 2009, 09:31:31 PM
This was a really difficult decision. I planned on not voting at all. That would have been cowardly of me. My vote is for Smid. That is not to say I do not think Antonio qualified, and I'd likely support him next time he runs, but Smid has not even served a full term yet and he has some good ideas that I think we should try before switching our mode of operation so early into the Assembly. I hope no one is angry and Smid, you have my full confidence.

Thanks, Hamilton

Yeah, I'm not too keen on supporting that party, but Smid has made it clear that he is better than the group as a whole. I can't take anything out on a good guy like Smid. Sorry Antonio. You'll get a chance, though, I promise.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 22, 2009, 09:34:39 PM
I'll 100% for Antonio

He's really put a lot in creation of the Assembly and deserved this honor

This is a time for new generation


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 22, 2009, 09:37:31 PM
This was a really difficult decision. I planned on not voting at all. That would have been cowardly of me. My vote is for Smid. That is not to say I do not think Antonio qualified, and I'd likely support him next time he runs, but Smid has not even served a full term yet and he has some good ideas that I think we should try before switching our mode of operation so early into the Assembly. I hope no one is angry and Smid, you have my full confidence.

Thanks, Hamilton

Yeah, I'm not too keen on supporting that party, but Smid has made it clear that he is better than the group as a whole. I can't take anything out on a good guy like Smid. Sorry Antonio. You'll get a chance, though, I promise.

I'm sorry, but your vote doesn't count since, it was cast after voting closed. :(


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 22, 2009, 09:39:11 PM
This was a really difficult decision. I planned on not voting at all. That would have been cowardly of me. My vote is for Smid. That is not to say I do not think Antonio qualified, and I'd likely support him next time he runs, but Smid has not even served a full term yet and he has some good ideas that I think we should try before switching our mode of operation so early into the Assembly. I hope no one is angry and Smid, you have my full confidence.

Thanks, Hamilton

Yeah, I'm not too keen on supporting that party, but Smid has made it clear that he is better than the group as a whole. I can't take anything out on a good guy like Smid. Sorry Antonio. You'll get a chance, though, I promise.

I'm sorry, but your vote doesn't count since, it was cast after voting closed. :(

Well, now you know how to break the tie.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 22, 2009, 10:20:54 PM
I break the tie in favor of Smid. This was a difficult decision, and, no, Hamilton, it's not because of your campaign for Smid. ;)

Antonio, this has nothing against you, I promise. I just believe that we still need an abundance of experience in dealing with parliamentary procedure. :) (I'll make it up to you, I promise, maybe a Committee Chairmanship!) :D

So, anyway, Smid is hereby elected Speaker of this Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 22, 2009, 10:40:20 PM
I mentioned to someone a couple of days back that I won't be running for Speaker in the next assembly, in order to give someone else the chance to perform the role.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 22, 2009, 11:10:31 PM
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 2009
Three sections shall be added to the Northeast Tax Code as follows:

1. Investment Tax Credit
(a) All individual and corporate taxpayers shall be entitled to a tax credit equal to the full amount of any capital expenditure made during the 2009 tax year that would otherwise have been required to be depreciated over time under the Northeast Tax Code.
(b) This tax credit shall be subject to recapture if a taxpayer sells or otherwise disposes of the capital asset subject to this credit before the end of the period during which such capital asset would have been required to be depreciated under the Northeast Tax Code but for the provisions of Section 1(a).
(c) The Northeast Tax Commissioner shall have the power to issue regulations preventing the abuse of Section 1(a).

2. Making Work Pay Tax Credit
(a) All individual taxpayers shall be entitled to a $400 tax credit against earned income in the 2009 tax year.
(b) The availability of this credit shall not be subject to any income limitations otherwise provided in the Northeast Tax Code.
(c) This credit shall not be refundable.

3. Taxation of Unemployment Benefits
The first $25,000 of unemployment benefits received during each of the 2009 and 2010 tax years shall not be subject to tax under the Northeast Tax Code.

Effective Date
This Act shall be effective for income received during the 2009 and, where specified, 2010 tax years, regardless of whether earned before the date hereof.

Sponsor: Rep. cinyc

The motion is that the Bill be considered.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No." The Ayes have it.

The sponsor, Representative cinyc, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 22, 2009, 11:18:26 PM
Thank you, Mr. Lieutenant Governor.

This bill was being debated when the last Assembly adjourned sine die.  Former Rep. Mr. Moderate's proposed amendment to lower the amount of the Making Work Pay Tax Credit to $400 is included in the version I've brought to the floor in this new Assembly.

For our new Representatives, my statement explaining this bill is way back on Page 14 here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102877.msg2181104#msg2181104).

Given that we've started debate on the bill twice before, I move that we dispense with the normal 48-hour debate period and proceed to a vote on the bill.

If any new Representatives have concerns about or proposed amendments to the bill in the interim, please let me know during the 24-hour voting period for the motion to proceed to a vote.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 22, 2009, 11:20:31 PM
I second the motion that the Bill be now put.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 22, 2009, 11:24:19 PM

I move that we dispense with the normal 48-hour debate period and proceed to a vote on the bill.


I bring this to a vote. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Voting lasts twenty-four hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 22, 2009, 11:26:46 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 22, 2009, 11:28:34 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 22, 2009, 11:50:38 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 23, 2009, 12:32:52 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on October 23, 2009, 01:14:00 AM
FTR, support the re-nomination of Smid for Speaker of the House.

AYE

Despite the conformity I support the bill sponsored by fellow Representative Cynic.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 23, 2009, 09:36:27 AM
Aye.

I mentioned to someone a couple of days back that I won't be running for Speaker in the next assembly, in order to give someone else the chance to perform the role.

Thanks. Sorry for challenging you, but one-candidate elections aren't fun. Anyways, Barnes took the right decision. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: fezzyfestoon on October 23, 2009, 10:17:42 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 23, 2009, 01:33:42 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 23, 2009, 01:40:01 PM
Nice to see we have an unanimity. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 23, 2009, 02:54:41 PM
The Motion has passed unanimously.

I open up a final vote on this. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 2009
Three sections shall be added to the Northeast Tax Code as follows:

1. Investment Tax Credit
(a) All individual and corporate taxpayers shall be entitled to a tax credit equal to the full amount of any capital expenditure made during the 2009 tax year that would otherwise have been required to be depreciated over time under the Northeast Tax Code.
(b) This tax credit shall be subject to recapture if a taxpayer sells or otherwise disposes of the capital asset subject to this credit before the end of the period during which such capital asset would have been required to be depreciated under the Northeast Tax Code but for the provisions of Section 1(a).
(c) The Northeast Tax Commissioner shall have the power to issue regulations preventing the abuse of Section 1(a).

2. Making Work Pay Tax Credit
(a) All individual taxpayers shall be entitled to a $400 tax credit against earned income in the 2009 tax year.
(b) The availability of this credit shall not be subject to any income limitations otherwise provided in the Northeast Tax Code.
(c) This credit shall not be refundable.

3. Taxation of Unemployment Benefits
The first $25,000 of unemployment benefits received during each of the 2009 and 2010 tax years shall not be subject to tax under the Northeast Tax Code.

Effective Date
This Act shall be effective for income received during the 2009 and, where specified, 2010 tax years, regardless of whether earned before the date hereof.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 23, 2009, 03:52:29 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 24, 2009, 12:35:02 AM
*yawn*

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 24, 2009, 12:46:42 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 24, 2009, 05:40:02 AM
AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 24, 2009, 05:40:03 AM
Aye!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 24, 2009, 01:39:24 PM
Bump - for our other representatives to vote on final passage.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on October 24, 2009, 01:42:37 PM
It's tough when one of them is on mod review constantly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 24, 2009, 04:31:25 PM
It's tough when one of them is on mod review constantly.

See, he's not

Stop dreaming.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 24, 2009, 05:01:41 PM
What the hell do the other 4 do ?!?
Eight is really too much...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 24, 2009, 05:06:44 PM
What the hell do the other 4 do ?!?
Eight is really too much...

Well, five Reps would be enough, but law cannot act retrospectivaly


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 24, 2009, 05:09:31 PM
What the hell do the other 4 do ?!?
Eight is really too much...

Well, five Reps would be enough, but law cannot act retrospectivaly

I prefer six, personally.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 24, 2009, 05:10:52 PM
What the hell do the other 4 do ?!?
Eight is really too much...

Well, five Reps would be enough, but law cannot act retrospectivaly

The Amendment sponsored by Hamilton and I will try to deal with that, so that in decemer we will have a more competitive election and a better working Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 24, 2009, 07:49:35 PM
What the hell do the other 4 do ?!?
Eight is really too much...

Well, five Reps would be enough, but law cannot act retrospectivaly

The Amendment sponsored by Hamilton and I will try to deal with that, so that in decemer we will have a more competitive election and a better working Assembly.

FYI - I'm going to temporarily table the veto override amendment so that we can deal with the size of the Assembly amendment first.  It doesn't make sense to set an override level until we've set the size of the Assembly.  In a fixed 6-member Assembly, 2/3rds IS a majority (4/6 - unless the LT Governor breaks a tie).  Not so in a 5, 7 or 8-member Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 24, 2009, 10:03:54 PM
With Four Ayes, Zero Nays, and Zero Abstentions, the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 2009 has passed. I hereby present it to the Governor for his Signature or Veto.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 24, 2009, 10:43:17 PM
Aye, ftr.

As I've stated. My internet will be limited until Wednesday.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 24, 2009, 11:01:52 PM
Mr. Lt. Governor -

As I stated previously, I ask that you temporarily table the Veto Override Amendment so that we can address amendments dealing with the number of Assembly seats first.  I ask that you bring the Vero Override Amendment to the floor after we vote on the number of Representatives this body should have.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 24, 2009, 11:05:55 PM
Seats Number Amendment

1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is amended as follows :
2. The number of Reps to be elected corresponds to the integer of the number [(V/5)+0.5], with V being the number of northeast citizens who actually vote to elect said Reps. The number of Reps shall be comprised between 2 and 10 notwithstanding what precedes.

Sponsor: Rep. AntonioV

The motion is that the Bill be considered.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No." The Ayes have it.

The sponsor, Representative AntonioV, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 25, 2009, 03:43:23 AM
Well, I have to indicate that Hamilton and I are co-sponsor of this Amendment. :)

Here is the point : The unsteadiness between the number of seats and the number of real voters is a main reason for the current excessive number of reps. Linking it to the number of actual voters would drastically reduce them (for instance, even with 32 voters, we'd still have only 6 reps), but keeping a link between the number of active citizens and the number of their Representatives.


Aye, obviously.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 25, 2009, 09:04:58 AM
Thanks to both of you for crafting this amendment

Aye :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 25, 2009, 09:25:07 AM
Thanks to both of you for crafting this amendment

Aye :)

We're not holding a vote on this right now, we're debating the Amendment. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 25, 2009, 09:32:21 AM
Thanks to both of you for crafting this amendment

Aye :)

We're not holding a vote on this right now, we're debating the Amendment. :)

Oh, ok :)

I support the amendment for two reasons I'd like to put before you

First of all, we simply don't need so large Assembly.

Second of all, this would make futher elections more competentive and thus revitalize our political life and participation in the process.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 25, 2009, 11:16:08 AM
Basically, what Antonio said sums it up :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 25, 2009, 01:06:30 PM
Well, no we just need to wait for 48 long hours of so-called "debate"... Proceedings are so boring !

Anyways, the main problem with this is that it's an Amendment, and Amendments need to be voted by the citizens after passing in the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 25, 2009, 01:15:42 PM
Well, no we just need to wait for 48 long hours... Proceedings are so boring !

Well, actually, debate lasts 72 hours:
Quote
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation other than veto override votes shall be open for debate until seventy-two (72) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.

Of course, a Rep. can propose to suspend that section, although I advise a healthy amount of debate before voting on Amendments. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 25, 2009, 02:47:45 PM
Well, no we just need to wait for 48 long hours... Proceedings are so boring !

Well, actually, debate lasts 72 hours:
Quote
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation other than veto override votes shall be open for debate until seventy-two (72) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.

Of course, a Rep. can propose to suspend that section, although I advise a healthy amount of debate before voting on Amendments. :)


We lowered that to 48 hours in Mr. Moderate's amendment to the SOAP>

Here's what I don't understand: why aren't we just fixing the number of Representatives at a number - 5 or 6 - instead of making things variable again?  Isn't it simpler to vote for a known number of seats?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 25, 2009, 10:46:45 PM
Here's what I don't understand: why aren't we just fixing the number of Representatives at a number - 5 or 6 - instead of making things variable again?  Isn't it simpler to vote for a known number of seats?

It's simpler to calculate a set number of seats in advance. That said, I've been running the numbers in Excel for this. For the turnout range of V = 24 to V = 500 (so for virtually any turnout we'd expect, except in low-turnout races where fewer than 24 voters cast a ballot), the Quota will always be between five and six votes. I figured this would be the case because although my maths isn't great, we were putting the number of votes in both the numerator and the denominator of the formula to calculate the quota. It is perhaps, therefore simpler to amend this Amendment to read that the quota required to be elected shall be five votes. This will have virtually the same affect (in some races, it may elect an additional candidate because of strange preference flows and a large fraction of a vote left over) but won't change the competitive nature of the election substantially (while maintaining the benefit of simplifying the math involved in calculating the election results). If you're better than me at simplifying equations, the formula looks something like:

Q = (V/(n+1))+1
n = (V/5)+0.5

where: V = Number of Votes cast
            n = Number of Representatives elected
            Q = Quota required to be elected.

Substituting the formula for n into the first equation, we come up with

Q = ((V/((V/5)+0.5)+1))+1
or:

Q = (V/(0.2V) + 0.5) + 1

Anyway, it's not too hard to put the numbers into a spreadsheet and then graph the results... it only takes three columns.

The first column is V, the second column is n and the third column is Q. Obviously there's a header row to have each of those. In cell A2, you can enter "1" and in A3, etc, "2" (or "=A2+1" or just Fill Series). In cell B2, you can enter "=INT((A2/5)+0.5)" and you can copy and paste for all cells in column B. In cell C2, you can enter "=(A2/(B2+1))+1" and copy and paste for all cells in column C. You can chart the results if you wish.

For the last election, with 32 voters, we would have elected 6 representatives and each would have required 5.571429 votes to be elected. I could re-calculate the elections results, but I don't think we'd have any surprises.

Obviously all this ignores the "Maximum 10 Representatives" element of the Amendment, but by setting a fixed quota and ignoring this maximum, the size of the Assembly will grow slowly as the number of citizens increases (at a rate of one new representative for every five new voters) allowing us to continue holding competitive elections.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 25, 2009, 11:14:15 PM
My friends, I'm afraid I'm not the best with numbers. I think basically a simple solution would be one Assembly member for every ten registered citizens... Which would go about five for the next assembly. Wouldn't it make it a hell of a lot more simplified that way?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on October 25, 2009, 11:23:36 PM
I concur with fellow Representative Cynic in this latest debate. Not only as I deem it far more simplistic but we must brace ourselves for an onslaught of a lack of voter activity, something I and other Northeasterners have witnessed in the past. Although the Northeast is a hub of activity at the present, such action is bound to conclude at some stage. And I believe upon the ratification of the Strategic Registration Amendment that process will be as inevitable as the failure of New Coke in 1985.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 26, 2009, 03:49:26 AM
I really hold to keeping a link between votes and number of reps. This is the fairest way to ensure that NE active citizens will be decently represented. I think it would make no sense to have, for example, 6 member with 12 voters, or 3 members with 30 voters.
The number of representatives we need is intrinsically linked with the number of voters. My only mistake was not to understand this when I wrote the CRA.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 26, 2009, 07:44:42 AM
My friends, I'm afraid I'm not the best with numbers. I think basically a simple solution would be one Assembly member for every ten registered citizens... Which would go about five for the next assembly. Wouldn't it make it a hell of a lot more simplified that way?

Since I'm horrible with numbers, it sound very reasonable


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 26, 2009, 08:00:11 AM
I know I'm no longer an Assemblyman, but I'm going to use the privilege usually extended former members to access the floor.

Guys: This past regional election was a confused clusterfuck.  No one knew how many seats were up for election until after the election. That's inexcusable.  Set it at 6 (or 5, which is probably even better) and just lock the number in.  There's no need for formulas.

If five/six proves too high due to later inactivity, you can revisit the issue.

But please.  Make it a permanent-sized body.  There's no reason to make this miserably complicated for no reason other than someone's desire to see things get miserably complicated.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 26, 2009, 08:06:40 AM
I know I'm no longer an Assemblyman, but I'm going to use the privilege usually extended former members to access the floor.

Guys: This past regional election was a confused clusterfuck.  No one knew how many seats were up for election until after the election. That's inexcusable.  Set it at 6 (or 5, which is probably even better) and just lock the number in.  There's no need for formulas.

If five/six proves too high due to later inactivity, you can revisit the issue.

But please.  Make it a permanent-sized body.  There's no reason to make this miserably complicated for no reason other than someone's desire to see things get miserably complicated.

Hm, why not? That's good point as well.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 26, 2009, 08:24:47 AM
There's no reason to make this miserably complicated for no reason other than someone's desire to see things get miserably complicated.

I'm sorry to see once again I'm fighting against everybody. The simplest solution isn't always the better, and people really need to think about every eventuality before peremptorily claiming : "Let's make so, it's simpler !".


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 26, 2009, 02:21:12 PM
Given the interest in setting the number of representatives at a fixed number, I'm going to formally offer an amendment to the Seats Number Amendment, which I assume will be deemed unfriendly and put to a vote:

1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is deleted and replaced with the following:
2. Five Reps shall be elected.


Fixing the number of seats makes sense.  In the last election, because few Northeast citizens seemed to know how many Representatives were going to be elected, we were told to rank at least 6 choices, even though there were 8 open seats.  The result was an uncompetitive election.  Some Representatives were surprised that they had even won.  

The current formula is too complex for a simple game - and I don't think a formula tying seats to votes would be better.  No one would know how many Reps we have until AFTER the election - so no one would know how many folks they needed to vote for.  It also potentially invites fraud - getting more zombies to vote so that your seat is ensured.

I may lose my seat as a result of setting the Assembly at 5, but it's the right thing to do.  It makes more sense than setting the size at six because ties are less likely.  And it makes a 2/3rds override in the next Amendment to be brought to the floor mean something, since you'd need 4 our of 5 to support an override.  With an Assembly of 6, 2/3rds is the same as a simple majority - 4 out of 6.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 26, 2009, 02:29:59 PM
Yes, this is unfriendly. It seems that the battle is already lost but can not accept it just because you want to make it simpler. The argument "It's too complicated" makes no sense. As for zombies, people who want to use them will do whatever the system is.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 26, 2009, 02:37:33 PM
Yes, this is unfriendly. It seems that the battle is already lost but can not accept it just because you want to make it simpler. The argument "It's too complicated" makes no sense. As for zombies, people who want to use them will do whatever the system is.

It's not that it's too complex, it's that it's too unstable.  A legislative body needs some modicum of stability—people need to have a basic concept of how it works.  No one knew what the heck was going on after the last election, and that's a problem.

If you REALLY want the size of the Assembly tied to the size of the active population, allow for a periodic redistricting, say, twice a year.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 26, 2009, 03:26:11 PM
Yes, this is unfriendly. It seems that the battle is already lost but can not accept it just because you want to make it simpler. The argument "It's too complicated" makes no sense. As for zombies, people who want to use them will do whatever the system is.

It's not that it's too complex, it's that it's too unstable.  A legislative body needs some modicum of stability—people need to have a basic concept of how it works.  No one knew what the heck was going on after the last election, and that's a problem.

If you REALLY want the size of the Assembly tied to the size of the active population, allow for a periodic redistricting, say, twice a year.

Ok, I guess I'm not in position to impose my views.

Here is my proposal :


1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is amended as follows :
2. Five Reps shall be elected. This provision can be amended by law every January and July if the Assembly considers it necessary.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 26, 2009, 03:27:16 PM
Yes, this is unfriendly. It seems that the battle is already lost but can not accept it just because you want to make it simpler. The argument "It's too complicated" makes no sense. As for zombies, people who want to use them will do whatever the system is.

It's not that it's too complex, it's that it's too unstable.  A legislative body needs some modicum of stability—people need to have a basic concept of how it works.  No one knew what the heck was going on after the last election, and that's a problem.

If you REALLY want the size of the Assembly tied to the size of the active population, allow for a periodic redistricting, say, twice a year.

Ok, I guess I'm not in position to impose my views.

Here is my proposal :


1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is amended as follows :
2. Five Reps shall be elected. This provision can be amended by law every January and July if the Assembly considers it necessary.

I know this may sound stupid, since you proposed it, but is this friendly? :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 26, 2009, 03:30:04 PM
Yes, this is unfriendly. It seems that the battle is already lost but can not accept it just because you want to make it simpler. The argument "It's too complicated" makes no sense. As for zombies, people who want to use them will do whatever the system is.

It's not that it's too complex, it's that it's too unstable.  A legislative body needs some modicum of stability—people need to have a basic concept of how it works.  No one knew what the heck was going on after the last election, and that's a problem.

If you REALLY want the size of the Assembly tied to the size of the active population, allow for a periodic redistricting, say, twice a year.

Ok, I guess I'm not in position to impose my views.

Here is my proposal :


1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is amended as follows :
2. Five Reps shall be elected. This provision can be amended by law every January and July if the Assembly considers it necessary.

I know this may sound stupid, since you proposed it, but is this friendly? :)

On behalf of Rep. Hamilton I have to communicate he'd accept this as a friendly only with 6 members


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 26, 2009, 05:23:18 PM
Article V, Section 7 of the Constitution is amended as follows:
The number of Representatives shall be set by statute.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 26, 2009, 05:40:16 PM
Article V, Section 7 of the Constitution is amended as follows:
The number of Representatives shall be set by statute.

Well, we'd need a statute for the next election for that to work - but that formulation may be workable.

As a (hopefully friendly) amendment, I think "is amended as follows:" should be replaced by "is deleted and replaced by the following:" in EVERY formulation of the Seats Number Amendment - to make clear that we're getting rid of the old constitutional language.  Otherwise "is amended" could mean that we just add whatever we pass it to the end of Article V, Section vii).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 26, 2009, 05:41:04 PM
Yes, this is unfriendly. It seems that the battle is already lost but can not accept it just because you want to make it simpler. The argument "It's too complicated" makes no sense. As for zombies, people who want to use them will do whatever the system is.

It's not that it's too complex, it's that it's too unstable.  A legislative body needs some modicum of stability—people need to have a basic concept of how it works.  No one knew what the heck was going on after the last election, and that's a problem.

If you REALLY want the size of the Assembly tied to the size of the active population, allow for a periodic redistricting, say, twice a year.

Ok, I guess I'm not in position to impose my views.

Here is my proposal :


1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is amended as follows :
2. Five Reps shall be elected. This provision can be amended by law every January and July if the Assembly considers it necessary.

I know this may sound stupid, since you proposed it, but is this friendly? :)

On behalf of Rep. Hamilton I have to communicate he'd accept this as a friendly only with 6 members

Yep, I support this.

1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following :
2. Six Reps shall be elected. This provision can be modified by law every January and July if the Assembly considers it necessary.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 26, 2009, 05:45:47 PM
The main problem I have with 6 seats is that it creates the likelihood of more ties and creates a problem for veto overrides since 2/3rds is the same as a majority, assuming all Reps vote. 

If we do go with 6 seats (or make it variable) I think we're going to have to peg veto overrides at "more than two-thirds" rather than "two-thirds".  That's the main reason I delayed the vote on the Veto Override Amendment until after we settled the Seats issue.

Can I ask other Assemblymen whether they'd prefer an Assembly of 5 or 6?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 26, 2009, 06:02:16 PM
Technically, if exactly 2/3 of the reps vote for veto override, this shall be considered as a tie and therefore the Lt Gov would have to break it. This is quite simple.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 26, 2009, 06:09:06 PM
I'm divided between 5 and 6


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 26, 2009, 06:20:02 PM
Technically, if exactly 2/3 of the reps vote for veto override, this shall be considered as a tie and therefore the Lt Gov would have to break it. This is quite simple.

The proposed amendment says "by a two-thirds majority vote" - which means a vote of 4 out of 6 should be sufficient to override.  The Lt. Governor shouldn't be involved in veto overrides - there should be no ties.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 26, 2009, 06:23:50 PM
People need to be decently represented, and more reps we have, better it is. Plus, I don't want us to copy Mideast. :P


Technically, if exactly 2/3 of the reps vote for veto override, this shall be considered as a tie and therefore the Lt Gov would have to break it. This is quite simple.

The proposed amendment says "by a two-thirds majority vote" - which means a vote of 4 out of 6 should be sufficient to override.  The Lt. Governor shouldn't be involved in veto overrides - there should be no ties.

In this case, we've no constitutional problems. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 26, 2009, 06:25:16 PM
It's not personal, Barnes, but I believe Lieutenant Governor should not be a presidig officer.

It's not good to perform at once executive and legislative duties.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 26, 2009, 06:30:24 PM
The Lieutenant Governor is an unnecessary position.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 26, 2009, 06:35:44 PM
The Lieutenant Governor is an unnecessary position.

No


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 26, 2009, 06:45:37 PM
It's not personal, Barnes, but I believe Lieutenant Governor should not be a presidig officer.

It's not good to perform at once executive and legislative duties.

Well, since the Lt Gove has not any other important task, I think to the contrary that it's a good thing. :) Many democracies do this, and it doesn't absolutely harm the Assembly's freedom.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 26, 2009, 06:47:06 PM
It's not personal, Barnes, but I believe Lieutenant Governor should not be a presidig officer.

It's not good to perform at once executive and legislative duties.

Well, since the Lt Gove has not any other important task, I think to the contrary that it's a good thing. :) Many democracies do this, and it doesn't absolutely harm the Assembly's freedom.

Lieutenant Governor should be assigned with some executive duties, not beig just "a guy heartbet away"


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 26, 2009, 07:30:58 PM

Have you anything to say, or are all your ideas summed up in one word like this?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 26, 2009, 07:36:35 PM

Have you anything to say, or are all your ideas summed up in one word like this?

I already wrote what I think about a role of lt. gov and what should it be

Please, learn to read the whole thread beforfe you start to mess with Assembly again

Thank you, sir :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 26, 2009, 08:09:01 PM

Have you anything to say, or are all your ideas summed up in one word like this?

I already wrote what I think about a role of lt. gov and what should it be

Please, learn to read the whole thread beforfe you start to mess with Assembly again

Thank you, sir :P

I don't recall that post. Could you quote it?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 26, 2009, 08:19:47 PM
It's not personal, Barnes, but I believe Lieutenant Governor should not be a presidig officer.

It's not good to perform at once executive and legislative duties.

Well, since the Lt Gove has not any other important task, I think to the contrary that it's a good thing. :) Many democracies do this, and it doesn't absolutely harm the Assembly's freedom.

Lieutenant Governor should be assigned with some executive duties, not beig just "a guy heartbet away"

It's not personal, Barnes, but I believe Lieutenant Governor should not be a presidig officer.

It's not good to perform at once executive and legislative duties.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 26, 2009, 09:05:46 PM
You haven't explained why the Lieutenant Governorship should exist. The Mideast did away with theirs for a reason.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 26, 2009, 09:07:17 PM
The Lt. Gov is supposed to be the person who puts passed legislation up on the Wiki.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 26, 2009, 09:35:35 PM
The Lt. Gov is supposed to be the person who puts passed legislation up on the Wiki.

wiki is in horrible condition


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 26, 2009, 09:45:49 PM
Yep, I support this.

1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following :
2. Six Reps shall be elected. This provision can be modified by law every January and July if the Assembly considers it necessary.

Would it make more sense to define when the provision can be modified by law by legislative session (i.e. "during the Legislative Assembly sessions starting in December and June") instead of a particular month (or perhaps not at all, per Xahar's suggestion)? 

Under the proposal, what if we pass something on January 30, the Governor vetoes it, and we can't override until February?  Is it still valid?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on October 26, 2009, 10:01:35 PM
The Lt. Gov is supposed to be the person who puts passed legislation up on the Wiki.

wiki is in horrible condition

Conor started putting stuff on the Wiki, but I think he just gave up.  I don't think we've had an LG work on the Wiki since then, and that was 2008.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 26, 2009, 10:02:17 PM
Yep, I support this.

1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following :
2. Six Reps shall be elected. This provision can be modified by law every January and July if the Assembly considers it necessary.

Since there's no enough supoport for the 5 Reps and we need to lower the size, I shall support this as well


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 26, 2009, 10:31:29 PM
Yep, I support this.

1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following :
2. Six Reps shall be elected. This provision can be modified by law every January and July if the Assembly considers it necessary.

Since there's no enough supoport for the 5 Reps and we need to lower the size, I shall support this as well

I will support this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 26, 2009, 11:28:57 PM
I think we should get rid of the "modified in January and July" element of the Bill and let the Legislature amend the Act at any time it sees the need, just like any other piece of legislation. If there's no need/support to change it, then it won't be changed and if there is a need/support for changes, then it should be changed regardless of what month it is.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 26, 2009, 11:47:44 PM
I think we should get rid of the "modified in January and July" element of the Bill and let the Legislature amend the Act at any time it sees the need, just like any other piece of legislation. If there's no need/support to change it, then it won't be changed and if there is a need/support for changes, then it should be changed regardless of what month it is.

So something like "Six Reps shall be elected, unless the Assembly shall provide otherwise by Law. " (which parallels the language in Article V, Section viii)?

I probably can live with that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on October 26, 2009, 11:55:47 PM
The Lt. Gov is supposed to be the person who puts passed legislation up on the Wiki.

wiki is in horrible condition

Conor started putting stuff on the Wiki, but I think he just gave up.  I don't think we've had an LG work on the Wiki since then, and that was 2008.

Indeed that is correct Moderate, it was simply too much to do.

As for the latest amendment, this Representative is highly supportive of it. Although its not what Representative Antonio originally intended, it is, in my opinion a much more realistic approach to the issue of seats this grand Assembly shall have in accordance to the Northeast's voters. Motion to vote Mr. Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 27, 2009, 12:08:07 AM
Indeed that is correct Moderate, it was simply too much to do.

As for the latest amendment, this Representative is highly supportive of it. Although its not what Representative Antonio originally intended, it is, in my opinion a much more realistic approach to the issue of seats this grand Assembly shall have in accordance to the Northeast's voters. Motion to vote Mr. Speaker.

Let's see if Antonio V will take this proposal as friendly first:
1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following :
2. Six Reps shall be elected, unless the Assembly shall provide otherwise by Law.

If so, I'll table my unfriendly amendment to set the Assembly at 5 members, which should allow us to proceed directly to a vote on the proposal.

Note that since this is a Constitutional Amendment, a two-thirds vote is necessary to pass instead of a mere majority of those who have voted (and I think we also need at least 5 of our 8 members to vote for it, as I read Article VII, Section i).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 27, 2009, 12:45:57 AM
If Antonio doesn't accept the amendment as friendly, we'll move to a vote on the amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 27, 2009, 01:12:04 AM
If Antonio doesn't accept the amendment as friendly, we'll move to a vote on the amendment.

It's probably better to do one vote than two - so we're better off waiting a bit for Antonio V's response.  I'll send him a PM letting him know of the proposal, in case he just logs on briefly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 27, 2009, 01:36:26 AM
If Antonio doesn't accept the amendment as friendly, we'll move to a vote on the amendment.

It's probably better to do one vote than two - so we're better off waiting a bit for Antonio V's response.  I'll send him a PM letting him know of the proposal, in case he just logs on briefly.

I agree, sorry - wasn't planning on starting the vote right now - was meaning that we'll wait and see what he says, and if he doesn't accept, we can move straight to a vote - as opposed to opening debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 27, 2009, 03:10:40 AM
Yeah, I accept. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 27, 2009, 07:51:53 AM

In that case, unless there are any objections, let's move to a final vote.

The question is:

That - The Bill as amended be agreed to.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No." I think the Ayes have it. Is a division required? A division is required. Ring the bells.

The Ayes shall pass to the right of the chair, the Noes to my left.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 27, 2009, 07:52:30 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 27, 2009, 08:10:31 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 27, 2009, 08:21:54 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: fezzyfestoon on October 27, 2009, 12:54:36 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 27, 2009, 02:27:15 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 27, 2009, 09:49:02 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 27, 2009, 10:27:47 PM
More representation is always good and the increased likelihood of ties places more importance and duties on the Lt. Gov, potentially making those races more important and competitive in the process. Also, if the Mideast can support 5, we can do 6 just fine. We will have more voters and candidates next time, I'm certain. We've already seen a renewed interest in the region, as witnessed by the return of Mr. Moderate, Rockefeller Republican, fezzyfestoon, and Dr. Cynic, all former members who made comebacks related to the creation of this great body.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 27, 2009, 10:27:48 PM
AYE!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 27, 2009, 11:28:36 PM
Love mod review. Always makes me laugh.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 27, 2009, 11:41:01 PM
What's the timetable on this vote?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 28, 2009, 12:34:33 AM

I think it's meant to stay open 24 hours to give everyone the chance to vote (but able to be closed earlier if everyone votes before then. Just waiting on Rocky and then we can finish it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 28, 2009, 01:22:43 AM

I think it's meant to stay open 24 hours to give everyone the chance to vote (but able to be closed earlier if everyone votes before then. Just waiting on Rocky and then we can finish it.

Very well.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on October 28, 2009, 07:03:24 AM
There being seven votes in favour, none opposed, the question is resolved in the affirmative.

()

What's next on the agenda? The Chair is not sure which piece of legislation we're considering next.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 28, 2009, 07:21:20 AM
Look at the Proposed Legislation Thread. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 28, 2009, 10:32:02 AM
Fair Distribution of Public Money Act

1. Following provisions shall apply to any private enterprise that receives a public monetary help from the Northeast Region after this law will become effective.
2. Any enterprise in this situation shall not fire any employee for economical reasons.
3. Any enterprise in this situation shall distribute less than 10% of its added value to its shareholders by year.
4. In case when an enterprise does not respect provisions of articles 2) and 3), it shall be fined of an amount equal to the total amount of money that this enterprise received from the Northeast Region.

Sponsor: AntonioV

The Question is shall the Bill be considered?

The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Representative AntonioV, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 28, 2009, 12:41:34 PM
Fellow Representatives,

The massive economic crisis we are comfronted to did many victims. Our whole financial system collapsed, several prosperous enterprises got ruined in few days, and the entire national economy was about to disappear. If this didn't happen, it's entirely thanks to a proud government, that managed to take the right decisions to avoid the crisis. Now we all know how necessary government intervention is, and how keynesianism can sav entire countries.
Now, I want to talk about those about whom we don't use to talk, even though they are the basis of our economy, our society and our nation : the people. Thousands of workers have been fired, partly because of the economic crisis, partly because of shareholders' cupidity. If this was understandable in the previous system, when our government believed like a dogma in the "laisser-faire" dogma. But now each of you knows how silly it was, and how we need the State to act in favor of a better functionin of the society. The government acted as it should for the enterprises. Now it must do the same for the people.
An enterprise that receives a public help shouldn't fire workers just to make more money, but should invest and make the entire society benefit to the wealth it creates. The collectivity helped them to survive, now they have to give something back to the collectivity. That's the purpose of this law.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 28, 2009, 05:17:17 PM
Support


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 28, 2009, 06:21:54 PM
I don't think we're currently giving money to private industry.  Even if we were, I don't like this law.  The reason any company would need help is because it's in trouble and needs to restructure.  Employee layoffs are part of the equation when businesses are failing.  Would you rather companies go out of business entirely?  Everyone loses their jobs then.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 28, 2009, 06:47:20 PM
I don't think we're currently giving money to private industry.

Stimulus bill money is managed by Regions. Therefore, we do.


Quote
Even if we were, I don't like this law.  The reason any company would need help is because it's in trouble and needs to restructure.  Employee layoffs are part of the equation when businesses are failing.  Would you rather companies go out of business entirely?  Everyone loses their jobs then.

The fact industry is in a bad situation is the reason why we're helping it. Since we're doing, they should use this money, among other things, to avoid firing their employees.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 28, 2009, 08:11:57 PM
Rep. Hamilton asked me to delare here that he proposes capping the salaries of those who work at companies who accept stimulus funds from the region.

To admins: Maybe enought with this mod, you harmed legislatuive work >:(


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 28, 2009, 09:05:34 PM
I would ask my collegue, Rep. Antonio to please clarify for me what businesses recieve funds from the Northeastern Government.

I would like more employee protection added to this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 28, 2009, 09:41:02 PM
I don't think we're currently giving money to private industry.

Stimulus bill money is managed by Regions. Therefore, we do.

We have no law on our books distributing stimulus money to anyone.


Quote
The fact industry is in a bad situation is the reason why we're helping it. Since we're doing, they should use this money, among other things, to avoid firing their employees.

Avoiding firing employees is totally different than baring a company from laying off workers in tough times.   Unfortunately, that needs to be done in tough economic times.  If there's no business, there's no business.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 29, 2009, 05:50:20 AM
I don't think we're currently giving money to private industry.

Stimulus bill money is managed by Regions. Therefore, we do.

We have no law on our books distributing stimulus money to anyone.

Northeast Relief and Recovery Act

Section 1: Acceptance of Funds

1. The Northeast hereby accepts the funds given by the Federal Government as per F.L. 32-13: 2009 Atlasian Relief and Recovery Act.

What will we do with this money ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 29, 2009, 01:48:33 PM
I don't think we're currently giving money to private industry.

Stimulus bill money is managed by Regions. Therefore, we do.

We have no law on our books distributing stimulus money to anyone.

Northeast Relief and Recovery Act

Section 1: Acceptance of Funds

1. The Northeast hereby accepts the funds given by the Federal Government as per F.L. 32-13: 2009 Atlasian Relief and Recovery Act.

What will we do with this money ?

We haven't decided.  Some will go to pay for the tax credits (and we've already spent more than the paltry sum we're receiving on that) - if we're allowed to.  Some will go to things mandated by the bill (like road repaving).   ALL of the money comes with strings or restrictions on what we can do with it, in some form.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 29, 2009, 02:36:33 PM
We will certainly help some businesses with this money, partly. If we don't, we have no possibility to restore the economy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 29, 2009, 02:42:58 PM
The Nor'east is in a deep struggle right now and the Atlasian dollar is worth just under 90 cents.

Rep. Cinyc, something has to be done. We need protection for the working man and woman, and we need to ensure that grafting is eliminated.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 29, 2009, 04:18:31 PM
The Nor'east is in a deep struggle right now and the Atlasian dollar is worth just under 90 cents.

Rep. Cinyc, something has to be done. We need protection for the working man and woman, and we need to ensure that grafting is eliminated.

We've already provided tax relief for Northeast residents.  We have NOT yet made any Northeast stimulus funds available to Northeast businesses.  Those are the facts.  This bill is premature - and wrong-headed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 29, 2009, 05:33:03 PM
The Nor'east is in a deep struggle right now and the Atlasian dollar is worth just under 90 cents.

Rep. Cinyc, something has to be done. We need protection for the working man and woman, and we need to ensure that grafting is eliminated.

We've already provided tax relief for Northeast residents.  We have NOT yet made any Northeast stimulus funds available to Northeast businesses.  Those are the facts.  This bill is premature - and wrong-headed.

Better too soon than too late.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 29, 2009, 06:05:24 PM
The Nor'east is in a deep struggle right now and the Atlasian dollar is worth just under 90 cents.

Rep. Cinyc, something has to be done. We need protection for the working man and woman, and we need to ensure that grafting is eliminated.

We've already provided tax relief for Northeast residents.  We have NOT yet made any Northeast stimulus funds available to Northeast businesses.  Those are the facts.  This bill is premature - and wrong-headed.

Better too soon than too late.

Once again, your bill DOESN'T distribute any stimulus funds - and the Northeast has no law distributing stimulus funds.  You're putting conditions on something that doesn't exist.  Wouldn't it make more sense to make something exist before putting conditions on it?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 29, 2009, 07:15:18 PM
Not necessarily. We WILL give funds to enterprises and it's the only thing that counts.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 29, 2009, 08:00:52 PM

We've already provided tax relief for Northeast residents.  We have NOT yet made any Northeast stimulus funds available to Northeast businesses.  Those are the facts.  This bill is premature - and wrong-headed.

Since when is a little check any real help. I'm talking about employment protection. Without a job, that little tax credit is useless.

Also, in regard to the stimulus, there is definately an assurance that some funds will go toward business relief. It is in that regard that I'd like to call the question as soon as possible.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 30, 2009, 02:55:11 PM
Dear Mr. President

I hereby resigning the office of Northeast Representative, with immediate effect

Sincerely,
Kalwejt


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 30, 2009, 04:18:56 PM
Dear Mr. President

I hereby resigning the office of Northeast Representative, with immediate effect

Sincerely,
Kalwejt

Sorry to hear that.

Shouldn't we be putting the bill on the floor to a vote?  It's been 48 hours and there are no proposed unfriendly amendments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 30, 2009, 04:51:58 PM
Shouldn't we be putting the bill on the floor to a vote?  It's been 48 hours and there are no proposed unfriendly amendments.

Theorically, we should. However, I'd present to fellow representatives a special motion to suspend the vote until things will get back normal in the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 30, 2009, 10:47:50 PM
Shouldn't we be putting the bill on the floor to a vote?  It's been 48 hours and there are no proposed unfriendly amendments.

Theorically, we should. However, I'd present to fellow representatives a special motion to suspend the vote until things will get back normal in the Assembly.

Second.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 30, 2009, 10:53:36 PM
I'd like, for the end, to make a final explanation.

Time spend there, especially in the first Assembly, was one of the greatest things in my forum live, perhaps even greatest.

It's not that I'm mad or something on anyone. But my RL schedulde is busy and, at least for few next months, it would be really difficult to me to carry out normal work as a Representative. As of other reasons mentioned, I was bitter for a while and added them to the list. Yet, RL was the deciding factor. Sorry guys, but my studies have to come first now.

I'm sorry for suddenly of this decision. In fact, I've been thinking on that for few last days.

Because I'm rather unorganized man, esspecially when it comes to my plans, I moved to Alaska not because I'm dissapointed with Northeast (hell no!), but, due to recent registration restrictions, to not have a point of return for few months.

Keep your excellent work!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 31, 2009, 12:20:54 PM
Dear Mr. President

I hereby resigning the office of Northeast Representative, with immediate effect

Sincerely,
Kalwejt

Resignation accepted. Thank you for your service, Representative.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 01, 2009, 03:54:39 PM
I hereby open up a final vote on the following bill. Voting lasts twenty-four hours, please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

Fair Distribution of Public Money Act


1. Following provisions shall apply to any private enterprise that receives a public monetary help from the Northeast Region after this law will become effective.
2. Any enterprise in this situation shall not fire any employee for economical reasons.
3. Any enterprise in this situation shall distribute less than 10% of its added value to its shareholders by year.
4. In case when an enterprise does not respect provisions of articles 2) and 3), it shall be fined of an amount equal to the total amount of money that this enterprise received from the Northeast Region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 01, 2009, 04:01:43 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 01, 2009, 04:06:27 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on November 01, 2009, 07:37:58 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 02, 2009, 12:55:39 AM
This bill is way premature.  

Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 02, 2009, 03:33:37 PM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 03, 2009, 02:57:00 PM

Assuming I have the powers granted to those in the Atlasian Senate when replacing a sitting member in the middle of a vote, I get to overwrite this.

And I do so by voting nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on November 03, 2009, 03:01:00 PM

Assuming I have the powers granted to those in the Atlasian Senate when replacing a sitting member in the middle of a vote, I get to overwrite this.

And I do so by voting nay.

My reappointment was rules invalid, so don't bother


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 03, 2009, 03:17:32 PM
Anyways, Hamilton and Moderate votes are too late, so the Bill passed 2-1.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 03, 2009, 03:43:59 PM
techinically, I did not miss the vote


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 03, 2009, 04:21:50 PM
Anyways, Hamilton and Moderate votes are too late, so the Bill passed 2-1.

lol, 37.5% turnout


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 03, 2009, 04:25:01 PM
Anyways, Hamilton and Moderate votes are too late, so the Bill passed 2-1.

lol, 37.5% turnout

50%. I turned out. I just edited my vote afterward.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 03, 2009, 05:11:00 PM
With two Ayes, and one Nay, and one abstention, this Bill has passed. I present it to the Governor for his Signature or Veto.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 03, 2009, 05:15:42 PM
With two Ayes, and one Nay, and one abstention, this Bill has passed. I present it to the Governor for his Signature or Veto.



I urge the governor to veto this bill and allow Mr. Moderate and the others who didn't the chance to vote.

Should the Veto Override Amendment be next on the agenda?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 03, 2009, 05:16:46 PM
With two Ayes, and one Nay, and one abstention, this Bill has passed. I present it to the Governor for his Signature or Veto.



I urge the governor to veto this bill and allow Mr. Moderate and the others who didn't the chance to vote.

Should the Veto Override Amendment be next on the agenda?

I want it vetoed because I wanted to propose an amendment. I spent the weekend at home and did not access the computer much, so did not have a chance to do this as I wanted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 03, 2009, 05:48:20 PM
Veto Override Amendment

Whereas the New Constitution of the Northeast does not contain procedural language regarding the override of a Governor's veto, therefore be it resolved that the New Constitution of the Northeast be amended.


Article IV, Section xi is hereby amended as follows:

xi) The Governor has veto power over any piece of legislation that the Northeast Assembly shall successfully vote in favour of. The Governor may not have the power to only veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. If the General Assembly of the Northeast Region is to have another successful vote on any piece of legislation previously vetoed, than the Governor must not veto it. The Governor is required to sign all pieces of legislation he supports into law after it passes a successful vote in the Legislative Assembly, and must veto legislation which he does not support, within one week of its passing. Once he or she has signed the legislation, it immediately becomes law unless otherwise stated in the legislation itself. If the Governor does not sign the successful legislation after one week, than it becomes law immediately.

Article V is hereby amended by insertion as new Section xv:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.

Sponsor: Rep. cinyc

The Question is shall the Bill be considered?

The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Representative ciync, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 03, 2009, 06:48:49 PM
Fully support this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 03, 2009, 07:29:13 PM
Veto Override Amendment

Whereas the New Constitution of the Northeast does not contain procedural language regarding the override of a Governor's veto, therefore be it resolved that the New Constitution of the Northeast be amended.


Article IV, Section xi is hereby amended as follows:

xi) The Governor has veto power over any piece of legislation that the Northeast Assembly shall successfully vote in favour of. The Governor may not have the power to only veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. If the General Assembly of the Northeast Region is to have another successful vote on any piece of legislation previously vetoed, than the Governor must not veto it. The Governor is required to sign all pieces of legislation he supports into law after it passes a successful vote in the Legislative Assembly, and must veto legislation which he does not support, within one week of its passing. Once he or she has signed the legislation, it immediately becomes law unless otherwise stated in the legislation itself. If the Governor does not sign the successful legislation after one week, than it becomes law immediately.

Article V is hereby amended by insertion as new Section xv:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.

Sponsor: Rep. cinyc

The Question is shall the Bill be considered?

The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Representative ciync, has the floor.


Thank you, Mr. Lt. Governor. 

I yield to the original sponsor of this Amendment, Former (and current) Rep. Mr. Moderate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 04, 2009, 01:05:20 PM
Well, simply put, this body needs to institutionalize a procedure for overriding a Governor's veto, and then enshrine it in the constitution.  As it currently stands, the constitution makes virtually no mention of the legislature's ability to respond to a veto. And what little mention it does make is terribly confusing.

One interpretation of the current rule is that the legislature can currently override a veto with a  simple majority vote.  Clearly, that is an affront to our tradition of separation of powers—it essentially negates all the governor's power when it comes to the issue of vetoing legislation.

Simply put, this amendment will align our government with most standing legislative bodies in fantasyland and beyond—to override a governor's veto, we should need to pass a two-third majority vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 04, 2009, 03:10:36 PM
Two comments:

1) If the Seats Amendment passes, the size of this legislature will be set at 6.  Assuming everyone initially votes on a bill and the Lt. Governor isn't needed to break a tie, the vote could go 4-2.  That's both a majority AND a 2/3rds majority.  Thus, under the proposed amendment, a veto could be overridden by a mere majority of members in a legislature of 6 (or less than 5, for that matter).  At a minimum, I think we should change "by a two-thirds majority vote" to "by more than a two-thirds majority vote".

2) Given our recent issues with Representatives actually showing up to vote, what happens if less than everyone, say, only 4 members vote on an override?  Should a 3-1 vote be sufficient to override a veto?  Or should we be saying something like:

If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by a vote of more than two-thirds of its members, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.

That I'm not as adamant about - but would like to hear other Representatives' point of view.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 04, 2009, 03:18:13 PM
That makes sense, I support this Amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 04, 2009, 04:53:39 PM
Makes sense to me. I've got no argument against this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 05:09:19 PM
I remember talking with cinyc about this previously, and it's obviously necessary to include bur we are running on the assumption that the Seats number amendment passes. I don't think it would effect many other numbers, though, anyway.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 04, 2009, 06:18:55 PM
I think it is sufficient to say "at least two-thirds" of voting members.

This means that if we have a six-member Chamber, veto over-rides will occur if there is a vote of four, however if the size of the Legislature is changed by future Amendments, we don't have to change the numbers again.

Perhaps "two-thirds of votes exercisable" might be better, meaning that for a Legislature of 6, four votes are required, regardless of how many people vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 07:18:32 PM
I'm offering this amendment:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by a more than two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 07:58:00 PM
I call for an emergency vote on this resolution. (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=103122.msg2216437#msg2216437)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 04, 2009, 08:13:38 PM
I open an emergency vote on this resolution. Voting lasts twenty-four hours. Vote Aye, nay or Abstain.

Resolution Recognizing the RANM's Status in New Mexico

1. The Northeast Region recognizes New Mexico as a separate political entity under the control of the Revolutionary Army of New Mexico and its leader, WMS.
2. The Northeast Region hereby allows Northeastern industries to trade with New Mexico.


Legislation currently being debated has not be tabled, I will probably open a vote on that immediately after this is finished, tomorrow.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 08:15:07 PM
Aye.


We must move on. We must not let the free market fall due to a revolution beyond our control. If we make the first motion for piece with the revolutionary army, we will not be targeted, but embraced. The benefits are on our side on this one.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 04, 2009, 08:30:23 PM
The vote is to open debate, under emergency procedings, yes? So one can oppose the Motion but vote in favour of the question in order to debate the motion?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 04, 2009, 08:31:05 PM
The vote is to open debate, under emergency procedings, yes? So one can oppose the Motion but vote in favour of the question in order to debate the motion?

Actually, this is a final vote. That's how I read his post, anyway.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 04, 2009, 08:35:24 PM
The vote is to open debate, under emergency procedings, yes? So one can oppose the Motion but vote in favour of the question in order to debate the motion?

Actually, this is a final vote. That's how I read his post, anyway.

That's how I read it, too, hence the question marks - since my vote will be different depending on whether this is a final vote or a motion to debate, I need the clarification before voting.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 04, 2009, 08:38:34 PM
Has his revolution succeeded?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 04, 2009, 08:39:22 PM
The vote is to open debate, under emergency procedings, yes? So one can oppose the Motion but vote in favour of the question in order to debate the motion?

Actually, this is a final vote. That's how I read his post, anyway.

That's how I read it, too, hence the question marks - since my vote will be different depending on whether this is a final vote or a motion to debate, I need the clarification before voting.

This is a final vote. I'm doing this because of the word "Emergency". But I'd love to hear your opinion. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 04, 2009, 08:48:38 PM
The vote is to open debate, under emergency procedings, yes? So one can oppose the Motion but vote in favour of the question in order to debate the motion?

Actually, this is a final vote. That's how I read his post, anyway.

That's how I read it, too, hence the question marks - since my vote will be different depending on whether this is a final vote or a motion to debate, I need the clarification before voting.

This is a final vote. I'm doing this because of the word "Emergency". But I'd love to hear your opinion. :)

My opinion is that you can rule either way on this and that if there is dissent in the Chair's ruling, it can be challenged by the Legislature and put to a vote. I don't think it matters much either way and I for one won't be challenging the Chair's ruling.


(In my opinion, not necessary, but the procedural way of dealing with a challenge to the ruling would be):
The motion there would be "That the Chair's Ruling be dissented from" - to that question, a vote of Aye would be to open debate on the motion and a vote of Nay would be to uphold the Chair's ruling to proceed straight to final vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 04, 2009, 08:52:50 PM
For the final vote on the Motion being considered:

Nay.

We have seen a hostile invasion of a free Atlasian state. The terrorists who have seized power are holding innocent Atlasian citizens hostage. Until there are free and fair elections in New Mexico to determine the issue of self-governance, we cannot and should not recognise the independent governance of the state. If a majority of citizens residing in New Mexico support self-governance, we should of course support their desire, however until a free and fair referendum is held in the state, we must consider it occupied Atlasian territory.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 04, 2009, 08:53:14 PM
Having played a quick game of catch up with the situation, although I strongly disapprove of the federal government's use of federal troops without the Senate's consent, I must stand by my gut feelings in the situation. Should the New Mexicans succeed, then I will support recognition.

Until then, my vote is NAY.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: fezzyfestoon on November 04, 2009, 11:24:56 PM
Nay, definitely.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 05, 2009, 01:05:09 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 05, 2009, 01:27:42 AM
Nay

Standing with a paramilitary movement fighting against a democratically elected regional government makes no sense.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 01:48:27 AM
Fine. Keep the game boring... There's just gonna be a bunch of useless posts about some supposed crisis that will actually have no effect on the game at-large and there be irrelevant and not spice thing sup, but seeing as that seems to be what people want...

Seriously, why do we have a GM that creates events? Just to read about supposed troops entering some place? I mean, let's do some sh**t with this event.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 05, 2009, 01:59:08 AM
Fine. Keep the game boring... There's just gonna be a bunch of useless posts about some supposed crisis that will actually have no effect on the game at-large and there be irrelevant and not spice thing sup, but seeing as that seems to be what people want...

Seriously, why do we have a GM that creates events? Just to read about supposed troops entering some place? I mean, let's do some sh**t with this event.

I am following what I would do in the real life situation. That is, any attempt to dismember the union, I would not support.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 02:00:44 AM
Fine. Keep the game boring... There's just gonna be a bunch of useless posts about some supposed crisis that will actually have no effect on the game at-large and there be irrelevant and not spice thing sup, but seeing as that seems to be what people want...

Seriously, why do we have a GM that creates events? Just to read about supposed troops entering some place? I mean, let's do some sh**t with this event.

I am following what I would do in the real life situation. That is, any attempt to dismember the union, I would not support.

Okay, but there wouldn't be a RANM in real life either. :P

I just think it's useless to even have the GM do these things if nothing interesting is going to be done with it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 05, 2009, 02:06:42 AM
Fine. Keep the game boring... There's just gonna be a bunch of useless posts about some supposed crisis that will actually have no effect on the game at-large and there be irrelevant and not spice thing sup, but seeing as that seems to be what people want...

Seriously, why do we have a GM that creates events? Just to read about supposed troops entering some place? I mean, let's do some sh**t with this event.

I am following what I would do in the real life situation. That is, any attempt to dismember the union, I would not support.

Okay, but there wouldn't be a RANM in real life either. :P

I just think it's useless to even have the GM do these things if nothing interesting is going to be done with it.

Yes... But what would become of the Northeast?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 02:08:20 AM
Fine. Keep the game boring... There's just gonna be a bunch of useless posts about some supposed crisis that will actually have no effect on the game at-large and there be irrelevant and not spice thing sup, but seeing as that seems to be what people want...

Seriously, why do we have a GM that creates events? Just to read about supposed troops entering some place? I mean, let's do some sh**t with this event.

I am following what I would do in the real life situation. That is, any attempt to dismember the union, I would not support.

Okay, but there wouldn't be a RANM in real life either. :P

I just think it's useless to even have the GM do these things if nothing interesting is going to be done with it.

Yes... But what would become of the Northeast?

That's what we'd find out, isn't it? ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 05, 2009, 02:14:03 AM
Fine. Keep the game boring... There's just gonna be a bunch of useless posts about some supposed crisis that will actually have no effect on the game at-large and there be irrelevant and not spice thing sup, but seeing as that seems to be what people want...

Seriously, why do we have a GM that creates events? Just to read about supposed troops entering some place? I mean, let's do some sh**t with this event.

I am following what I would do in the real life situation. That is, any attempt to dismember the union, I would not support.

Okay, but there wouldn't be a RANM in real life either. :P

I just think it's useless to even have the GM do these things if nothing interesting is going to be done with it.

Yes... But what would become of the Northeast?

That's what we'd find out, isn't it? ;)

I'd rather protect the interests of the most populous region in the country. I'd like to protect the interests of my constituents, and I'd like to keep from being branded a traitor or a supporter of traitors. I'd be glad if this thing played out well, but I'll not see us be pulled into it at the moment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 05, 2009, 10:24:43 AM
So, let me try to get this straight... we're voting on whether or not we support a terrorist movement to break up our union?

...um.

Nay?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 05, 2009, 12:42:45 PM
Fellow Representatives,

After having reflected about the consequences of recent Amendment to the Amendment proposed by Cinyc (at school :P), I started to fear about the possibility that just two members not voting could block any veto override, what I find dangerous.
That's why, I've decided to propose an Amendment, that I hope will be considered as friendy.


Article IV, Section xi is hereby amended as follows:

xi) The Governor has veto power over any piece of legislation that the Northeast Assembly shall successfully vote in favour of. The Governor may not have the power to only veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. The Governor is required to sign all pieces of legislation he supports into law after it passes a successful vote in the Legislative Assembly, within one week of its passing. Once he or she has signed the legislation, it immediately becomes law unless otherwise stated in the legislation itself. If the Governor does not sign the successful legislation after one week, than it becomes law immediately.

Article V is hereby amended by insertion as new Section xv:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by a more than two-thirds majority vote, with at least half of the total number of Reps voting in favor, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 12:57:38 PM
I already offered that amendment, Antonio. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 05, 2009, 01:19:17 PM
I'm offering this amendment:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by a more than two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.

This is almost the same, but didn't take into account the "turnout" objection, which I consider to make sense. Could I ask Rep Cinyc which version he prefers ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 01:23:49 PM
I'm offering this amendment:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by a more than two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.

This is almost the same, but didn't take into account the "turnout" objection, which I consider to make sense. Could I ask Rep Cinyc which version he prefers ?

The main reason I oppose turn out objections are because they allow for a filibuster of sorts.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 05, 2009, 01:27:09 PM
I'm offering this amendment:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by a more than two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.

This is almost the same, but didn't take into account the "turnout" objection, which I consider to make sense. Could I ask Rep Cinyc which version he prefers ?

The main reason I oppose turn out objections are because they allow for a filibuster of sorts.

First of all, we need to find a compromise, all the more so that's a constitutionnal amendment. Secondly, my turnout restriction is absolutely reasonable, and in normal times allows to override vetos with a 3-1 majority.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 05, 2009, 02:24:45 PM
I'm offering this amendment:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by a more than two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.

This is almost the same, but didn't take into account the "turnout" objection, which I consider to make sense. Could I ask Rep Cinyc which version he prefers ?

Well, I've tried to open this up for discussion because I'm largely agnostic about it.  On the one hand, I'd like to force all members to vote on everything - especially a veto override.  On the other hand, I realize that's not always realistic.

The best way to deal with it might be to add "more than" to the constitutional language and create a quorum requirement in the SOAP (or the Constitution, if necessary)- for ALL bills.  There should NEVER be a bill that passes without a vote of less than half our members.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 05, 2009, 02:34:50 PM
The best way to deal with it might be to add "more than" to the constitutional language and create a quorum requirement in the SOAP (or the Constitution, if necessary)- for ALL bills.  There should NEVER be a bill that passes without a vote of less than half our members.

Agreed, 100%.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 05, 2009, 03:15:16 PM
It's not realistic to expect every member to be able to vote on everything before the body. Real life does sometimes interfere. I strongly support the turnout amendment to the bill. It's the only realistic way to do it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 05, 2009, 04:02:08 PM
The best way to deal with it might be to add "more than" to the constitutional language and create a quorum requirement in the SOAP (or the Constitution, if necessary)- for ALL bills.  There should NEVER be a bill that passes without a vote of less than half our members.

Agreed, 100%.

No. either 100% or no "quorum." Come on, all that does is open the door ofor legislative tactics that change how legislation is actually voted on. I want the chance to vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. i don't want to worry about whether or not to vote at all due to a quorum. If there are 3 votes in favor and 1 Nay, and I vote Nay, that passes the bill. or I could just not vote. That doesn't relaly benefit the legislative body, though.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 05, 2009, 09:49:48 PM
The best way to deal with it might be to add "more than" to the constitutional language and create a quorum requirement in the SOAP (or the Constitution, if necessary)- for ALL bills.  There should NEVER be a bill that passes without a vote of less than half our members.

Agreed, 100%.

But it's not realistic to think that can happen all the time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 05, 2009, 10:06:06 PM
The Ayes are one, the Nays are Six. With a majority of Representatives voting in the Negative, the Resolution has failed. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 05, 2009, 11:49:58 PM
So the revised bill should read as follows (new langage in purple:

Veto Override Amendment

Whereas the New Constitution of the Northeast does not contain procedural language regarding the override of a Governor's veto, therefore be it resolved that the New Constitution of the Northeast be amended.


Article IV, Section xi is hereby amended as follows:

xi) The Governor has veto power over any piece of legislation that the Northeast Assembly shall successfully vote in favour of. The Governor may not have the power to only veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. If the General Assembly of the Northeast Region is to have another successful vote on any piece of legislation previously vetoed, than the Governor must not veto it. The Governor is required to sign all pieces of legislation he supports into law after it passes a successful vote in the Legislative Assembly, and must veto legislation which he does not support, within one week of its passing. Once he or she has signed the legislation, it immediately becomes law unless otherwise stated in the legislation itself. If the Governor does not sign the successful legislation after one week, than it becomes law immediately.

Article V is hereby amended by insertion as new Section xv:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by more than a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.

Sponsor: Rep. cinyc

The Question is shall the Bill be considered?

The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Representative ciync, has the floor.

[/quote]


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 06, 2009, 01:49:28 AM
Ok, that's fine with me. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 06, 2009, 02:01:03 AM
Looks good here.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 06, 2009, 09:28:28 AM
Would that mean a 4–2 override vote would go to the Lt. Governor for tie breaking?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: fezzyfestoon on November 06, 2009, 10:08:38 AM
Would that mean a 4–2 override vote would go to the Lt. Governor for tie breaking?

That actually sounds like a good idea, intentional or not.  I definitely don't think 4 votes is enough for an override though.  So with 4 the Lt. Governor deciding sounds good to me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 06, 2009, 10:26:59 AM
Okay.  It may be redundant, but redundancy is okay, IMHO, to avoid confusion: Can we add a line to the amendment stating that override votes of exactly two-thirds (like that 4-2 situation) will be decided by the Lt. Governor?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 06, 2009, 12:24:26 PM
Okay.  It may be redundant, but redundancy is okay, IMHO, to avoid confusion: Can we add a line to the amendment stating that override votes of exactly two-thirds (like that 4-2 situation) will be decided by the Lt. Governor?

Seconded. Just add that a vote of exactly two thirds in favor shall be considered as a tie.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 06, 2009, 12:40:52 PM
Would that mean a 4–2 override vote would go to the Lt. Governor for tie breaking?

That actually sounds like a good idea, intentional or not.  I definitely don't think 4 votes is enough for an override though.  So with 4 the Lt. Governor deciding sounds good to me.

Yep, this was a good idea.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 06, 2009, 02:36:43 PM
Would that mean a 4–2 override vote would go to the Lt. Governor for tie breaking?

I don't think the Lt. Governor should have any role in overrides, to be honest.  He's a member of the executive branch that vetoed the bill in the first place.

Should we put that proposal to a vote?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 06, 2009, 02:57:59 PM
I hold to the statute of tie of a 4-2 situtation.

Should we put that proposal to a vote?

If necessary, yes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 06, 2009, 04:32:14 PM
I think we should vote on it now that we've got a solid plan.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 07, 2009, 08:50:06 AM
Bump.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 07, 2009, 03:29:49 PM

I think we'd all like to see voting open as quickly as possible.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 07, 2009, 03:31:55 PM
Well, are we going to vote on the Amendment to the Bill, or is friendly? Either way, I need to see it typed up in an actual form to insert in to the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 07, 2009, 03:34:25 PM
I propose this amendment:

Article V is hereby amended by insertion as new Section xv:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by more than a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature. An override vote resulting in an exactly two-thirds majority shall be considered a tie for this purpose, to be broken by vote of the Lieutenant Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 07, 2009, 05:31:06 PM
I'll take Hamilton's amendment as friendly.  The full bill as amended (with the newer additions in purple):

Veto Override Amendment

Whereas the New Constitution of the Northeast does not contain procedural language regarding the override of a Governor's veto, therefore be it resolved that the New Constitution of the Northeast be amended.


Article IV, Section xi is hereby amended as follows:

xi) The Governor has veto power over any piece of legislation that the Northeast Assembly shall successfully vote in favour of. The Governor may not have the power to only veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. If the General Assembly of the Northeast Region is to have another successful vote on any piece of legislation previously vetoed, than the Governor must not veto it. The Governor is required to sign all pieces of legislation he supports into law after it passes a successful vote in the Legislative Assembly, and must veto legislation which he does not support, within one week of its passing. Once he or she has signed the legislation, it immediately becomes law unless otherwise stated in the legislation itself. If the Governor does not sign the successful legislation after one week, than it becomes law immediately.

Article V is hereby amended by insertion as new Section xv:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by more than a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.  An override vote resulting in an exactly two-thirds majority shall be considered a tie for this purpose, to be broken by vote of the Lieutenant Governor.
-------------------
I think this is ready to proceed to a final vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 07, 2009, 05:47:08 PM
I open a final vote on this Bill. Voting lasts twenty-four hours. Vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

Veto Override Amendment

Whereas the New Constitution of the Northeast does not contain procedural language regarding the override of a Governor's veto, therefore be it resolved that the New Constitution of the Northeast be amended.


Article IV, Section xi is hereby amended as follows:

xi) The Governor has veto power over any piece of legislation that the Northeast Assembly shall successfully vote in favour of. The Governor may not have the power to only veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. The Governor is required to sign all pieces of legislation he supports into law after it passes a successful vote in the Legislative Assembly within one week of its passing. Once he or she has signed the legislation, it immediately becomes law unless otherwise stated in the legislation itself. If the Governor does not sign the successful legislation after one week, than it becomes law immediately.

Article V is hereby amended by insertion as new Section xv:

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto.  If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by more than a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.  An override vote resulting in an exactly two-thirds majority shall be considered a tie for this purpose, to be broken by vote of the Lieutenant Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 07, 2009, 05:47:39 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 07, 2009, 05:48:14 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 07, 2009, 06:48:11 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 07, 2009, 08:33:14 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 07, 2009, 09:20:53 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 08, 2009, 11:33:11 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: fezzyfestoon on November 08, 2009, 12:46:53 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 08, 2009, 01:22:27 PM
We only need Rep. RockefellerRepublican to vote, and I can go ahead and end the voe. Can someone PM him? :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 08, 2009, 05:53:22 PM
The Ayes are Seven, the Nays are zero, the Amendment has passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 08, 2009, 06:00:54 PM
Northeast initiative for ethics in voting

Whereas :
- The action of asking people that absolutely don't take part in Atlasian politics to vote for one candidate in order to serve one person's political interest is a clear threat for democracy.
- Recent events permitted to put on light how common said practices have become.
- Northeast Region is particularly concerned by said practices.
- The absence of specific legislation on this domain at the federal level is the main cause of said practices.

The Northeast Legislative Assembly states that :
- Zombie voting is not welcome in the Northeast Region, and shall be fought by every legal mean.
- Every elected official of the Northeast Region shall be exemplary on this domain, for example resigning from his/her office if he/she considers that his/her election was due to zombie voters.
- The Northeast Region officially urges the Senate to pass a law that will restrict voting rights to people who really take part in Atlasia outside voting booths.

Sponsor: Rep. AntonioV

The Questions is Shall the Bill be Considered?

Those is favor, say Aye, those opposed, No.

The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor,  Antonio V, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 08, 2009, 06:45:35 PM
Motion to table. Sorry, Antonio, but this bill doesn't do anything and we need to get to the legislation in the queue that will make an impact on the average Northeasterner.

I'd be willing to work on creating separate voting requirements for our region independent of the SoFA office, but this resolution is quite pointless.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 08, 2009, 08:12:36 PM
Why don't we let Antonio explain the bill first?

I have serious concerns about the last paragraph.  Not everyone who votes is going to be able to meaningfully participate on the Atlas Fantasy Elections boards.  There aren't enough elective seats - nor should they be.  Citizens shouldn't be penalized for being passive. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 08, 2009, 08:16:18 PM
Besides, in real life, most voters don't follow politics at all. They still get to vote. That's part of campaigning, and probably the fun part-- talking to voters about your record, working on the undecideds, and basically escaping the stupid, cliquey atmosphere of this board.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: gregusodenus on November 08, 2009, 08:19:48 PM
I hope I am not stepping across any guidelines, but I have input on the Northeast initiative for Ethics in Voting. I believe that this initiative, although with good intentions, does nothing to combat the problem at hand. It recognizes a problem, but provides no regional law against the problem. Until we take stronger action, and take this issue out of the hands of the Federal Gov't, nothing will get done.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 08, 2009, 08:20:47 PM
I hope I am not stepping across any guidelines, but I have input on the Northeast initiative for Ethics in Voting. I believe that this initiative, although with good intentions, does nothing to combat the problem at hand. It recognizes a problem, but provides no regional law against the problem. Until we take stronger action, and take this issue out of the hands of the Federal Gov't, nothing will get done.

You can comment here, but I already acknowledged that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: gregusodenus on November 08, 2009, 08:59:08 PM
I hope I am not stepping across any guidelines, but I have input on the Northeast initiative for Ethics in Voting. I believe that this initiative, although with good intentions, does nothing to combat the problem at hand. It recognizes a problem, but provides no regional law against the problem. Until we take stronger action, and take this issue out of the hands of the Federal Gov't, nothing will get done.

You can comment here, but I already acknowledged that.

I just wanted to get my two cents in. I wanted to make it clear that I support the intention of this bill, but also describe how I want bills to be passed that have some practical use.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 08, 2009, 11:18:28 PM
I hope I am not stepping across any guidelines, but I have input on the Northeast initiative for Ethics in Voting. I believe that this initiative, although with good intentions, does nothing to combat the problem at hand. It recognizes a problem, but provides no regional law against the problem. Until we take stronger action, and take this issue out of the hands of the Federal Gov't, nothing will get done.

You can comment here, but I already acknowledged that.

I just wanted to get my two cents in. I wanted to make it clear that I support the intention of this bill, but also describe how I want bills to be passed that have some practical use.

You're welcome to post your thoughts in the Assembly! We are Servants of the people! :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 09, 2009, 12:48:56 AM

You can comment here, but I already acknowledged that.

Assembly is open to all Northeastern residents...

I would like to support this bill, but I would like Antonio to explain to me how a Representative is bound to resign because inactive voters voted for them... I hope he can better explain it to me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 09, 2009, 11:54:01 AM
bump for antonio


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 09, 2009, 12:27:27 PM
Fellow Representatives,

We are certainly at a determinating point of Atlasian History, and while it's late enough to see what will be Atlasia if we do nothing, it still isn't too late to do something. But this "something" shall be done now, now or never.
Some people, coming from the right as well as the left, used to the Atlasian political system and very proud to consider themselves as "bosses", have slightly built obscure systems of realtionships with other people, in order to control the game more and more. The same process that led to the birth of a mafia in so many countries is now happening in Atlasia. When this process started, I wasn't even here, but at the time people couldn't realize the danger it was going to represent. Now, these big coalitions are able to recruit dozens of users, who will vote for the candidate one man wants to be elected.
You can tell me that what I'm saying is purely democratic, that in fact nobody can't win without a clear and real popular support, that the actions of these interest groups aren't so relevant. Senator RowanBrandon proudly proved us the contrary. We now know that someone, someone who was twice candidate to the presidency, considered himself powerful enough to say "I will ensure that ____ will be elected". This man is still here, still a respected member of the second largest party. But the point is that he's not the only one. A former President recently admitted to have used "some practices" in order to influentiate election results.
Now, here is the point. Rowan was condemned for telling people the truth. There are laws in Atlasia to punish people who reveal a fraud, and there is no law to punish people who practice fraud. That's why we need one, and soon. At this point of the game, a strong majority of users can still revolt and say "We don't want this kind of Atlasia !". In some moths, maybe one year, zombie voters will be more numerous than real voters, and we'll all be powerless. Elections will just be races for the one who gathers the most zombies, and people will lose all sort of interest for the game. That's why someone needs to do the first step, and I've decided to be this one.
Before concluding, I'd like to make a precision of what is a "zombie voter", since some people seem to take advantage of the legitimate indignation of Atlasian people to attack anyone for being a zombie. Someone who is recruited by an older Atlasian isn't necessarily a zombie. I'm sure some of you were recruited for a particular election, and then decided to involve in Atlasian politcs. I am in this case. The only thing that matters is what people do after being recruited. If you just vote as the person told to do, and then absolutely don't care of what happens in Atlasia, then you're a zombies. All those who act so deserve nothing but our contempt, since they are self-consenting pawns. It's only this category of people that needs to be excluded, and not the newbies, who to the contrary can bring a lot to Atlasia.
Now, I'd like to respond to the objections that have been formulated recently. First of all, saying that we need to focus on problems affecting the "average Atlasian" is populism. The first duty of a legislator is to protect its democracy and ensure it will not die. If we don't, we're either cowards or corrupts. Now the main argument pointed out is that these practices are normal in any demoracy and shall be tolerated. We could say it sometimes ago, when zombie voting was a marginal practice. That's not the case anymore. Just imagine if, in the USA, half of the voters were entirely controlled by their partie's political machine, never looking at the news, not caring about the reality, not even knowing who is the guy they are voting for... Just imagine half of the voters were recruited by an influent member of the Dem or the GOP and are ready to do whatever he tells them to do. Wouldn't you do something ?
A last clarification : As I mentioned, this bill shall be considered as a first step of a long and difficult democratic process. It's not, properly speaking, a Bil, but just a declaration of intent. All that is written here hasn't any effective power, meaning that Reps will still be allowed to do whatever they want. This is a solemn delcaration stating that, in the battle that will soon oppose true democrats to pawns and puppetmasters, the Northeast sides with the democracy. Some of you told me that they would like us to go farther, and propose a real bill. I will answer that this issue is a regional government's issue, in which the only power of regions is speaking their minds. Clearly speaking, voting a bill against zombie voting in the NE will be twice unconstitutional, for both the NE and the Atlasian consititution. Only a federal amendment may deal with this issue, and that's why this declaration enjoins the Senate to pass one soon.
We are at a tipping point, fellow Reps., and now the future of Atlasia depends to you. Not all of you, but each of you, at the moment when you will cast your vote in favor or in opposition to this declaration. The future will judge us, and your next vote will certainly contribute to determinate this judgement.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 09, 2009, 02:04:09 PM
It's a bit hard to build that case as a JCP member. There are the largest perpetrators.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 09, 2009, 03:32:27 PM
Representative Antonio, I must confess originally I was leaning in support of the measure, however, after some thought I am leaning against. The reason being is that while I sympathize with its intent, I don't know that it will truly accomplish anything. Our actions may do nothing in the Senate and this will be a waste of time. So, I'm hoping that you can convince me otherwise...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 10, 2009, 01:47:54 AM
Thank you, Antonio.

I reiterate my concern about the last paragraph of your bill.  Not everyone who votes is going to be able to meaningfully participate on the Atlas Fantasy Elections boards.   How are we to differentiate between the non-participating posters and zombies?  Someone named Torie - one of the most respected posters on the Atlas Forum - a zombie because he hadn't posted the Altas Fantasy Elections forums recently.  That makes no sense, and the last paragraph seems over-inclusive.

As to the second-to-last paragraph, I've recruited nobody, and have no way of knowing whether someone who votes for me is a zombie.  The last election wasn't competitive, so zombies weren't an issue.  The upcoming December elections may be more competitive.  If I decide to run for reelection and somehow win, how am I supposed to know if I should resign - especially when we're using PR-STV voting, and I may be some light-posting constituent's third or fourth choice?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 10, 2009, 02:07:54 AM
I would like to offer the following amendment to my esteemed collegue and friend's initiative. This will make the statement more palatable and more in line with a realistic goal:

Northeast initiative for ethics in voting

Whereas :
- The action of asking people that absolutely don't take part in Atlasian politics to vote for one candidate in order to serve one person's political interest is a clear threat for democracy.
- Recent events permitted to put on light how common said practices have become.
- Northeast Region is particularly concerned by said practices.
- The absence of specific legislation on this domain at the federal level is the main cause of said practices.

The Northeast Legislative Assembly states that:
- Zombie voting is not welcome in the Northeast Region, and shall be fought by every legal mean.
- Every elected official of the Northeast Region shall be exemplary on this domain, for example resigning from his/her office if he/she considers that his/her election was due to zombie voters.

- The Northeast Region officially urges the Senate to pass a law that will restrict voting rights to people who really take part in Atlasia outside voting booths.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 10, 2009, 02:14:33 AM
Still can't support. I don't want to see the whole nation purged, leaving, what, 20 people? Come on.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 10, 2009, 07:21:59 AM
Thank you, Antonio.

I reiterate my concern about the last paragraph of your bill.  Not everyone who votes is going to be able to meaningfully participate on the Atlas Fantasy Elections boards.   How are we to differentiate between the non-participating posters and zombies?  Someone named Torie - one of the most respected posters on the Atlas Forum - a zombie because he hadn't posted the Altas Fantasy Elections forums recently.  That makes no sense, and the last paragraph seems over-inclusive.


To the contrary, I tried to make it as precise and catious as possible. Only a poster who never takes part in Atlasia shall be considered as a zombie, which Torie obviously isn't. The text of tthis "bill" doesn't say anything else.


Quote
As to the second-to-last paragraph, I've recruited nobody, and have no way of knowing whether someone who votes for me is a zombie.  The last election wasn't competitive, so zombies weren't an issue.  The upcoming December elections may be more competitive.  If I decide to run for reelection and somehow win, how am I supposed to know if I should resign - especially when we're using PR-STV voting, and I may be some light-posting constituent's third or fourth choice ?

Again, you have your own discretion for that. Nobody will force you to resign and nobody will decide who is or not a zombie.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: fezzyfestoon on November 10, 2009, 08:01:15 AM
While I understand and respect the intent of the legislation, I can't see myself supporting it in any form.  Not only is it far too ambiguous, it's just not realistic.  "Mafias" as you put it have always existed in Atlasia and will continue to exist as long as Atlasia does.  Sure, we can go ahead and say we don't like it, but the odds are half the people voting yes will have been involved in some tactics deemed inappropriate by this legislation.  I cannot tell you how many times I was recruited to vote by Atlasians from every party while I was inactive for the last year.  And when every vote counts for so much, the potential for corruption increases exponentially.  It's the way it works here and vocalizing our opposition to it would be one of the most vacuous efforts in Northeast history.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 10, 2009, 11:14:21 AM
While I understand and respect the intent of the legislation, I can't see myself supporting it in any form.  Not only is it far too ambiguous, it's just not realistic.  "Mafias" as you put it have always existed in Atlasia and will continue to exist as long as Atlasia does.  Sure, we can go ahead and say we don't like it, but the odds are half the people voting yes will have been involved in some tactics deemed inappropriate by this legislation.  I cannot tell you how many times I was recruited to vote by Atlasians from every party while I was inactive for the last year.  And when every vote counts for so much, the potential for corruption increases exponentially.  It's the way it works here and vocalizing our opposition to it would be one of the most vacuous efforts in Northeast history.

So, let's make nothing because this would be useless anyways ?
Either we try to solve something, or at least to claim our oppositon, or we quietly assist as spectator to the game's takeover. I don't want to be of those who do nothing just because they think it will be useless. The only question you should ask yourself is "Is it right ?" and not "Is it useful" ?

And BTW, I shall reject Dr. Cinyc's Amendment, which I consider will empty the whole declaration.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 10, 2009, 03:12:04 PM
Without the amendment, I cannot support it. It's just not a realistic expectation, even if it passes this body, to think that the Senate would pass something along those lines. I don't know what it would do. It's so ambiguous. I like your intent, just not this particular initiative.

As much as I would like to see something done here... It just can't happen with this one, my friend.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 10, 2009, 04:21:13 PM
Without the amendment, I cannot support it. It's just not a realistic expectation, even if it passes this body, to think that the Senate would pass something along those lines. I don't know what it would do. It's so ambiguous. I like your intent, just not this particular initiative.

As much as I would like to see something done here... It just can't happen with this one, my friend.

Will you still keep your Amendment on the Floor? if you do, then we'll have to vote on it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 10, 2009, 05:24:37 PM
Without the amendment, I cannot support it. It's just not a realistic expectation, even if it passes this body, to think that the Senate would pass something along those lines. I don't know what it would do. It's so ambiguous. I like your intent, just not this particular initiative.

As much as I would like to see something done here... It just can't happen with this one, my friend.

Will you still keep your Amendment on the Floor? if you do, then we'll have to vote on it.

That's probably the right thing to do.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 10, 2009, 05:33:04 PM
I open up a vote on the Amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

Northeast initiative for ethics in voting

Whereas :
- The action of asking people that absolutely don't take part in Atlasian politics to vote for one candidate in order to serve one person's political interest is a clear threat for democracy.
- Recent events permitted to put on light how common said practices have become.
- Northeast Region is particularly concerned by said practices.
- The absence of specific legislation on this domain at the federal level is the main cause of said practices.

The Northeast Legislative Assembly states that:
- Zombie voting is not welcome in the Northeast Region, and shall be fought by every legal mean.
- Every elected official of the Northeast Region shall be exemplary on this domain, for example resigning from his/her office if he/she considers that his/her election was due to zombie voters.

- The Northeast Region officially urges the Senate to pass a law that will restrict voting rights to people who really take part in Atlasia outside voting booths.

Proposed by: Rep. Doctor Cynic


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 10, 2009, 05:33:35 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 10, 2009, 05:36:10 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 10, 2009, 07:33:20 PM
BUMP for more votes. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 10, 2009, 11:32:57 PM
I'm keeping the amendment before the floor.

Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 11, 2009, 12:05:27 AM
Aye on the Dr Cynic Amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 11, 2009, 01:29:47 AM
Nay on the amendment. 

I can't vote for an Amendment I have issues with, even if it's an improvement over the final bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Hash on November 11, 2009, 08:04:13 AM
I would like to make my position on the bill currently on the floor clear, as it addresses an issue I hold dear.

Firstly, I would like to commend Antonio for attacking such a touchy and controversial issue in the way that he did. It's honourable and respectable. However, that being said, I fear that this bill is just a strongly worded resolution just like I can pass a strongly worded resolution in the Senate declaring my hatred of Stephen Harper. It won't do anything, except make some headlines. The issue of zombies requires not resolutions condemning the practice, but real action, which is something that this bill lacks and also something that the Assembly might lack the power of passing. That is why I have offered Antonio the opportunity for him to draft legislation on this issue that I will work with him on and later introduce in the Senate, in the hope that some reform can be done on the issue. I'm happy that he has accepted my offer.

Furthermore, I would like to disagree with the notion that doing nothing is the best solution, because it isn't. I don't want the results of Atlasian elections decided by how many voters the parties have registered. Elections should be competitive but also suspenseful and not an issue of registering voters to vote for your party. We have elections, not registration contests, and I want it to remain that way.

I thank you for your time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 11, 2009, 11:15:00 AM
Voters in the Northeast have proven that they aren't party hacks but voters who will vote on the issues.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 11, 2009, 07:57:58 PM
The Ayes are three, the Nays are two; the Amendment is adopted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 11, 2009, 08:02:08 PM
I'm introducing this amendment:

Whereas :
- The action of asking people that absolutely don't take part in Atlasian politics to vote for one candidate in order to serve one person's political interest is a clear threat for democracy.
- Recent events permitted to put on light how common said practices have become.
- Northeast Region is particularly concerned by said practices.
- The absence of specific legislation on this domain at the federal level is the main cause of said practices.

The Northeast Legislative Assembly states that:
- The Northeast Region officially urges the Senate to pass a law that will restrict voting rights to people who really take part in Atlasia outside voting booths.

The Northeast Legislative Assembly establishes that:
- The Northeast Region shall establish independent voting requirements for the region, to be effective beginning January 2010, requiring a voter to be removed of privilege of voting in Northeastern regional elections if that voter should miss two consecutive regional elections. The citizen may re-register at any time and have voting privilege reinstated.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 11, 2009, 08:54:02 PM
I think it's too late to offer amendments under the SOAP.  Should we not proceed to a final vote on the bill, as amended?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 11, 2009, 09:13:00 PM
I think it's too late to offer amendments under the SOAP.  Should we not proceed to a final vote on the bill, as amended?

That is the correct procedure. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 11, 2009, 09:54:19 PM
Excuse me, but no. I proposed this amendment as soon as the vote was closed on the previous one. I motion to suspend SOAP and vote on it. There is no reason that I should have to interrupt on-going votes to introduce amendments that won't be voted on until after anyways.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 11, 2009, 09:57:32 PM
Excuse me, but no. I proposed this amendment as soon as the vote was closed on the previous one. I motion to suspend SOAP and vote on it. There is no reason that I should have to interrupt on-going votes to introduce amendments that won't be voted on until after anyways.

The rules clearly state, that at the end of the debating period, all proposed amendments are voted on, and then we move on immediately to a final vote.

Quote
(d) A vote will be held on all proposed amendments not deemed friendly at the end of the debate period.  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  An amendment shall pass  if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).

Quote
(f) A final vote on the proposed legislation shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period).  A final vote on veto overrides shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such votes shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  A piece of proposed legislation or veto override shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 11, 2009, 10:08:46 PM
Excuse me, but no. I proposed this amendment as soon as the vote was closed on the previous one. I motion to suspend SOAP and vote on it. There is no reason that I should have to interrupt on-going votes to introduce amendments that won't be voted on until after anyways.

The reasons the SOAP rules are what they are is so that we don't get bogged down on any one piece of legislation with constant amendments to it - especially since we generally only debate one bill at a time. All amendments should be proposed within the 48-hour debate period.   There's no reason why your proposed amendment couldn't have been.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 11, 2009, 10:58:41 PM
Excuse me, but no. I proposed this amendment as soon as the vote was closed on the previous one. I motion to suspend SOAP and vote on it. There is no reason that I should have to interrupt on-going votes to introduce amendments that won't be voted on until after anyways.

The rules clearly state, that at the end of the debating period, all proposed amendments are voted on, and then we move on immediately to a final vote.

Quote
(d) A vote will be held on all proposed amendments not deemed friendly at the end of the debate period.  Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  An amendment shall pass  if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).

Quote
(f) A final vote on the proposed legislation shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period).  A final vote on veto overrides shall take place immediately after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor.  Such votes shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours.  A piece of proposed legislation or veto override shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).



Then this is a problem with the SOAP that needs addressed. Many amendments are the result of other amendments passing, such as this one.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 11, 2009, 11:28:04 PM
Then this is a problem with the SOAP that needs addressed. Many amendments are the result of other amendments passing, such as this one.

Nothing prohibits you from offering an amendment conditioned on the passing of another or working with the person proposing an amendment to get your language added.

Time is of the essence here.  I doubt we're going to get through half of the proposed legislation queue this session.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 11, 2009, 11:31:00 PM
Then this is a problem with the SOAP that needs addressed. Many amendments are the result of other amendments passing, such as this one.

Nothing prohibits you from offering an amendment conditioned on the passing of another or working with the person proposing an amendment to get your language added.

Time is of the essence here.  I doubt we're going to get through half of the proposed legislation queue this session.

I would not have introduced this amendment if that one hadn't passed. Does SOAP have a provision for conditional amendments?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 11, 2009, 11:36:20 PM
Anyways... as for time concerns.

It will take far less time to deal with this now than for me to put this in the queue as an amendment and forced to spend at least 36 hours on this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 12, 2009, 08:56:56 AM
FWIW, an independent voter registration/activity statute would be a nightmare to administer.  I'm fine with going along with the feds on that one.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 12, 2009, 03:13:13 PM
I don't support your Amendment, Hamilton, since it is useless and likely unconstitutionnal. I think most of my fellow Reps think like me.
Can we open a final vote on this ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 12, 2009, 03:33:43 PM
I don't support your Amendment, Hamilton, since it is useless and likely unconstitutionnal. I think most of my fellow Reps think like me.

No, see. Your legislation here is useless. My amendment creates a policy that attempts to relieve the burdens of inactive voters. Without my provision, this legislation is hollow and pointless.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 12, 2009, 04:00:08 PM
I second Rep. Antonio's motion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 12, 2009, 04:14:24 PM
I don't support your Amendment, Hamilton, since it is useless and likely unconstitutionnal. I think most of my fellow Reps think like me.

No, see. Your legislation here is useless. My amendment creates a policy that attempts to relieve the burdens of inactive voters. Without my provision, this legislation is hollow and pointless.

"Inactive voters" are not the problem. The problem is not who doesn't vote, but who votes even though he doesn't care at all of Atlasia. Your idea doesn't solve anything, solves a problem that isn't one, and is just a pretext.
And you perfectly know all that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 12, 2009, 04:15:20 PM
I don't support your Amendment, Hamilton, since it is useless and likely unconstitutionnal. I think most of my fellow Reps think like me.

No, see. Your legislation here is useless. My amendment creates a policy that attempts to relieve the burdens of inactive voters. Without my provision, this legislation is hollow and pointless.

"Inactive voters" are not the problem. The problem is not who doesn't vote, but who votes even though he doesn't care at all of Atlasia. Your idea doesn't solve anything, solves a problem that isn't one, and is just a pretext.
And you perfectly know all that.

I don't get how you could be so concerned with this and still remain in the JCP. If you want to take a stand on this, you need to be the change you seek.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 12, 2009, 04:21:36 PM
I don't support your Amendment, Hamilton, since it is useless and likely unconstitutionnal. I think most of my fellow Reps think like me.

No, see. Your legislation here is useless. My amendment creates a policy that attempts to relieve the burdens of inactive voters. Without my provision, this legislation is hollow and pointless.

"Inactive voters" are not the problem. The problem is not who doesn't vote, but who votes even though he doesn't care at all of Atlasia. Your idea doesn't solve anything, solves a problem that isn't one, and is just a pretext.
And you perfectly know all that.

I don't get how you could be so concerned with this and still remain in the JCP. If you want to take a stand on this, you need to be the change you seek.

This is not the right thread to start again a personal controversy as you are used to. I would answer very easily to this but we represent the Northeast and now need to vote on a text, as specified in the SOAP.

Are the Governor, the President, the CJO or the Speaker around here ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 12, 2009, 04:22:32 PM
I don't support your Amendment, Hamilton, since it is useless and likely unconstitutionnal. I think most of my fellow Reps think like me.

No, see. Your legislation here is useless. My amendment creates a policy that attempts to relieve the burdens of inactive voters. Without my provision, this legislation is hollow and pointless.

"Inactive voters" are not the problem. The problem is not who doesn't vote, but who votes even though he doesn't care at all of Atlasia. Your idea doesn't solve anything, solves a problem that isn't one, and is just a pretext.
And you perfectly know all that.

I don't get how you could be so concerned with this and still remain in the JCP. If you want to take a stand on this, you need to be the change you seek.

This is not the right thread to start again a personal controversy as you are used to. I would answer very easily to this but we represent the Northeast and now need to vote on a text, as specified in the SOAP.


It takes 5 seconds to change your registration to Independent.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 12, 2009, 10:42:47 PM
I open up a final vote on this Initiative. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours. (I will not be here tomorrow, so, Smid is in charge on Friday.)

Northeast initiative for ethics in voting

Whereas :
- The action of asking people that absolutely don't take part in Atlasian politics to vote for one candidate in order to serve one person's political interest is a clear threat for democracy.
- Recent events permitted to put on light how common said practices have become.
- Northeast Region is particularly concerned by said practices.
- The absence of specific legislation on this domain at the federal level is the main cause of said practices.

The Northeast Legislative Assembly states that:
- The Northeast Region officially urges the Senate to pass a law that will restrict voting rights to people who really take part in Atlasia outside voting booths.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 12, 2009, 10:46:27 PM
Nay

Unless you A) support issue knowledge tests in order to vote in real life or B) want people to SPAM this board, there is no reason to support this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 12, 2009, 11:36:20 PM
It's far from perfect, but it's a start.

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 13, 2009, 01:48:21 AM
Aye, though it's quite weak.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 13, 2009, 04:00:23 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 13, 2009, 07:50:12 AM
Nay. I don't like zombie voters, but I like even less the idea of cleansing Atlasia of it's more casual residents in favor of those we deem "more worthy" via activity.

Likely, I'd have been considered a zombie at some point following my presidency when I went into inactivity (save for my regular general election voting record).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 13, 2009, 11:58:26 PM
Nay.

I fear that this would not prevent zombie voters, merely encourage them to make irrelevant posts on this board. They do enough damage by voting... getting them to "contribute" to the board when such contributions would be meaningless, is only compounding their influence.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 14, 2009, 12:02:21 AM
There being two votes in favour and four votes against, the question is resolved in the negative.

()


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 14, 2009, 12:05:41 AM
The next Bill, I believe, is:

Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment

1. Article VII of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following.
2. This constitution may be changed, altered, modified or amended if all of the following methods are met:
i) An affirmative vote of two thirds of voting (either in the affirmative or in the negative) members Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.
ii) An affirmative vote of majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly, voting, abstaining and absent members combined.
iii) Approval of the Governor in the form of his consent.
3. Any Citizen of the Northeast Region shall be allowed to create a petition to repeal a Constitutional Amendment that previously passed. If three Northeast Citizens sign this petition, a polling booth shall be created by the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region at 12:00:00am Eastern Standard Time of the Friday following the petition's creation. The voters shall vote "aye" if they favor repealing or "nay" if they oppose it. If more than one third of the voters votes "aye", the Amendment shall be repealed. The same Amendment shall not be put on vote by this procedure more than once in 180 days.

The question is:

That - The Bill be considered. All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary "no." I believe the Ayes have it.

The Proposer, Antonio V, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 14, 2009, 08:40:02 AM
Fellow Representatives,

The power for people to control the Amendment proposals is an essential element of our constitution, and the goal of this Amendment is absolutely not to harm this principle.
Now, the establishment of an elected Assembly, added with the adoption of a bad Amendment concerning this issue, made the current Amending procedure particularly long, complicated, and difficult. That's why I am proposing this Amendment. Today, to pass an Amendment, we first need to reach a 2/3th majority, then the approval of governor. But after that, we still need to wait for 4 months, and the next gubernatorial election, to make it finally so. And the only way for an Amendment to go though all this is to get an absolute majority of all the registered voters, which is far from being easy... Concretely, it is almost impossible to modify our constitution without a quasi-unanimous approval, and that's not fair. It's important that for Amendments proposed to be consensual and moderate, but an Amendment should not fail only because of the lack of concern of voters.
To the contrary, with the system I propose, if a strong minority of citizens refuse an Amendment and mobilize themselves, they still can repeal it. But the refusal is only made a posteriori, with a possibility of seeing how it works before rejecting it. To say it simply, this Amendment is as democratic as the preceding, but more efficient.

I'm sure we can pass it and therefore definitely put an end to this series of constitutionnal reforms in order to make the system work better.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 14, 2009, 04:12:50 PM
I have no problem allowing for a vote of the people on Constitutional Amendments more frequently - either with the Assembly elections or once a month - or even lowering the ratification standards a bit.  I do have a problem with Constitutional Amendments becoming law without a vote of the people.  The Constitution ought not to be changed without a vote of the people.  If the proposed amendment passes, the Assembly could in theory cut the people out by passing an amendment removing the ability for the people to protest.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 14, 2009, 05:13:28 PM
I have no problem allowing for a vote of the people on Constitutional Amendments more frequently - either with the Assembly elections or once a month - or even lowering the ratification standards a bit.  I do have a problem with Constitutional Amendments becoming law without a vote of the people.  The Constitution ought not to be changed without a vote of the people.  If the proposed amendment passes, the Assembly could in theory cut the people out by passing an amendment removing the ability for the people to protest.

I admit that I probably neglected this problem (though the risk of such thing happening is very low), and would have no problem with a friendly Amendment modifying it. Here are my two greatest concerns :
- Removing any turnout requirement, which is terribly unfair and favors immobilism.
- Making votes on the Amendments occur, say, not more than one month after it passed in the Assembly.

If these two things will be guaranteed, I shall accept anything. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on November 14, 2009, 08:31:50 PM
Mr. Speaker

I hear by resign my office as Northeastern Representative, effective immediately. Due to my lack of interest in the office, combined with my attentions largely focusing on outside interests, mostly schooling this was an easy decision for me to make.

Good and Good Luck in the days ahead.

Rocky


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 14, 2009, 08:35:23 PM
Mr. Speaker

I hear by resign my office as Northeastern Representative, effective immediately. Due to my lack of interest in the office, combined with my attentions largely focusing on outside interests, mostly schooling this was an easy decision for me to make.

Good and Good Luck in the days ahead.

Rocky

Thank you for your service, Representative.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on November 14, 2009, 08:39:19 PM

While I do thank you Lieutenant Governor for your kind words I personally doubt you should be thanking me. If anything, I was one of this Assembly's least active representatives who, I believe voted on only one piece of legislation. Regardless, this Assembly at least shall be much more active without my lingering presence.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on November 15, 2009, 01:14:37 AM
Mr. Speaker

I hear by resign my office as Northeastern Representative, effective immediately. Due to my lack of interest in the office, combined with my attentions largely focusing on outside interests, mostly schooling this was an easy decision for me to make.

Good and Good Luck in the days ahead.

Rocky

I'm very sad to see you leaving the Assembly Conor, we will miss you. With that in mind, I plan on announcing someone to take the seat first thing Monday morning. Please contact me if you are intersted, those who have already contacted me dont worry, I have your names already.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 15, 2009, 03:34:36 AM
Mr. Speaker

I hear by resign my office as Northeastern Representative, effective immediately. Due to my lack of interest in the office, combined with my attentions largely focusing on outside interests, mostly schooling this was an easy decision for me to make.

Good and Good Luck in the days ahead.

Rocky

Well, you took the right decision. ;) According to the constitution, you should already have been ousted. :P


With that in mind, I plan on announcing someone to take the seat first thing Monday morning. Please contact me if you are intersted, those who have already contacted me dont worry, I have your names already.

If he didn't already do, I'd like to suggest NewDealDem. Since Rocky was a JCPer, and that without him I'm now the only one, this will mantain the current balance.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 16, 2009, 12:20:16 AM
As I see no Amendments have been proposed, and the alloted forty-eight debate period has expired, I open up a final vote on this Bill. Voting lasts twenty-four hours, Vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment

1. Article VII of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following.
2. This constitution may be changed, altered, modified or amended if all of the following methods are met:
i) An affirmative vote of two thirds of voting (either in the affirmative or in the negative) members Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.
ii) An affirmative vote of majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly, voting, abstaining and absent members combined.
iii) Approval of the Governor in the form of his consent.
3. Any Citizen of the Northeast Region shall be allowed to create a petition to repeal a Constitutional Amendment that previously passed. If three Northeast Citizens sign this petition, a polling booth shall be created by the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region at 12:00:00am Eastern Standard Time of the Friday following the petition's creation. The voters shall vote "aye" if they favor repealing or "nay" if they oppose it. If more than one third of the voters votes "aye", the Amendment shall be repealed. The same Amendment shall not be put on vote by this procedure more than once in 180 days.

 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 16, 2009, 12:54:53 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 16, 2009, 01:29:43 AM
Nay, in its present form.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 16, 2009, 06:38:49 AM
I  had no time to re-write it myself, but this is still better than the current situation.

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: fezzyfestoon on November 16, 2009, 06:56:31 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 16, 2009, 10:34:16 AM
I really can't support an amendment process that circumvents the voters.  The current process stinks, but this new one is just introducing even more problems.

Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 16, 2009, 06:00:28 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 16, 2009, 06:03:57 PM
This will rim the voters over and remove another element of democracy from our system. In the interests of the people of the Northeast, and in my first vote, I am therefore going to have to say:

NAY.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 16, 2009, 06:48:43 PM
This will rim the voters over and remove another element of democracy from our system. In the interests of the people of the Northeast, and in my first vote, I am therefore going to have to say:

NAY.

It might not go so well if you try to channel the people in your every vote, particularly when you haven't even been elected.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 17, 2009, 02:00:21 AM
This will rim the voters over and remove another element of democracy from our system. In the interests of the people of the Northeast, and in my first vote, I am therefore going to have to say:

NAY.

It might not go so well if you try to channel the people in your every vote, particularly when you haven't even been elected.

Disraeli is a joke. "OMG EVIL FREDUM HATERZ OMG !!!!!" is the only argument he can provide.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 17, 2009, 12:32:22 PM
The Ayes are Three; the Nays ae Four. The Bill has failed.



Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction
3. Selling firearms to convicted felons is illegal
4. Selling firearms to persons with confirmed serious mental ilness is illegal
5. Every school in the Northeast Region is required to provide a compulsory coursed for every student below the age of 15 about dangers of using the firearms, as well as about providing a basic medical help to gunshot victims in every 3 months.

The Question is, shall the bill be considered? The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Rep. Antonio V, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 17, 2009, 02:03:58 PM
I'm too bothered thes times to make a speech. This bill has been created by former Rep Kalwejt and I just introduced it to keep it valid after his resignation.

Anyways, considering that conservatives have an absolute majority here I guess this bill has no chance to pass...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 17, 2009, 03:29:45 PM
It's unfortunate that this wouldn't pass, because it seems to be common sense. Anyone who would consider themselves pro-gun should embrace this measure. Not only does it provide for common safety, and it doesn't limit sales to anyone except the mentally imbalanced.

Would you want a crazy person to have a gun?...

Other than that, I don't see why this bill can't be supported. So if my conservative friends on the other side of the asile could explain any opposition, I welcome the chance to fight on this bill's behalf, if Antonio doesn't want to.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 17, 2009, 04:18:14 PM
Sorry, mate, but recent events totally demoralized me. Nowadays, facts and logical reasonments don't matter anymore.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 17, 2009, 04:52:14 PM
This will rim the voters over and remove another element of democracy from our system. In the interests of the people of the Northeast, and in my first vote, I am therefore going to have to say:

NAY.

It might not go so well if you try to channel the people in your every vote, particularly when you haven't even been elected.

Disraeli is a joke. "OMG EVIL FREDUM HATERZ OMG !!!!!" is the only argument he can provide.

Don't be an ass.

As to the new act, I oppose any attempts to restrict the right to bear firearms, as they are the best defence against invasion of property by criminals. Atlasia was historically a frontier country, and guns are part of our tradition.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 17, 2009, 05:07:04 PM
The Ayes are Three; the Nays ae Four. The Bill has failed.



Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction
3. Selling firearms to convicted felons is illegal
4. Selling firearms to persons with confirmed serious mental ilness is illegal
5. Every school in the Northeast Region is required to provide a compulsory coursed for every student below the age of 15 about dangers of using the firearms, as well as about providing a basic medical help to gunshot victims in every 3 months.

The Question is, shall the bill be considered? The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Rep. Antonio V, has the floor.


Actually, I'd be willing to sign this as a compromise if Sections 2 and 5 were struck from the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 17, 2009, 05:10:07 PM
Why would you be opposed to safety classes and I.D.s for getting a firearm? That's a pretty foolish thing to do.

I oppose any restriction on the production or selling of firearms, but it stands to reason this would be helpful and somewhat necessary.

Safety and Liberty can coexist within this bill and I defy you to prove otherwise.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 17, 2009, 05:13:01 PM
The Ayes are Three; the Nays ae Four. The Bill has failed.



Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction
3. Selling firearms to convicted felons is illegal
4. Selling firearms to persons with confirmed serious mental ilness is illegal
5. Every school in the Northeast Region is required to provide a compulsory coursed for every student below the age of 15 about dangers of using the firearms, as well as about providing a basic medical help to gunshot victims in every 3 months.

The Question is, shall the bill be considered? The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Rep. Antonio V, has the floor.


I would like to offer two amendments, one to strike Section 2, and one to strike Section 5.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 17, 2009, 05:14:09 PM
Why would you be opposed to safety classes and I.D.s for getting a firearm? That's a pretty foolish thing to do.

I oppose any restriction on the production or selling of firearms, but it stands to reason this would be helpful and somewhat necessary.

Safety and Liberty can coexist within this bill and I defy you to prove otherwise.

I don't see why the government should have any role in telling the people the right way to use a firearm. To me, it seems like the first step in an attempt to simply restrict guns altogether. As for IDs, citizens have a RIGHT to bear arms, one which should not be infringed upon by ID checks.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 17, 2009, 05:14:27 PM
The Ayes are Three; the Nays ae Four. The Bill has failed.



Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction
3. Selling firearms to convicted felons is illegal
4. Selling firearms to persons with confirmed serious mental ilness is illegal
5. Every school in the Northeast Region is required to provide a compulsory coursed for every student below the age of 15 about dangers of using the firearms, as well as about providing a basic medical help to gunshot victims in every 3 months.

The Question is, shall the bill be considered? The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Rep. Antonio V, has the floor.


I would like to offer two amendments, one to strike Section 2, and one to strike Section 5.

You will have to reprint the bill with the desired amendments to make it official. Go back a few pages and see how it's done. It's easy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 17, 2009, 05:17:05 PM
I would like to offer the following, amended version of the bill for debate.

Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction
3. Selling firearms to convicted felons is illegal
4. Selling firearms to persons with confirmed serious mental ilness is illegal
5. Every school in the Northeast Region is required to provide a compulsory coursed for every student below the age of 15 about dangers of using the firearms, as well as about providing a basic medical help to gunshot victims in every 3 months.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 17, 2009, 05:17:29 PM
I don't see why the government should have any role in telling the people the right way to use a firearm. To me, it seems like the first step in an attempt to simply restrict guns altogether. As for IDs, citizens have a RIGHT to bear arms, one which should not be infringed upon by ID checks.

So, then released criminals or those with criminal backgrounds could get those guns anyway?... Also, it makes perfect sense to have gun safety courses available. What would be the point of having it if you can't use it? I see no reason why these should be stricken.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 17, 2009, 05:20:34 PM
I don't see why the government should have any role in telling the people the right way to use a firearm. To me, it seems like the first step in an attempt to simply restrict guns altogether. As for IDs, citizens have a RIGHT to bear arms, one which should not be infringed upon by ID checks.

So, then released criminals or those with criminal backgrounds could get those guns anyway?... Also, it makes perfect sense to have gun safety courses available. What would be the point of having it if you can't use it? I see no reason why these should be stricken.

I support having them AVAILABLE. What he is asking is for it to be COMPULSORY. Also, criminals, if caught, would be facing extra time for using a firearm in aggression AS WELL as breaking the law by possessing one in the first place.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 17, 2009, 05:42:58 PM
I am strongly in favour of this Bill.

As far as I'm aware, the Atlasian Constitution is silent regarding the right to bear arms? Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 17, 2009, 08:46:20 PM
I am strongly in favour of this Bill.

As far as I'm aware, the Atlasian Constitution is silent regarding the right to bear arms? Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong?

False.  The First Amendment to the Second Atlasian Constitution (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/First_Amendment_to_the_Second_Constitution)  states "The right to keep and bear fire-arms and low-potency explosives shall not be infringed." The right to keep and bear arms has always been in it; the First Amendment amended Article VI, Section 4 to add the low-potency explosives part.

This bill is arguably unconstitutional under that provision, which, lacking a preamble mentioning a well-regulated militia,  is even more explicit than the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.  I'll have to look to see if any similar federal or regional law is on the books.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 17, 2009, 09:25:35 PM
I've found 3 laws on gun ownership, 2 federal and 1 in the Northeast (subject to the usual
caveat that NE bills passed 2007 and later aren't in the wiki).

Let's discuss the Northeastern law first, the Northeast Concealed Carry Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Northeast_Concealed_Carry_Act).  It allows our citizens to get a 5-year license to conceal carry firearms if they pay a fee.  The only citizens to which this license will be denied are persons convicted of violent crimes or robbery - and they get their rights back if they stay out of trouble for 5 years, get a job, marry someone with a job, or grow old enough.  There's no exception for persons with mental illness.

Under the federal Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Protection_of_the_Right_to_Bear_Arms_Act), everyone but a convicted felon that a court has independently punished by removing his right to bear arms could theoretically own a gun under federal law.  And under the Expansion of Gun Rights Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Expansion_of_Gun_Rights_Act), everyone but minors, convicted felons whose rights a court has taken away, and "anyone who is insane" can conceal carry in DC and the federal territories without a permit.

So under the proposed law, it would be illegal to sell a gun to people who otherwise might have the right to conceal and/or bear arms under Northeastern and federal law - at a minimum, those convicted of non-violent crimes, non-violent felons whose rights have been taken away by a court, and persons with mental illness.

The wiki doesn't say whether the constitutionality of these laws has been challenged.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 18, 2009, 12:11:33 AM
I support having them AVAILABLE. What he is asking is for it to be COMPULSORY. Also, criminals, if caught, would be facing extra time for using a firearm in aggression AS WELL as breaking the law by possessing one in the first place.

I think what the bill is asking is perfectly reasonable. It's not as though they are being restricted in anyway, but providing photo I.D. is a reasonable safety precaution. There's nothing in this bill about making them unavailable to anyone other than the criminal or the insane. Identification presentation is one way to help prevent them from falling into those hands.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 19, 2009, 04:43:19 AM
I think what the bill is asking is perfectly reasonable. It's not as though they are being restricted in anyway, but providing photo I.D. is a reasonable safety precaution. There's nothing in this bill about making them unavailable to anyone other than the criminal or the insane. Identification presentation is one way to help prevent them from falling into those hands.

My main problem with the bill even is amended as how it deals with criminals and especially the insane.  Owning a gun is a right in Atlasia, and no one's rights should be taken away without due process.  The bill's blanket prohibition on selling guns to convicted felons doesn't comport with current federal or Northeastern law (why should a white collar criminal be unable to hunt for life after serving his time?),  "confirmed mental illness" isn't defined, and a judicial determination of "confirmed mental illness" (whatever that is - remember - in the old days, that would have meant being homosexual)  isn't necessary, as I read the bill.  Would a soldier returning from the recent battle in New Mexico who seeks treatment for PTSD be swept up in the language?  Possibly - and he shouldn't be, absent a judicial determination that he is insane.  And the law shouldn't stop potential gun owners from seeking help for mental illness, nor should it allow a psychiatrist alone to determine when we should be taking constitutional rights away from people.

I haven't had time to mark up an amendment, though may tomorrow if we're willing to wait for it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 19, 2009, 10:31:04 AM
Can we really wind up being opposed to checking the ID of people who want to buy guns?  I mean, my God, even the NRA supports that, no?

I agree on striking number 5.  Why we need to waste valuable public school time on gun safety courses, I have no idea.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 19, 2009, 10:33:11 AM
I think what the bill is asking is perfectly reasonable. It's not as though they are being restricted in anyway, but providing photo I.D. is a reasonable safety precaution. There's nothing in this bill about making them unavailable to anyone other than the criminal or the insane. Identification presentation is one way to help prevent them from falling into those hands.

My main problem with the bill even is amended as how it deals with criminals and especially the insane.  Owning a gun is a right in Atlasia, and no one's rights should be taken away without due process.  The bill's blanket prohibition on selling guns to convicted felons doesn't comport with current federal or Northeastern law (why should a white collar criminal be unable to hunt for life after serving his time?),  "confirmed mental illness" isn't defined, and a judicial determination of "confirmed mental illness" (whatever that is - remember - in the old days, that would have meant being homosexual)  isn't necessary, as I read the bill.  Would a soldier returning from the recent battle in New Mexico who seeks treatment for PTSD be swept up in the language?  Possibly - and he shouldn't be, absent a judicial determination that he is insane.  And the law shouldn't stop potential gun owners from seeking help for mental illness, nor should it allow a psychiatrist alone to determine when we should be taking constitutional rights away from people.

I haven't had time to mark up an amendment, though may tomorrow if we're willing to wait for it.

This is actually a very good point, IMO.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 19, 2009, 02:10:40 PM
After a rethink, I've decided I'm willing to accept this as long as Section 5 is stricken:

Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction
3. Selling firearms to convicted felons is illegal
4. Selling firearms to persons with confirmed serious mental ilness is illegal
5. Every school in the Northeast Region is required to provide a compulsory coursed for every student below the age of 15 about dangers of using the firearms, as well as about providing a basic medical help to gunshot victims in every 3 months.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 19, 2009, 02:28:29 PM
Well, this is the least important part of the bill, so in exchange to the promise for you to vote in favor of the amended bill I may support it.
Petty politics... :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 19, 2009, 02:30:30 PM
Well, this is the least important part of the bill, so in exchange to the promise for you to vote in favor of the amended bill I may support it.
Petty politics... :P

Deal.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 19, 2009, 02:35:42 PM
Well, this is the least important part of the bill, so in exchange to the promise for you to vote in favor of the amended bill I may support it.
Petty politics... :P

Deal.

Great.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 19, 2009, 07:36:04 PM
Let me try to put language to a proposed amendment:

Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal.
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction.
3. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly selling firearms to convicted felons is illegal:
a) any individual convicted of a felony under federal law while that individual's right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended by a court of law under the provisions of F.L. 9-2: Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Act, or
b) any individual who has been convicted of a violent crime or robbery under Northeast law and whose right to apply for a Northeast conceal carry license would not have otherwise been restored under Section 4 of the Northeast Concealed Carry Act of 2005.
4. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly selling firearms to any individuals with confirmed serious mental ilness is illegal whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been affirmatively suspended by a court of law in affirmative proceeding determining that such individual is mentally insane.  Any individual whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended in such a proceeding shall be entitled to petition a court for restoration that right at any time beginning one year after such suspension.
5. Every school in the Northeast Region is required to provide a compulsory coursed for every student below the age of 15 about dangers of using the firearms, as well as about providing a basic medical help to gunshot victims in every 3 months.

Or, without the strikethroughs:
1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal.
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction.
3. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly sell firearms to:
a) any individual convicted of a felony under federal law while that individual's right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended by a court of law under the provisions of F.L. 9-2: Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Act, or
b) any individual who has been convicted of a violent crime or robbery under Northeast law and whose right to apply for a Northeast conceal carry license would not have otherwise been restored under Section 4 of the Northeast Concealed Carry Act of 2005.
4. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly sell firearms to any individual whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been affirmatively suspended by a court of law in affirmative proceeding determining that such individual is mentally insane.  Any individual whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended in such a proceeding shall be entitled to petition a court for restoration that right at any time beginning one year after such suspension.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 19, 2009, 07:43:30 PM
A few points on my proposed amendment:

1) The original bill never stated what level of crime selling guns to felons or those with confirmed mental illness would be.  I've chosen misdemeanor, but we should discuss whether it should be something lower (a violation) or higher (some sort of felony).
2) I added a knowing requirement because, quite frankly, I don't think we or the feds keep a database for sellers to check.  This bill doesn't fund or create any such database.
3) I've tried to draft the amendment to track current current Northeast and federal law so that it passes constitutional muster.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 19, 2009, 07:47:50 PM
Let me try to put language to a proposed amendment:

Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal.
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction.
3. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly selling firearms to convicted felons is illegal:
a) any individual convicted of a felony under federal law while that individual's right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended by a court of law under the provisions of F.L. 9-2: Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Act, or
b) any individual who has been convicted of a violent crime or robbery under Northeast law and whose right to apply for a Northeast conceal carry license would not have otherwise been restored under Section 4 of the Northeast Concealed Carry Act of 2005.
4. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly selling firearms to any individuals with confirmed serious mental ilness is illegal whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been affirmatively suspended by a court of law in affirmative proceeding determining that such individual is mentally insane.  Any individual whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended in such a proceeding shall be entitled to petition a court for restoration that right at any time beginning one year after such suspension.
5. Every school in the Northeast Region is required to provide a compulsory coursed for every student below the age of 15 about dangers of using the firearms, as well as about providing a basic medical help to gunshot victims in every 3 months.

Or, without the strikethroughs:
1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal.
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction.
3. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly sell firearms to:
a) any individual convicted of a felony under federal law while that individual's right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended by a court of law under the provisions of F.L. 9-2: Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Act, or
b) any individual who has been convicted of a violent crime or robbery under Northeast law and whose right to apply for a Northeast conceal carry license would not have otherwise been restored under Section 4 of the Northeast Concealed Carry Act of 2005.
4. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly sell firearms to any individual whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been affirmatively suspended by a court of law in affirmative proceeding determining that such individual is mentally insane.  Any individual whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended in such a proceeding shall be entitled to petition a court for restoration that right at any time beginning one year after such suspension.


Is this friendly, Antonio?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 20, 2009, 11:09:44 AM
Accepted as friendly. ;)
Very good job, BTW.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 20, 2009, 04:26:47 PM
I open up a final vote on the following Bill. Please vote Aye, nay or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Selling firearms to any person below the age of 18 is illegal.
2. Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction.
3. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly sell firearms to:
a) any individual convicted of a felony under federal law while that individual's right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended by a court of law under the provisions of F.L. 9-2: Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Act, or
b) any individual who has been convicted of a violent crime or robbery under Northeast law and whose right to apply for a Northeast conceal carry license would not have otherwise been restored under Section 4 of the Northeast Concealed Carry Act of 2005.
4. It is a misdemeanor to knowingly sell firearms to any individual whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been affirmatively suspended by a court of law in affirmative proceeding determining that such individual is mentally insane.  Any individual whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended in such a proceeding shall be entitled to petition a court for restoration that right at any time beginning one year after such suspension.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 20, 2009, 05:01:55 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 20, 2009, 05:09:34 PM
I'm a man of my word, and I see nothing wrong with this bill, so:

AYE.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 20, 2009, 05:44:09 PM
This is perfectly acceptable.

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on November 20, 2009, 06:10:51 PM
Oh, is that my former project? :)

Btw, isn't Hamilton seat vacant since he left Atlasia?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 20, 2009, 06:11:53 PM
Oh, is that my former project? :)

Btw, isn't Hamilton seat vacant since he left Atlasia?

It's been filled.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on November 20, 2009, 06:43:07 PM

Sorry but as you know I was not really around recently.

Who replaced Rocky and Hamilton?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 20, 2009, 07:11:48 PM
Winston Disraeli replaced Rocky. 

I don't think Hamilton has even been removed from the Assembly yet.  He's made no formal resignation and hasn't been convicted of a crime - or even brought up on any charges, yet.  Governor Andrew CT certainly hasn't named any replacement on his office thread.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 20, 2009, 09:24:48 PM
A very good Bill. Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on November 20, 2009, 10:25:31 PM
Winston Disraeli replaced Rocky. 

I don't think Hamilton has even been removed from the Assembly yet.  He's made no formal resignation and hasn't been convicted of a crime - or even brought up on any charges, yet.  Governor Andrew CT certainly hasn't named any replacement on his office thread.

I havent heard anything yet on his resignation, or anything yet. Has his time run out in this place yet?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 20, 2009, 11:02:38 PM
Winston Disraeli replaced Rocky. 

I don't think Hamilton has even been removed from the Assembly yet.  He's made no formal resignation and hasn't been convicted of a crime - or even brought up on any charges, yet.  Governor Andrew CT certainly hasn't named any replacement on his office thread.

I havent heard anything yet on his resignation, or anything yet. Has his time run out in this place yet?

I haven't see anything, either. But, if he misses this vote and the next one (he's already missed this one), he'll be expelled from the Assembly.
Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 21, 2009, 08:25:49 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 21, 2009, 03:39:38 PM
Notice from the president:

Until the matter of whether or not Hamilton is still a member of Atlasia, all legislation proposed by Rep. Hamilton will not be considered.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 21, 2009, 04:31:25 PM
The Ayes are five, the Nays are zero. The Bill has passed. I present it to the Governor for his signature or veto.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 21, 2009, 05:07:08 PM
Huzzah!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 21, 2009, 08:44:27 PM
Notice from the president:

Until the matter of whether or not Hamilton is still a member of Atlasia, all legislation proposed by Rep. Hamilton will not be considered.

That's fine.  Other members might want to look at the queue to see if they want to sponsor any of Hamilton's bills.

Edited to add: As I see it, Mr. Moderate's Cape Wind bill should be next, followed by Dr. Cynic's Green Jobs initiative.  Everything else is Hamilton's, so there should be time to debate a few other bills before the next election.  I've added a revised Amending Procedure Amendment to the queue tonight - which will basically put proposed amendments to a public vote on the third Friday of the month.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 21, 2009, 10:03:15 PM
Resolution in Support of Cape Wind

Whereas the Northeast Region believes that clean energy provides both environmental and eventual economic benefit that outweighs aesthetic concerns, and,

Whereas the Northeast Region wishes to be a national leader in the move towards clean energy, and,

Whereas the Cape Wind Energy Project, an offshore wind farm off Nantucket Island in Massachusetts, has the support of 84% of Massachusetts adults )according to a 2007 public opinion survey),

Therefore be it resolved that the Northeastern Legislature affirms its support for the Cape Wind Energy Project.

The question is shall be the Bill be considered?

Those in favor, say Aye. Those opposed, No.

The Ayes have.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 21, 2009, 11:01:10 PM
Hamilton is not benned. His name still shows up on the Members List.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 21, 2009, 11:17:02 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 21, 2009, 11:27:56 PM
Hamilton is not benned. His name still shows up on the Members List.

Well, if he doesn't vote on the next bill, he will be at risk of expelled from the legislature.  Do we need to have some sort of proceedings for that?

Rep. Doctor Cynic - I don't think we're voting on Cape Wind yet.  Rep. Mr. Moderate should have the floor to explain his bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 21, 2009, 11:50:29 PM
Hamilton is not benned. His name still shows up on the Members List.

Well, if he doesn't vote on the next bill, he will be at risk of expelled from the legislature.  Do we need to have some sort of proceedings for that?

Rep. Doctor Cynic - I don't think we're voting on Cape Wind yet.  Rep. Mr. Moderate should have the floor to explain his bill.

I don't believe so. But the Constitution  is a bit vague there.

Moderate does have the floor to explain his bill, sorry about forgetting to post that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 22, 2009, 03:00:54 AM
I support this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 22, 2009, 06:45:09 AM
Nay. Wind power is ineffective and not cost-worthy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 22, 2009, 07:07:32 AM
Nay. Wind power is ineffective and not cost-worthy.

Yeah, why speding money to avoid the destruction of the planet we are living in ? Who the hell cares ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 22, 2009, 07:09:18 AM
Nay. Wind power is ineffective and not cost-worthy.

Yeah, why speding money to avoid the destruction of the planet we are living in ? Who the hell cares ?

No, don't put words in my mouth. I support solar, hydro-electric and nuclear power.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 22, 2009, 07:12:58 AM
Nay. Wind power is ineffective and not cost-worthy.

Yeah, why speding money to avoid the destruction of the planet we are living in ? Who the hell cares ?

No, don't put words in my mouth. I support solar, hydro-electric and nuclear power.

It won't be enough. Wind power can have many difficulties, but it's still better than nothing.
Obviously we should do the same for solar and hydro-electric.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 22, 2009, 07:16:53 AM
Nay. Wind power is ineffective and not cost-worthy.

Yeah, why speding money to avoid the destruction of the planet we are living in ? Who the hell cares ?

No, don't put words in my mouth. I support solar, hydro-electric and nuclear power.

It won't be enough. Wind power can have many difficulties, but it's still better than nothing.
Obviously we should do the same for solar and hydro-electric.

They're unsightly and inefficient. You would need a huge number of them just to power a single town, and it doesn't seem worth it, to be frank.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 22, 2009, 07:20:20 AM
Nay. Wind power is ineffective and not cost-worthy.

Yeah, why speding money to avoid the destruction of the planet we are living in ? Who the hell cares ?

No, don't put words in my mouth. I support solar, hydro-electric and nuclear power.

It won't be enough. Wind power can have many difficulties, but it's still better than nothing.
Obviously we should do the same for solar and hydro-electric.

They're unsightly and inefficient. You would need a huge number of them just to power a single town, and it doesn't seem worth it, to be frank.

The same applies to solar power, for the moment. But in some years we'll find ways to make them more efficient.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Hash on November 22, 2009, 09:22:27 AM
Wind power is great. I fully support this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 22, 2009, 03:34:46 PM
Nay. Wind power is ineffective and not cost-worthy.

Yeah, why speding money to avoid the destruction of the planet we are living in ? Who the hell cares ?

No, don't put words in my mouth. I support solar, hydro-electric and nuclear power.

I agree that wind power is not cost effective and only works when the wind blows.  But the Northeast government isn't building Cape Wind - a private company is.  If a private company wants to build a wind farm and thinks they can turn a profit, why shouldn't we support it?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 22, 2009, 03:36:04 PM
Nay. Wind power is ineffective and not cost-worthy.

Yeah, why speding money to avoid the destruction of the planet we are living in ? Who the hell cares ?

No, don't put words in my mouth. I support solar, hydro-electric and nuclear power.

I agree that wind power is not cost effective and only works when the wind blows.  But the Northeast government isn't building Cape Wind - a private company is.  If a private company wants to build a wind farm and thinks they can turn a profit, why shouldn't we support it?

Depends what this motion of support means.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 22, 2009, 04:08:21 PM
Just to remind Representatives, we are only debating the Bill at the moment. We are not taking a vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 22, 2009, 09:22:39 PM
Hamilton is not benned. His name still shows up on the Members List.

Well, if he doesn't vote on the next bill, he will be at risk of expelled from the legislature.  Do we need to have some sort of proceedings for that?

Rep. Doctor Cynic - I don't think we're voting on Cape Wind yet.  Rep. Mr. Moderate should have the floor to explain his bill.

Expressing Support. That's all.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 23, 2009, 09:52:30 AM
Bump.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 23, 2009, 10:21:34 AM
Aww, shucks.  I thought I had posted this last night, but I must have never hit "post."  Anyway, once more:

So, this bill is about the "controversial" Cape Wind project, a wind turbine farm planned for the coast of Cape Cod.  It's a private project that boasts significant public support, but faces well-financed opposition from wealthy Cape Cod landowners who want to protect the view in their bay windows.  We're talking about a really bad case of NIMBY here.

Realistically and scientifically, the cape is about the only place in Massachusetts with the winds needed to sustain a farm of this scope.

Though it may not seem like a resolution like this would do much, but it's a reassurance to the business community that government will not interfere with what, as I said, is considered a controversial project.  And that really does go a long way.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 23, 2009, 10:37:46 PM
I hereby pen up a vote on the following resolution. Vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

Resolution in Support of Cape Wind

Whereas the Northeast Region believes that clean energy provides both environmental and eventual economic benefit that outweighs aesthetic concerns, and,

Whereas the Northeast Region wishes to be a national leader in the move towards clean energy, and,

Whereas the Cape Wind Energy Project, an offshore wind farm off Nantucket Island in Massachusetts, has the support of 84% of Massachusetts adults )according to a 2007 public opinion survey),

Therefore be it resolved that the Northeastern Legislature affirms its support for the Cape Wind Energy Project.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 23, 2009, 10:56:54 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 23, 2009, 11:40:18 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 24, 2009, 01:29:38 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 24, 2009, 07:15:48 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 24, 2009, 09:31:02 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 24, 2009, 07:32:22 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 24, 2009, 11:05:02 PM
The Ayes are Five; the Nays are one. The Resolution has passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 24, 2009, 11:36:07 PM
Northeastern Green Jobs Act

In order to maintain viable enviromental and employment considerations within the Northeast, the following is proposed.

1. Within one year, it is the goal of the Northeast to convert 35% of non-green jobs into green ones.

2. The Northeast shall convert all possible jobs of the government to green operation within two-five years.

3. The Northeast shall create new and green jobs to employ the currently unemployed with the goal of dropping the unemployment rate below 5% within five years.

4. Businesses will be given additional incentives to create, expand, and maintain green jobs.

Sponsor: Rep. Doctor Cynic


The Question is, shall the Bill be considered?

Those in favor, say Aye. Those opposed, no.

The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Representative Doctor Cynic, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 25, 2009, 01:10:48 PM
Fully suport this excellent initiative. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 25, 2009, 02:14:39 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 25, 2009, 02:22:16 PM

We're not yet voting.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 25, 2009, 04:02:09 PM

I was voting for us to consider it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 25, 2009, 05:18:43 PM

We never, ever, ever vote to do that. No bill can fail to be considered.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 25, 2009, 05:25:54 PM
Right now, we are looking at an economy that is slugging along with little creation or concern for our glorious enviroment.

This bill has a two prong design. First, to protect the enviroment by converting and creating green jobs. The second is to expand the economy and shoot the unemployment rate down. Admittedly, the bill is not designed as a final solution, but rather the first step in vital enviromental protection and job creation. I urge my friends in the Assembly to approve this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 25, 2009, 07:27:10 PM
What's a green job?  What's a non-green job?  How does a government create green jobs?  And how much will this cost?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 25, 2009, 07:32:06 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_job

The same way the government creates non-green jobs. Seriously, it is just the creation of new jobs in enviromentally friendly sectors with incentives.

I don't know the cost. Ask someone who took a more advanced math course for that one. Although, it should come from the stimulus budget.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on November 25, 2009, 07:37:01 PM

It's a procedural vote which is carried on voices alone. It's like here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp_kwUt7awo (at the 1:20 mark or thereabouts). No one votes no, so proceding continue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on November 26, 2009, 12:55:25 AM

It's a procedural vote which is carried on voices alone. It's like here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp_kwUt7awo (at the 1:20 mark or thereabouts). No one votes no, so proceding continue.

Except that one jackass.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 26, 2009, 04:15:20 AM
As long as this applies to public sector jobs only, I don't see the problem.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 26, 2009, 11:24:04 PM
As long as this applies to public sector jobs only, I don't see the problem.

The problem is it's not clear exactly what jobs the law applies to - and our financial commitment is fairly open-ended.  I can't support this in its current form - and wouldn't know where to start to markup any amendments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 27, 2009, 04:54:45 PM
Seeing as no Amendments have been offered, I open up a final vote on the Bill. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

Northeastern Green Jobs Act

In order to maintain viable enviromental and employment considerations within the Northeast, the following is proposed.

1. Within one year, it is the goal of the Northeast to convert 35% of non-green jobs into green ones.

2. The Northeast shall convert all possible jobs of the government to green operation within two-five years.

3. The Northeast shall create new and green jobs to employ the currently unemployed with the goal of dropping the unemployment rate below 5% within five years.

4. Businesses will be given additional incentives to create, expand, and maintain green jobs.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 27, 2009, 04:56:41 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 27, 2009, 05:25:16 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 27, 2009, 05:38:33 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 27, 2009, 05:49:49 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 28, 2009, 04:59:52 PM
The Ayes are Three; the Nays are One. The Bill has passed. I present it to the Governor for his signature or veto.


Amending Procedure Amendment

1. Article VII of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following:
2. i) Amendments to this constitution shall be proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.  A proposed Amendment shall be forwarded to be voted upon by the citizens of the Northeast upon:

a) A successful vote of two-thirds of voting members Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region;

b) A successful vote of majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly; and

c) Approval of the Governor in the form of his consent.

ii) The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor before 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the same month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor after 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the following month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall close the polling booth at 11:59:59pm EST on the following Sunday.  If the date for opening the polling booth coincides with another Northeast election, the Chief Judicial Officer shall include the vote on any proposed Amendments in the polling booth for that election.

iii) Any Amendment proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall only become effective upon:

a) A successful vote of two-thirds of those citizens of the Northeast Region who vote for or against the proposed Amendment; and

b) A successful vote of majority of all citizens of the Northeast Region who are eligible to vote in such election.

The questions is shall the Bill be Considered?

Those in favor, say "Aye", those opposed, "Nay".

The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Representative cinyc, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 28, 2009, 05:24:27 PM
This Amendment had to be reintroduced, and I thank cynic to having done so. However, this bill solves only one of the two essential problems in the current system. Accelerating the Amendment vote is certainly important, but my biggest concern was to remove the participation clause, which is undemocratic and excessively favors the status quo.
That's why I'd like to propose a friendly Amendment :


Amending Procedure Amendment

1. Article VII of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following:
2. i) Amendments to this constitution shall be proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.  A proposed Amendment shall be forwarded to be voted upon by the citizens of the Northeast upon:

a) A successful vote of two-thirds of voting members Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region;

b) A successful vote of majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly; and

c) Approval of the Governor in the form of his consent.

ii) The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor before 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the same month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor after 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the following month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall close the polling booth at 11:59:59pm EST on the following Sunday.  If the date for opening the polling booth coincides with another Northeast election, the Chief Judicial Officer shall include the vote on any proposed Amendments in the polling booth for that election.

iii) Any Amendment proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall only become effective upon:a) a successful vote of two-thirds of those citizens of the Northeast Region who vote for or against the proposed Amendment; and

b) A successful vote of majority of all citizens of the Northeast Region who are eligible to vote in such election.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 28, 2009, 08:45:31 PM
Rep Antonio V -  This was a first cut that only included changes on which we were likely to agree.  I was actually going to throw open the percent of the public vote required for ratification issue (and the question of how often we should be putting amendment votes to the public) for discussion.

Do we really want to totally scrap the minimum public participation requirement?  I agree that a successful vote of a majority may be difficult to reach in many cases - especially if, as in recent federal amendments, amendment proponents don't actively campaign for a change.  But should we allow a plurality of voters to change the Constitution - just because citizens weren't around one weekend and didn't vote?  Perhaps we should require a quorum of a majority of voters to vote on a proposed amendment - and 2/3rds of them to pass it.  Or we should extend the voting period to a week to allow more people to get to the polls.

I'm not taking your amendment as friendly - yet.  I'd like to hear other representatives' views on this issue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 29, 2009, 04:49:12 PM
I persist to consider this system as undemocratic, since the partisans of status quo are helpe by people who don't care. The opinion of people who don't care shouldn't be considered.
Anyways, I accept to propose this one as a compromise, making the treshold more realizable. I'd like you to accept this as friendly. ;)


Amending Procedure Amendment

1. Article VII of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following:
2. i) Amendments to this constitution shall be proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.  A proposed Amendment shall be forwarded to be voted upon by the citizens of the Northeast upon:

a) An affirmative vote of two-thirds of voting members Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region;

b) An affirmative vote of majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly; and

c) Approval of the Governor in the form of his consent.

ii) The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor before 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the same month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor after 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the following month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall close the polling booth at 11:59:59pm EST on the following Sunday.  If the date for opening the polling booth coincides with another Northeast election, the Chief Judicial Officer shall include the vote on any proposed Amendments in the polling booth for that election.

iii) Any Amendment proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall only become effective upon:

a) An affirmative vote of two-thirds of those citizens of the Northeast Region who vote for or against the proposed Amendment; and

b) An affirmative vote of one third of all citizens of the Northeast Region who are eligible to vote in such election.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 29, 2009, 07:44:00 PM
This is not the time for this bill. You skipped my bills.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 30, 2009, 12:11:39 AM
I persist to consider this system as undemocratic, since the partisans of status quo are helpe by people who don't care. The opinion of people who don't care shouldn't be considered.
Anyways, I accept to propose this one as a compromise, making the treshold more realizable. I'd like you to accept this as friendly. ;)


Amending Procedure Amendment

1. Article VII of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following:
2. i) Amendments to this constitution shall be proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.  A proposed Amendment shall be forwarded to be voted upon by the citizens of the Northeast upon:

a) An affirmative vote of two-thirds of voting members Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region;

b) An affirmative vote of majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly; and

c) Approval of the Governor in the form of his consent.

ii) The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor before 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the same month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor after 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the following month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall close the polling booth at 11:59:59pm EST on the following Sunday.  If the date for opening the polling booth coincides with another Northeast election, the Chief Judicial Officer shall include the vote on any proposed Amendments in the polling booth for that election.

iii) Any Amendment proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall only become effective upon:

a) An affirmative vote of two-thirds of those citizens of the Northeast Region who vote for or against the proposed Amendment; and

b) An affirmative vote of one third of all citizens of the Northeast Region who are eligible to vote in such election.


I'm willing to accept this as friendly - but would like to hear the opinion of other Reps before proceeding.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 30, 2009, 02:23:41 AM
I will support this bill with the friendly amendments. Without them, I cannot support it. I don't believe in voting requirements, but am willing to compromise.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 30, 2009, 02:27:09 AM
Do you mind if I amend 2c) to say "Approval of the Governor in the form of his signature" - to make it clear that he must affirmatively sign any proposed amendment?  There appears to be some sort of issue about that on the Governor's office thread.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on November 30, 2009, 03:10:16 AM
Do you mind if I amend 2c) to say "Approval of the Governor in the form of his signature" - to make it clear that he must affirmatively sign any proposed amendment?  There appears to be some sort of issue about that on the Governor's office thread.

Personally, I think that's a good idea.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 30, 2009, 06:36:17 AM
Do you mind if I amend 2c) to say "Approval of the Governor in the form of his signature" - to make it clear that he must affirmatively sign any proposed amendment?  There appears to be some sort of issue about that on the Governor's office thread.

Personally, I think that's a good idea.

Seconded.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on November 30, 2009, 06:40:18 AM
Do you mind if I amend 2c) to say "Approval of the Governor in the form of his signature" - to make it clear that he must affirmatively sign any proposed amendment?  There appears to be some sort of issue about that on the Governor's office thread.

Personally, I think that's a good idea.

Seconded.

Thirded.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 30, 2009, 09:22:38 AM
Constitutional amendments should be voted on by the full citizenry of the Northeast before they go into effect.  I'm fine with removing the requirement that says that x% of all registered citizens must vote on an amendment before it can be passed (if that is, in fact, still a requirement), but I do want to see the public involved in this procedure.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 30, 2009, 09:41:07 AM
Constitutional amendments should be voted on by the full citizenry of the Northeast before they go into effect.  I'm fine with removing the requirement that says that x% of all registered citizens must vote on an amendment before it can be passed (if that is, in fact, still a requirement), but I do want to see the public involved in this procedure.

So the current draft should perfectly suit you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 30, 2009, 10:12:25 AM
Constitutional amendments should be voted on by the full citizenry of the Northeast before they go into effect.  I'm fine with removing the requirement that says that x% of all registered citizens must vote on an amendment before it can be passed (if that is, in fact, still a requirement), but I do want to see the public involved in this procedure.

So the current draft should perfectly suit you.

That's weird, did the bill change again?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 30, 2009, 10:28:17 AM
Constitutional amendments should be voted on by the full citizenry of the Northeast before they go into effect.  I'm fine with removing the requirement that says that x% of all registered citizens must vote on an amendment before it can be passed (if that is, in fact, still a requirement), but I do want to see the public involved in this procedure.

So the current draft should perfectly suit you.

That's weird, did the bill change again?

Just read the latest post in which you see a bill, and some red characters.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 30, 2009, 01:43:07 PM
Constitutional amendments should be voted on by the full citizenry of the Northeast before they go into effect.  I'm fine with removing the requirement that says that x% of all registered citizens must vote on an amendment before it can be passed (if that is, in fact, still a requirement), but I do want to see the public involved in this procedure.

So the current draft should perfectly suit you.

That's weird, did the bill change again?

Just read the latest post in which you see a bill, and some red characters.

Maybe I just didn't read the bill right the first time.  It initially made it seem like citizens were only involved in a Maine-like people's veto of an amendment once it had already been pushed into law.

Anyway.  I'm okay with this amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 30, 2009, 02:09:23 PM
It initially made it seem like citizens were only involved in a Maine-like people's veto of an amendment once it had already been pushed into law.

This was an anterior Amendment which has already been put on vote and failed. The new one has been written by cynic and originally didn't changed the "turnout requirement". The new one sets it as 33% instead of 50% of reg. voters.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 30, 2009, 03:40:29 PM
This is the bill on the floor, with all friendly amendments (those in red being the most recent amendments to the proposed amendment):

Amending Procedure Amendment

1. Article VII of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following:
2. i) Amendments to this constitution shall be proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.  A proposed Amendment shall be forwarded to be voted upon by the citizens of the Northeast upon:

a) An affirmative vote of two-thirds of voting members Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region;

b) An affirmative vote of majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly; and

c) Approval of the Governor in the form of his signature.

ii) The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor before 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the same month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor after 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the following month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall close the polling booth at 11:59:59pm EST on the following Sunday.  If the date for opening the polling booth coincides with another Northeast election, the Chief Judicial Officer shall include the vote on any proposed Amendments in the polling booth for that election.

iii) Any Amendment proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall only become effective upon:

a) An affirmative vote of two-thirds of those citizens of the Northeast Region who vote for or against the proposed Amendment; and

b) An affirmative vote of one third of all citizens of the Northeast Region who are eligible to vote in such election.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 30, 2009, 03:48:39 PM
Maybe I just didn't read the bill right the first time.  It initially made it seem like citizens were only involved in a Maine-like people's veto of an amendment once it had already been pushed into law.

Anyway.  I'm okay with this amendment.

The main thing my proposal does is put constitutional amendment votes to the public monthly instead of quarterly, only during gubernatorial election months.  Upon taking into account friendly advice, it also lowers the absolute percentage of Northeast citizens who most vote for an amendment from a majority to 1/3rd and cleans up the language in a few places.

That's it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 01, 2009, 07:09:08 AM
Bump, I guess everyone agrees now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 01, 2009, 08:20:00 PM
I open up a final vote on this bill. Vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

Amending Procedure Amendment

1. Article VII of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following:
2. i) Amendments to this constitution shall be proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.  A proposed Amendment shall be forwarded to be voted upon by the citizens of the Northeast upon:

a) An affirmative vote of two-thirds of voting members Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region;

b) An affirmative vote of majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly; and

c) Approval of the Governor in the form of his signature.

ii) The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor before 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the same month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Governor after 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the following month.  The Chief Judicial Officer shall close the polling booth at 11:59:59pm EST on the following Sunday.  If the date for opening the polling booth coincides with another Northeast election, the Chief Judicial Officer shall include the vote on any proposed Amendments in the polling booth for that election.

iii) Any Amendment proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall only become effective upon:

a) An affirmative vote of two-thirds of those citizens of the Northeast Region who vote for or against the proposed Amendment; and

b) An affirmative vote of one third of all citizens of the Northeast Region who are eligible to vote in such election.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 01, 2009, 08:20:27 PM
Nay.

Next time open debate on the bills in the proper order and I might consider them.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 01, 2009, 08:37:07 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 01, 2009, 10:05:38 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 01, 2009, 10:13:36 PM
Nay.

Next time open debate on the bills in the proper order and I might consider them.

Next time don't go running away from the Assembly, making us all think you've been permanently banned when you haven't been.  Then, things will get taken up in the proper order.  When you were supposedly banned, the Lt. Governor made the correct decision to skip over your bills.  Had you posted the truth at that time or PMed the Lt. Governor about your status, they would never had been.  You never responded or posted a notice of absence.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 01, 2009, 10:14:53 PM
Nay.

Next time open debate on the bills in the proper order and I might consider them.

Next time don't go running away from the Assembly, making us all think you've been permanently banned when you haven't been.  Then, things will get taken up in the proper order.  When you were supposedly banned, the Lt. Governor made the correct decision to skip over your bills.  Had you posted the truth at that time or PMed the Lt. Governor about your status, they would never had been.  You never responded or posted a notice of absence.

I did make it very clear that I wouldn't be able to post much while I was at home. My mom had emergency surgery and I had to help take care of her, plus there was some "drama" that I don't need to get in to.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on December 01, 2009, 11:21:11 PM
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 01, 2009, 11:28:11 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 01, 2009, 11:28:44 PM
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?

We do have the power of impeachment. Also, a member is automatically expelled if they miss three votes on Legislation in a row and/or they don't give substantive debate in the Assembly for one month.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 02, 2009, 01:01:57 AM
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?

We do have the power of impeachment. Also, a member is automatically expelled if they miss three votes on Legislation in a row and/or they don't give substantive debate in the Assembly for one month.

Speaking of this, it would seem that Hamilton has missed the last three final votes on Legislation - the Northeastern Green Jobs Act, the Northeast Gun Safety Act and the Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment. Of course, he did vote on the final vote of the Resolution in Support of Cape Wind, however generally speaking, Resolutions do not constitute legislation, as I mentioned in the Governor's thread.

If the House moved for his expulsion under section xiii of Article V of the Constitution, he would no doubt appeal this ruling, which would leave the Court to determine the definition of "Legislation."

Section xiii of Article V reads:

Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 02, 2009, 01:10:17 AM
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?

We do have the power of impeachment. Also, a member is automatically expelled if they miss three votes on Legislation in a row and/or they don't give substantive debate in the Assembly for one month.

Speaking of this, it would seem that Hamilton has missed the last three final votes on Legislation - the Northeastern Green Jobs Act, the Northeast Gun Safety Act and the Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment. Of course, he did vote on the final vote of the Resolution in Support of Cape Wind, however generally speaking, Resolutions do not constitute legislation, as I mentioned in the Governor's thread.

If the House moved for his expulsion under section xiii of Article V of the Constitution, he would no doubt appeal this ruling, which would leave the Court to determine the definition of "Legislation."

Section xiii of Article V reads:

Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.

A provision which is largely unenforced.

Besides, how can I appeal? We don't have an active CJO? How can I appeal an expulsion for inactivity to an inactive CJO that no one seemed to want to do anything about even though I suggested a while back that Verily be replaced?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 02, 2009, 01:29:24 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on December 02, 2009, 01:47:49 AM
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?

We do have the power of impeachment. Also, a member is automatically expelled if they miss three votes on Legislation in a row and/or they don't give substantive debate in the Assembly for one month.

Speaking of this, it would seem that Hamilton has missed the last three final votes on Legislation - the Northeastern Green Jobs Act, the Northeast Gun Safety Act and the Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment. Of course, he did vote on the final vote of the Resolution in Support of Cape Wind, however generally speaking, Resolutions do not constitute legislation, as I mentioned in the Governor's thread.

If the House moved for his expulsion under section xiii of Article V of the Constitution, he would no doubt appeal this ruling, which would leave the Court to determine the definition of "Legislation."

Section xiii of Article V reads:

Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.

I would argue that breaking the ToS of the forum, as well as other clear indications of inappropriate actions would warrant impeachment easily enough.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 02, 2009, 01:49:32 AM
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?

We do have the power of impeachment. Also, a member is automatically expelled if they miss three votes on Legislation in a row and/or they don't give substantive debate in the Assembly for one month.

Speaking of this, it would seem that Hamilton has missed the last three final votes on Legislation - the Northeastern Green Jobs Act, the Northeast Gun Safety Act and the Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment. Of course, he did vote on the final vote of the Resolution in Support of Cape Wind, however generally speaking, Resolutions do not constitute legislation, as I mentioned in the Governor's thread.

If the House moved for his expulsion under section xiii of Article V of the Constitution, he would no doubt appeal this ruling, which would leave the Court to determine the definition of "Legislation."

Section xiii of Article V reads:

Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.

I would argue that breaking the ToS of the forum, as well as other clear indications of inappropriate actions would warrant impeachment easily enough.

Yet you voted for benconstine... He not only broke the ToS, but tried to cheat the game.

Get out of here you hypocrite (and terrible GM).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on December 02, 2009, 01:55:53 AM
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?

We do have the power of impeachment. Also, a member is automatically expelled if they miss three votes on Legislation in a row and/or they don't give substantive debate in the Assembly for one month.

Speaking of this, it would seem that Hamilton has missed the last three final votes on Legislation - the Northeastern Green Jobs Act, the Northeast Gun Safety Act and the Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment. Of course, he did vote on the final vote of the Resolution in Support of Cape Wind, however generally speaking, Resolutions do not constitute legislation, as I mentioned in the Governor's thread.

If the House moved for his expulsion under section xiii of Article V of the Constitution, he would no doubt appeal this ruling, which would leave the Court to determine the definition of "Legislation."

Section xiii of Article V reads:

Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.

I would argue that breaking the ToS of the forum, as well as other clear indications of inappropriate actions would warrant impeachment easily enough.

Yet you voted for benconstine... He not only broke the ToS, but tried to cheat the game.

Get out of here you hypocrite (and terrible GM).

And benconstine was repentant, convicted and served his time. You seem thoroughly convinced that you did nothing wrong...

If you could clear something up for me Hammy, have you had a nervous breakdown from a game or do you simply get a kick out of creating alternative personalities? I was amused at first, but now I am pretty bored with the display. There is only so long that I can enjoy watching a person crumble in a blaze of loathing and stupidity.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 02, 2009, 01:57:08 AM
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?

We do have the power of impeachment. Also, a member is automatically expelled if they miss three votes on Legislation in a row and/or they don't give substantive debate in the Assembly for one month.

Speaking of this, it would seem that Hamilton has missed the last three final votes on Legislation - the Northeastern Green Jobs Act, the Northeast Gun Safety Act and the Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment. Of course, he did vote on the final vote of the Resolution in Support of Cape Wind, however generally speaking, Resolutions do not constitute legislation, as I mentioned in the Governor's thread.

If the House moved for his expulsion under section xiii of Article V of the Constitution, he would no doubt appeal this ruling, which would leave the Court to determine the definition of "Legislation."

Section xiii of Article V reads:

Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.

I would argue that breaking the ToS of the forum, as well as other clear indications of inappropriate actions would warrant impeachment easily enough.

Yet you voted for benconstine... He not only broke the ToS, but tried to cheat the game.

Get out of here you hypocrite (and terrible GM).

And benconstine was repentant, convicted and served his time. You seem thoroughly convinced that you did nothing wrong...

If you could clear something up for me Hammy, have you had a nervous breakdown from a game or do you simply get a kick out of creating alternative personalities? I was amused at first, but now I am pretty bored with the display. There is only so long that I can enjoy watching a person crumble in a blaze of loathing and stupidity.

benconstine committed a crime. I have not broken any laws. You are just mad because I used swingvoter to make fun of you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on December 02, 2009, 02:01:38 AM
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?

We do have the power of impeachment. Also, a member is automatically expelled if they miss three votes on Legislation in a row and/or they don't give substantive debate in the Assembly for one month.

Speaking of this, it would seem that Hamilton has missed the last three final votes on Legislation - the Northeastern Green Jobs Act, the Northeast Gun Safety Act and the Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment. Of course, he did vote on the final vote of the Resolution in Support of Cape Wind, however generally speaking, Resolutions do not constitute legislation, as I mentioned in the Governor's thread.

If the House moved for his expulsion under section xiii of Article V of the Constitution, he would no doubt appeal this ruling, which would leave the Court to determine the definition of "Legislation."

Section xiii of Article V reads:

Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.

I would argue that breaking the ToS of the forum, as well as other clear indications of inappropriate actions would warrant impeachment easily enough.

Yet you voted for benconstine... He not only broke the ToS, but tried to cheat the game.

Get out of here you hypocrite (and terrible GM).

And benconstine was repentant, convicted and served his time. You seem thoroughly convinced that you did nothing wrong...

If you could clear something up for me Hammy, have you had a nervous breakdown from a game or do you simply get a kick out of creating alternative personalities? I was amused at first, but now I am pretty bored with the display. There is only so long that I can enjoy watching a person crumble in a blaze of loathing and stupidity.

benconstine committed a crime. I have not broken any laws. You are just mad because I used swingvoter to make fun of you.

Swing Voter made fun of me? I don't know if I'm just blanking or didn't see them, but now I'm curious. Please link me to the threads in question so I can enjoy the mockery.

Honestly, I hope you don't really think I get upset when a member of this forum makes fun of me. I don't mind the occasional praise, but really, it's an internet game. I'm much too invested in real life to care whether someone pokes fun at me over these info-tubes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 02, 2009, 02:04:09 AM
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?

We do have the power of impeachment. Also, a member is automatically expelled if they miss three votes on Legislation in a row and/or they don't give substantive debate in the Assembly for one month.

Speaking of this, it would seem that Hamilton has missed the last three final votes on Legislation - the Northeastern Green Jobs Act, the Northeast Gun Safety Act and the Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment. Of course, he did vote on the final vote of the Resolution in Support of Cape Wind, however generally speaking, Resolutions do not constitute legislation, as I mentioned in the Governor's thread.

If the House moved for his expulsion under section xiii of Article V of the Constitution, he would no doubt appeal this ruling, which would leave the Court to determine the definition of "Legislation."

Section xiii of Article V reads:

Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.

I would argue that breaking the ToS of the forum, as well as other clear indications of inappropriate actions would warrant impeachment easily enough.

Yet you voted for benconstine... He not only broke the ToS, but tried to cheat the game.

Get out of here you hypocrite (and terrible GM).

And benconstine was repentant, convicted and served his time. You seem thoroughly convinced that you did nothing wrong...

If you could clear something up for me Hammy, have you had a nervous breakdown from a game or do you simply get a kick out of creating alternative personalities? I was amused at first, but now I am pretty bored with the display. There is only so long that I can enjoy watching a person crumble in a blaze of loathing and stupidity.

benconstine committed a crime. I have not broken any laws. You are just mad because I used swingvoter to make fun of you.

Swing Voter made fun of me? I don't know if I'm just blanking or didn't see them, but now I'm curious. Please link me to the threads in question so I can enjoy the mockery.


The entire persona was making fun of you. The RPP caught on (private forum discussions show that they thought he was YOUR sock lol).

Similar name, New York, fake "centrist" Moderate Hero type that was obviously a far-leftist, hyper-partisan, always acts like he's right. It was pretty clearly intended to mock you.

That being said, the PMs posted show that I had no intention of registering the account and with that, I have done nothing wrong related to this game.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on December 02, 2009, 02:09:35 AM
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?

We do have the power of impeachment. Also, a member is automatically expelled if they miss three votes on Legislation in a row and/or they don't give substantive debate in the Assembly for one month.

Speaking of this, it would seem that Hamilton has missed the last three final votes on Legislation - the Northeastern Green Jobs Act, the Northeast Gun Safety Act and the Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment. Of course, he did vote on the final vote of the Resolution in Support of Cape Wind, however generally speaking, Resolutions do not constitute legislation, as I mentioned in the Governor's thread.

If the House moved for his expulsion under section xiii of Article V of the Constitution, he would no doubt appeal this ruling, which would leave the Court to determine the definition of "Legislation."

Section xiii of Article V reads:

Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.

I would argue that breaking the ToS of the forum, as well as other clear indications of inappropriate actions would warrant impeachment easily enough.

Yet you voted for benconstine... He not only broke the ToS, but tried to cheat the game.

Get out of here you hypocrite (and terrible GM).

And benconstine was repentant, convicted and served his time. You seem thoroughly convinced that you did nothing wrong...

If you could clear something up for me Hammy, have you had a nervous breakdown from a game or do you simply get a kick out of creating alternative personalities? I was amused at first, but now I am pretty bored with the display. There is only so long that I can enjoy watching a person crumble in a blaze of loathing and stupidity.

benconstine committed a crime. I have not broken any laws. You are just mad because I used swingvoter to make fun of you.

Swing Voter made fun of me? I don't know if I'm just blanking or didn't see them, but now I'm curious. Please link me to the threads in question so I can enjoy the mockery.


The entire persona was making fun of you. The RPP caught on (private forum discussions show that they thought he was YOUR sock lol).

Similar name, New York, fake "centrist" Moderate Hero type that was obviously a far-leftist, hyper-partisan, always acts like he's right. It was pretty clearly intended to mock you.

That being said, the PMs posted show that I had no intention of registering the account and with that, I have done nothing wrong related to this game.

*shrug*
Over my head. I don't follow forum affairs closely enough to catch on to these sorts of things. Life and all that stuff, ya know.

I know you had no intention of registering in Atlasia. That was never my point. You broke the ToS, are a detriment to this game and an embarrassment to this body and so it is fitting that this body impeach you. End of story as far as I am concerned.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 02, 2009, 02:12:27 AM
Does this Assembly have a way of expelling members?

We do have the power of impeachment. Also, a member is automatically expelled if they miss three votes on Legislation in a row and/or they don't give substantive debate in the Assembly for one month.

Speaking of this, it would seem that Hamilton has missed the last three final votes on Legislation - the Northeastern Green Jobs Act, the Northeast Gun Safety Act and the Reasonable Amending Procedure Amendment. Of course, he did vote on the final vote of the Resolution in Support of Cape Wind, however generally speaking, Resolutions do not constitute legislation, as I mentioned in the Governor's thread.

If the House moved for his expulsion under section xiii of Article V of the Constitution, he would no doubt appeal this ruling, which would leave the Court to determine the definition of "Legislation."

Section xiii of Article V reads:

Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.

I would argue that breaking the ToS of the forum, as well as other clear indications of inappropriate actions would warrant impeachment easily enough.

Yet you voted for benconstine... He not only broke the ToS, but tried to cheat the game.

Get out of here you hypocrite (and terrible GM).

And benconstine was repentant, convicted and served his time. You seem thoroughly convinced that you did nothing wrong...

If you could clear something up for me Hammy, have you had a nervous breakdown from a game or do you simply get a kick out of creating alternative personalities? I was amused at first, but now I am pretty bored with the display. There is only so long that I can enjoy watching a person crumble in a blaze of loathing and stupidity.

benconstine committed a crime. I have not broken any laws. You are just mad because I used swingvoter to make fun of you.

Swing Voter made fun of me? I don't know if I'm just blanking or didn't see them, but now I'm curious. Please link me to the threads in question so I can enjoy the mockery.


The entire persona was making fun of you. The RPP caught on (private forum discussions show that they thought he was YOUR sock lol).

Similar name, New York, fake "centrist" Moderate Hero type that was obviously a far-leftist, hyper-partisan, always acts like he's right. It was pretty clearly intended to mock you.

That being said, the PMs posted show that I had no intention of registering the account and with that, I have done nothing wrong related to this game.

*shrug*
Over my head. I don't follow forum affairs closely enough to catch on to these sorts of things. Life and all that stuff, ya know.

I know you had no intention of registering in Atlasia. That was never my point. You broke the ToS, are a detriment to this game and an embarrassment to this body and so it is fitting that this body impeach you. End of story as far as I am concerned.

Yet you embrace those who cheat the game, break the ToS, advocate burning entire cities, and embarrassed the Mideast region more than any other individual in Atlasian history (even MasterJedi!). End of story as far as I am concerned.

You have no case here. You like to cause problems, so you barge into the business of other regions. For your information, I have produced more legislation than any other Representative and even if impeached, will easily be re-elected. So I suggest this entire "issue" be dropped.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 02, 2009, 02:29:43 AM
We have no grounds to remove Rep Hamilton.  He has violated no Northeast law that I know of, and the AG thus far has not prosecuted him for violating any federal law.  He's voted on 1 of the last 3 pieces of legislation, loosely defined.

It's ultimately up to the Northeast voters to decide whether to retain Rep. Hamilton this month.  As it should be.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 02, 2009, 06:58:36 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on December 02, 2009, 01:18:03 PM
Aye.

PS: Hamilton and Purple State: take it elsewhere.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 02, 2009, 08:49:11 PM
The Ayes are Six; the Nays are one. The Ayes Have it, the Bill has passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 02, 2009, 10:43:40 PM
Next bill?  I assume it's one of Rep. Hamilton's now that he's back?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 03, 2009, 05:56:12 AM
Another bill on Governor's desk... :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on December 03, 2009, 10:51:47 AM
Wait.. what did we just vote on? Sorry been busy getting some campaigns off the ground here, and found our next CJO.. so can you catch me up on what has to be signed. I'm really sorry, I promise things will go back to normal by Monday.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 03, 2009, 02:39:38 PM
Next bill to consider :

The New Northeast Minimum Wage Act

1. The Northeast Minimum Wage Act is hereby repealed.
2. The Northeast minimum wage shall be equivalent to the current Federal minimum wage.
3. The Northeast minimum wage shall increase and decrease concurrent to the Federal minimum wage.

Initially introduced by Rep. Hamilton and reintroduced by me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 03, 2009, 02:53:38 PM
I would back this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 03, 2009, 03:07:05 PM

Quite surprising, even if apreciated. Could I ask you why ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 03, 2009, 03:12:06 PM
I want assurances in this bill that employees will be protected, in case the federal wage lowers...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 03, 2009, 03:13:18 PM

I see no need for the minimum wage in the Northeast to be different from the federal one. While I would like to see progress towards the abolition of the minimum wage (which puts an artificial price on labour and causes unemployment, especially among youths), this is a step in the right direction, I feel.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 03, 2009, 03:17:28 PM

I see no need for the minimum wage in the Northeast to be different from the federal one. While I would like to see progress towards the abolition of the minimum wage (which puts an artificial price on labour and causes unemployment, especially among youths), this is a step in the right direction, I feel.

But there has to be a way to keep these people making a viable income. I've known too many people who weren't young folks making minimum wage. Living where I live and you see it. There has to be some kind of happy medium where people can make enough to support themselves and their family. Big corporations such as McDonald's and Wal-Mart do not only employ young people and there's no way either of them are going out of business any time soon, even if the minimum wage were say 13 dollars an hour. These corporations are so massive, that there's no way they go under. Smaller businesses, I could see it having an effect, which is why we offer incentives and certain breaks to protect them.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 03, 2009, 03:19:30 PM

I see no need for the minimum wage in the Northeast to be different from the federal one. While I would like to see progress towards the abolition of the minimum wage (which puts an artificial price on labour and causes unemployment, especially among youths), this is a step in the right direction, I feel.

But there has to be a way to keep these people making a viable income. I've known too many people who weren't young folks making minimum wage. Living where I live and you see it. There has to be some kind of happy medium where people can make enough to support themselves and their family. Big corporations such as McDonald's and Wal-Mart do not only employ young people and there's no way either of them are going out of business any time soon, even if the minimum wage were say 13 dollars an hour. These corporations are so massive, that there's no way they go under. Smaller businesses, I could see it having an effect, which is why we offer incentives and certain breaks to protect them.

It's a shame that the market is swallowed up by such huge conglomerates, but if we lowered corporation tax as well, I'm sure we could encourage competition and thus put an upward pressure on wages.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 03, 2009, 03:27:56 PM

I see no need for the minimum wage in the Northeast to be different from the federal one. While I would like to see progress towards the abolition of the minimum wage (which puts an artificial price on labour and causes unemployment, especially among youths), this is a step in the right direction, I feel.

But there has to be a way to keep these people making a viable income. I've known too many people who weren't young folks making minimum wage. Living where I live and you see it. There has to be some kind of happy medium where people can make enough to support themselves and their family. Big corporations such as McDonald's and Wal-Mart do not only employ young people and there's no way either of them are going out of business any time soon, even if the minimum wage were say 13 dollars an hour. These corporations are so massive, that there's no way they go under. Smaller businesses, I could see it having an effect, which is why we offer incentives and certain breaks to protect them.

It's a shame that the market is swallowed up by such huge conglomerates, but if we lowered corporation tax as well, I'm sure we could encourage competition and thus put an upward pressure on wages.

Or it could blow up in our faces and just tighten the hold of these monopolies... As I said, I'm not opposed to helping smaller businesses, but these corporations are just so massive, I don't see that they need any help. Our help should be focused on those that make these places profitable through hard work. I've reformed and moderated my views on businesses. They're not all "bad guys", but I'm still going to side with smaller businesses and the working man over any corporation. I'm asking for the protection of thousands of workers who aren't just young people. You might say these are folks who've had some bad luck, well, maybe, but for the work they do, and for the money they pump into the economy, they deserve some protection.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 03, 2009, 03:37:40 PM

I see no need for the minimum wage in the Northeast to be different from the federal one. While I would like to see progress towards the abolition of the minimum wage (which puts an artificial price on labour and causes unemployment, especially among youths), this is a step in the right direction, I feel.

But there has to be a way to keep these people making a viable income. I've known too many people who weren't young folks making minimum wage. Living where I live and you see it. There has to be some kind of happy medium where people can make enough to support themselves and their family. Big corporations such as McDonald's and Wal-Mart do not only employ young people and there's no way either of them are going out of business any time soon, even if the minimum wage were say 13 dollars an hour. These corporations are so massive, that there's no way they go under. Smaller businesses, I could see it having an effect, which is why we offer incentives and certain breaks to protect them.

It's a shame that the market is swallowed up by such huge conglomerates, but if we lowered corporation tax as well, I'm sure we could encourage competition and thus put an upward pressure on wages.

Or it could blow up in our faces and just tighten the hold of these monopolies... As I said, I'm not opposed to helping smaller businesses, but these corporations are just so massive, I don't see that they need any help. Our help should be focused on those that make these places profitable through hard work. I've reformed and moderated my views on businesses. They're not all "bad guys", but I'm still going to side with smaller businesses and the working man over any corporation. I'm asking for the protection of thousands of workers who aren't just young people. You might say these are folks who've had some bad luck, well, maybe, but for the work they do, and for the money they pump into the economy, they deserve some protection.

The problem is, if you keep a high minimum wage, you are helping these oligopolies. Small business suffers because it isn't able to pay the wages and they go into a downward spiral until they go bust in many cases. If you want to help small business, a great aid to it would be to abolish or at least lower the minimum wage.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 03, 2009, 03:41:15 PM
This bill simply brings our region's minimum wage laws up to date with the federal law and makes certain we won't ever fall behind again. As a region of progress, we cannot allow our labor standards to appear less than the nation as a whole.

Antonio, you did not have permission to tamper with my legislation and I believe that a different bill is first in the queue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 03, 2009, 03:44:30 PM
The actual next bill is this:


Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009

Co-sponsored by Reps. Hamilton and Mr. Moderate (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=103122.msg2197077#msg2197077)

Section A: Purpose
1. The Northeast Region believes that the current economic downturn is due, in part, to instability in the housing market. As such, the government of the Northeast believes it to be in the regions best interest to provide short-term stabilization to the market where possible. The Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009, hereinafter "the Act," is tasked with providing property tax relief to homeowners on the verge of losing their homes due to the economic downturn. This relief will be provided in the form of one-time property tax credits for at-risk Northeasterners to lower monthly mortgage payments.

Section B: Qualification
1. To qualify for funds provided by the Act, homeowners must meet the following criteria:
    a. The property in question must be the homeowner's primary residence (i.e., summer homes and rental properties do not qualify).
    b. The homeowner must have maintained steady residence at the property for no less than 12 months.
    c. Applicants for funds provided in the Act must demonstrate need due to short-term circumstances arising from the economic downturn, such as (1) unemployment or underemployment, defined as an expected 2009 or 2010 yearly income of 85% or less of the applicant's 2008 or 2009 yearly income, respectively or (2) an increase in monthly mortgage payments of greater than 20% as compared to a year prior.
    d. Said homeowner must meet one of the following requirements:
       i. currently be in or applying for a qualified forebearance with their mortgage lender, or,
       ii. currently be in or applying for a modification plan with their mortgage lender.
    e. To qualify for funds under the Act, a mortgage lender must certify that there is a "reasonable probability" that the recipient will be able to stay in their home provided economic assistance.
     

Section C: Funding and disbursement
1. The Northeast Region shall provide and make available funds in the amount of $3 billion to towns for this purpose.
2. Funds shall be distributed on a first come, first serve basis.
3. No homeowner shall receive more than $400 per month, nor shall a homeowner receive more than $4,800 in total proceeds from the Act. No homeowner shall receive funds in excess of their FY2009 yearly property tax bill.
4. Funds shall be provided directly to local municipalities, which will in turn reduce the property tax due for qualified home owners. Mortgage companies which collect and pay these taxes on behalf of homeowners shall make an adjustment of said escrow payment within one month of a homeowner qualifying for this program.

Section D: Taxation
1. Funds dispersed through the Act shall be nontaxable for the purposes of the Northeastern Regional income tax.

Section E: Effective Date

1. The Act shall go into effect immediately upon passage, with payments retroactive to the first day of the month of the governor's signature.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 03, 2009, 04:00:01 PM

I see no need for the minimum wage in the Northeast to be different from the federal one. While I would like to see progress towards the abolition of the minimum wage (which puts an artificial price on labour and causes unemployment, especially among youths), this is a step in the right direction, I feel.

But there has to be a way to keep these people making a viable income. I've known too many people who weren't young folks making minimum wage. Living where I live and you see it. There has to be some kind of happy medium where people can make enough to support themselves and their family. Big corporations such as McDonald's and Wal-Mart do not only employ young people and there's no way either of them are going out of business any time soon, even if the minimum wage were say 13 dollars an hour. These corporations are so massive, that there's no way they go under. Smaller businesses, I could see it having an effect, which is why we offer incentives and certain breaks to protect them.

It's a shame that the market is swallowed up by such huge conglomerates, but if we lowered corporation tax as well, I'm sure we could encourage competition and thus put an upward pressure on wages.

Or it could blow up in our faces and just tighten the hold of these monopolies... As I said, I'm not opposed to helping smaller businesses, but these corporations are just so massive, I don't see that they need any help. Our help should be focused on those that make these places profitable through hard work. I've reformed and moderated my views on businesses. They're not all "bad guys", but I'm still going to side with smaller businesses and the working man over any corporation. I'm asking for the protection of thousands of workers who aren't just young people. You might say these are folks who've had some bad luck, well, maybe, but for the work they do, and for the money they pump into the economy, they deserve some protection.

The problem is, if you keep a high minimum wage, you are helping these oligopolies. Small business suffers because it isn't able to pay the wages and they go into a downward spiral until they go bust in many cases. If you want to help small business, a great aid to it would be to abolish or at least lower the minimum wage.

I believe in a living wage. People need to be able to survive. A poor person helps no one. Maybe what I'm wanting is a more efficent minimum wage that won't bankrupt smaller companies, but won't allow big corporations to get off scot-free. Because you know Wal-Mart, nor McDonald's, nor anyone of the big corporations for that matter, do not hesitate to keep those wages as low as possible. Thes places need to be held accountable for that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 03, 2009, 04:01:02 PM
The actual next bill is this:


Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009

Co-sponsored by Reps. Hamilton and Mr. Moderate (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=103122.msg2197077#msg2197077)

Section A: Purpose
1. The Northeast Region believes that the current economic downturn is due, in part, to instability in the housing market. As such, the government of the Northeast believes it to be in the regions best interest to provide short-term stabilization to the market where possible. The Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009, hereinafter "the Act," is tasked with providing property tax relief to homeowners on the verge of losing their homes due to the economic downturn. This relief will be provided in the form of one-time property tax credits for at-risk Northeasterners to lower monthly mortgage payments.

Section B: Qualification
1. To qualify for funds provided by the Act, homeowners must meet the following criteria:
    a. The property in question must be the homeowner's primary residence (i.e., summer homes and rental properties do not qualify).
    b. The homeowner must have maintained steady residence at the property for no less than 12 months.
    c. Applicants for funds provided in the Act must demonstrate need due to short-term circumstances arising from the economic downturn, such as (1) unemployment or underemployment, defined as an expected 2009 or 2010 yearly income of 85% or less of the applicant's 2008 or 2009 yearly income, respectively or (2) an increase in monthly mortgage payments of greater than 20% as compared to a year prior.
    d. Said homeowner must meet one of the following requirements:
       i. currently be in or applying for a qualified forebearance with their mortgage lender, or,
       ii. currently be in or applying for a modification plan with their mortgage lender.
    e. To qualify for funds under the Act, a mortgage lender must certify that there is a "reasonable probability" that the recipient will be able to stay in their home provided economic assistance.
     

Section C: Funding and disbursement
1. The Northeast Region shall provide and make available funds in the amount of $3 billion to towns for this purpose.
2. Funds shall be distributed on a first come, first serve basis.
3. No homeowner shall receive more than $400 per month, nor shall a homeowner receive more than $4,800 in total proceeds from the Act. No homeowner shall receive funds in excess of their FY2009 yearly property tax bill.
4. Funds shall be provided directly to local municipalities, which will in turn reduce the property tax due for qualified home owners. Mortgage companies which collect and pay these taxes on behalf of homeowners shall make an adjustment of said escrow payment within one month of a homeowner qualifying for this program.

Section D: Taxation
1. Funds dispersed through the Act shall be nontaxable for the purposes of the Northeastern Regional income tax.

Section E: Effective Date

1. The Act shall go into effect immediately upon passage, with payments retroactive to the first day of the month of the governor's signature.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 03, 2009, 04:08:30 PM
LOL Nobody minds you, guy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 03, 2009, 04:19:26 PM

I see no need for the minimum wage in the Northeast to be different from the federal one. While I would like to see progress towards the abolition of the minimum wage (which puts an artificial price on labour and causes unemployment, especially among youths), this is a step in the right direction, I feel.

But there has to be a way to keep these people making a viable income. I've known too many people who weren't young folks making minimum wage. Living where I live and you see it. There has to be some kind of happy medium where people can make enough to support themselves and their family. Big corporations such as McDonald's and Wal-Mart do not only employ young people and there's no way either of them are going out of business any time soon, even if the minimum wage were say 13 dollars an hour. These corporations are so massive, that there's no way they go under. Smaller businesses, I could see it having an effect, which is why we offer incentives and certain breaks to protect them.

It's a shame that the market is swallowed up by such huge conglomerates, but if we lowered corporation tax as well, I'm sure we could encourage competition and thus put an upward pressure on wages.

Or it could blow up in our faces and just tighten the hold of these monopolies... As I said, I'm not opposed to helping smaller businesses, but these corporations are just so massive, I don't see that they need any help. Our help should be focused on those that make these places profitable through hard work. I've reformed and moderated my views on businesses. They're not all "bad guys", but I'm still going to side with smaller businesses and the working man over any corporation. I'm asking for the protection of thousands of workers who aren't just young people. You might say these are folks who've had some bad luck, well, maybe, but for the work they do, and for the money they pump into the economy, they deserve some protection.

The problem is, if you keep a high minimum wage, you are helping these oligopolies. Small business suffers because it isn't able to pay the wages and they go into a downward spiral until they go bust in many cases. If you want to help small business, a great aid to it would be to abolish or at least lower the minimum wage.

I believe in a living wage. People need to be able to survive. A poor person helps no one. Maybe what I'm wanting is a more efficent minimum wage that won't bankrupt smaller companies, but won't allow big corporations to get off scot-free. Because you know Wal-Mart, nor McDonald's, nor anyone of the big corporations for that matter, do not hesitate to keep those wages as low as possible. Thes places need to be held accountable for that.

It would be very hard, if not impossible, to find such an equilibrium.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 03, 2009, 04:20:03 PM
The actual next bill is this:


Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009

Co-sponsored by Reps. Hamilton and Mr. Moderate (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=103122.msg2197077#msg2197077)

Section A: Purpose
1. The Northeast Region believes that the current economic downturn is due, in part, to instability in the housing market. As such, the government of the Northeast believes it to be in the regions best interest to provide short-term stabilization to the market where possible. The Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009, hereinafter "the Act," is tasked with providing property tax relief to homeowners on the verge of losing their homes due to the economic downturn. This relief will be provided in the form of one-time property tax credits for at-risk Northeasterners to lower monthly mortgage payments.

Section B: Qualification
1. To qualify for funds provided by the Act, homeowners must meet the following criteria:
    a. The property in question must be the homeowner's primary residence (i.e., summer homes and rental properties do not qualify).
    b. The homeowner must have maintained steady residence at the property for no less than 12 months.
    c. Applicants for funds provided in the Act must demonstrate need due to short-term circumstances arising from the economic downturn, such as (1) unemployment or underemployment, defined as an expected 2009 or 2010 yearly income of 85% or less of the applicant's 2008 or 2009 yearly income, respectively or (2) an increase in monthly mortgage payments of greater than 20% as compared to a year prior.
    d. Said homeowner must meet one of the following requirements:
       i. currently be in or applying for a qualified forebearance with their mortgage lender, or,
       ii. currently be in or applying for a modification plan with their mortgage lender.
    e. To qualify for funds under the Act, a mortgage lender must certify that there is a "reasonable probability" that the recipient will be able to stay in their home provided economic assistance.
     

Section C: Funding and disbursement
1. The Northeast Region shall provide and make available funds in the amount of $3 billion to towns for this purpose.
2. Funds shall be distributed on a first come, first serve basis.
3. No homeowner shall receive more than $400 per month, nor shall a homeowner receive more than $4,800 in total proceeds from the Act. No homeowner shall receive funds in excess of their FY2009 yearly property tax bill.
4. Funds shall be provided directly to local municipalities, which will in turn reduce the property tax due for qualified home owners. Mortgage companies which collect and pay these taxes on behalf of homeowners shall make an adjustment of said escrow payment within one month of a homeowner qualifying for this program.

Section D: Taxation
1. Funds dispersed through the Act shall be nontaxable for the purposes of the Northeastern Regional income tax.

Section E: Effective Date

1. The Act shall go into effect immediately upon passage, with payments retroactive to the first day of the month of the governor's signature.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 03, 2009, 04:25:51 PM

I see no need for the minimum wage in the Northeast to be different from the federal one. While I would like to see progress towards the abolition of the minimum wage (which puts an artificial price on labour and causes unemployment, especially among youths), this is a step in the right direction, I feel.

But there has to be a way to keep these people making a viable income. I've known too many people who weren't young folks making minimum wage. Living where I live and you see it. There has to be some kind of happy medium where people can make enough to support themselves and their family. Big corporations such as McDonald's and Wal-Mart do not only employ young people and there's no way either of them are going out of business any time soon, even if the minimum wage were say 13 dollars an hour. These corporations are so massive, that there's no way they go under. Smaller businesses, I could see it having an effect, which is why we offer incentives and certain breaks to protect them.

It's a shame that the market is swallowed up by such huge conglomerates, but if we lowered corporation tax as well, I'm sure we could encourage competition and thus put an upward pressure on wages.

Or it could blow up in our faces and just tighten the hold of these monopolies... As I said, I'm not opposed to helping smaller businesses, but these corporations are just so massive, I don't see that they need any help. Our help should be focused on those that make these places profitable through hard work. I've reformed and moderated my views on businesses. They're not all "bad guys", but I'm still going to side with smaller businesses and the working man over any corporation. I'm asking for the protection of thousands of workers who aren't just young people. You might say these are folks who've had some bad luck, well, maybe, but for the work they do, and for the money they pump into the economy, they deserve some protection.

The problem is, if you keep a high minimum wage, you are helping these oligopolies. Small business suffers because it isn't able to pay the wages and they go into a downward spiral until they go bust in many cases. If you want to help small business, a great aid to it would be to abolish or at least lower the minimum wage.

I believe in a living wage. People need to be able to survive. A poor person helps no one. Maybe what I'm wanting is a more efficent minimum wage that won't bankrupt smaller companies, but won't allow big corporations to get off scot-free. Because you know Wal-Mart, nor McDonald's, nor anyone of the big corporations for that matter, do not hesitate to keep those wages as low as possible. Thes places need to be held accountable for that.

It would be very hard, if not impossible, to find such an equilibrium.

Then I'd rather protect those that need protecting rather than helping massive corporations profit. You see how I stand?... I would like worker protection in cases of a lower federal wage.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 03, 2009, 04:26:41 PM
The actual next bill is this:


Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009

Co-sponsored by Reps. Hamilton and Mr. Moderate (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=103122.msg2197077#msg2197077)

Section A: Purpose
1. The Northeast Region believes that the current economic downturn is due, in part, to instability in the housing market. As such, the government of the Northeast believes it to be in the regions best interest to provide short-term stabilization to the market where possible. The Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009, hereinafter "the Act," is tasked with providing property tax relief to homeowners on the verge of losing their homes due to the economic downturn. This relief will be provided in the form of one-time property tax credits for at-risk Northeasterners to lower monthly mortgage payments.

Section B: Qualification
1. To qualify for funds provided by the Act, homeowners must meet the following criteria:
    a. The property in question must be the homeowner's primary residence (i.e., summer homes and rental properties do not qualify).
    b. The homeowner must have maintained steady residence at the property for no less than 12 months.
    c. Applicants for funds provided in the Act must demonstrate need due to short-term circumstances arising from the economic downturn, such as (1) unemployment or underemployment, defined as an expected 2009 or 2010 yearly income of 85% or less of the applicant's 2008 or 2009 yearly income, respectively or (2) an increase in monthly mortgage payments of greater than 20% as compared to a year prior.
    d. Said homeowner must meet one of the following requirements:
       i. currently be in or applying for a qualified forebearance with their mortgage lender, or,
       ii. currently be in or applying for a modification plan with their mortgage lender.
    e. To qualify for funds under the Act, a mortgage lender must certify that there is a "reasonable probability" that the recipient will be able to stay in their home provided economic assistance.
     

Section C: Funding and disbursement
1. The Northeast Region shall provide and make available funds in the amount of $3 billion to towns for this purpose.
2. Funds shall be distributed on a first come, first serve basis.
3. No homeowner shall receive more than $400 per month, nor shall a homeowner receive more than $4,800 in total proceeds from the Act. No homeowner shall receive funds in excess of their FY2009 yearly property tax bill.
4. Funds shall be provided directly to local municipalities, which will in turn reduce the property tax due for qualified home owners. Mortgage companies which collect and pay these taxes on behalf of homeowners shall make an adjustment of said escrow payment within one month of a homeowner qualifying for this program.

Section D: Taxation
1. Funds dispersed through the Act shall be nontaxable for the purposes of the Northeastern Regional income tax.

Section E: Effective Date

1. The Act shall go into effect immediately upon passage, with payments retroactive to the first day of the month of the governor's signature.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 03, 2009, 04:27:47 PM
Stop it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 03, 2009, 04:28:51 PM

Stop taking up Assembly space debating a bill that won't even be up this session.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 03, 2009, 11:01:40 PM
Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009

Section A: Purpose
1. The Northeast Region believes that the current economic downturn is due, in part, to instability in the housing market. As such, the government of the Northeast believes it to be in the regions best interest to provide short-term stabilization to the market where possible. The Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009, hereinafter "the Act," is tasked with providing property tax relief to homeowners on the verge of losing their homes due to the economic downturn. This relief will be provided in the form of one-time property tax credits for at-risk Northeasterners to lower monthly mortgage payments.

Section B: Qualification
1. To qualify for funds provided by the Act, homeowners must meet the following criteria:
    a. The property in question must be the homeowner's primary residence (i.e., summer homes and rental properties do not qualify).
    b. The homeowner must have maintained steady residence at the property for no less than 12 months.
    c. Applicants for funds provided in the Act must demonstrate need due to short-term circumstances arising from the economic downturn, such as (1) unemployment or underemployment, defined as an expected 2009 or 2010 yearly income of 85% or less of the applicant's 2008 or 2009 yearly income, respectively or (2) an increase in monthly mortgage payments of greater than 20% as compared to a year prior.
    d. Said homeowner must meet one of the following requirements:
       i. currently be in or applying for a qualified forebearance with their mortgage lender, or,
       ii. currently be in or applying for a modification plan with their mortgage lender.
    e. To qualify for funds under the Act, a mortgage lender must certify that there is a "reasonable probability" that the recipient will be able to stay in their home provided economic assistance.
     

Section C: Funding and disbursement
1. The Northeast Region shall provide and make available funds in the amount of $3 billion to towns for this purpose.
2. Funds shall be distributed on a first come, first serve basis.
3. No homeowner shall receive more than $400 per month, nor shall a homeowner receive more than $4,800 in total proceeds from the Act. No homeowner shall receive funds in excess of their FY2009 yearly property tax bill.
4. Funds shall be provided directly to local municipalities, which will in turn reduce the property tax due for qualified home owners. Mortgage companies which collect and pay these taxes on behalf of homeowners shall make an adjustment of said escrow payment within one month of a homeowner qualifying for this program.

Section D: Taxation
1. Funds dispersed through the Act shall be nontaxable for the purposes of the Northeastern Regional income tax.

Section E: Effective Date
1. The Act shall go into effect immediately upon passage, with payments retroactive to the first day of the month of the governor's signature.

Sponsors: Reps. Mr. Moderate and Hamilton



The Questions is, shall the bill be considered? The Ayes have it.

Either Hamilton or Mr. Moderate have the floor.

(Sorry about getting this up late, guys.)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 03, 2009, 11:10:19 PM
Well, as you can see, this is pretty straight forward. This was created to benefit those who have been hit hard by this economic downturn, by helping the unemployed keep their homes. This is a temporary aid package that is pro-family in nature and rooted in fairness, not handouts. It was the federal government's pathetic fiscal policies that created this poor economic environment and we shouldn't allow honest families to suffer because of that.

This bill has restrictions that prevent those who are not in dire need from taking advantage of the system and limitations regarding the amount of funding a family can receive. I believe this bill will successfully serve its purpose in keeping Northeastern families in their homes and hopefully help recreate the housing market in a stable way.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on December 04, 2009, 01:47:37 PM
This bill is great and I would eagerly support it!



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 04, 2009, 02:03:07 PM
Seems like a good thing.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 04, 2009, 11:30:40 PM
This is a good bill. I don't have any alterations or amendments to propose and I'm ready to support this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 06, 2009, 03:56:33 AM
Bump.

Now we can vote on this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 06, 2009, 07:45:31 PM
I open up a final vote on this Bill. Vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009

Section A: Purpose

1. The Northeast Region believes that the current economic downturn is due, in part, to instability in the housing market. As such, the government of the Northeast believes it to be in the regions best interest to provide short-term stabilization to the market where possible. The Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009, hereinafter "the Act," is tasked with providing property tax relief to homeowners on the verge of losing their homes due to the economic downturn. This relief will be provided in the form of one-time property tax credits for at-risk Northeasterners to lower monthly mortgage payments.

Section B: Qualification

1. To qualify for funds provided by the Act, homeowners must meet the following criteria:
    a. The property in question must be the homeowner's primary residence (i.e., summer homes and rental properties do not qualify).
    b. The homeowner must have maintained steady residence at the property for no less than 12 months.
    c. Applicants for funds provided in the Act must demonstrate need due to short-term circumstances arising from the economic downturn, such as (1) unemployment or underemployment, defined as an expected 2009 or 2010 yearly income of 85% or less of the applicant's 2008 or 2009 yearly income, respectively or (2) an increase in monthly mortgage payments of greater than 20% as compared to a year prior.
    d. Said homeowner must meet one of the following requirements:
       i. currently be in or applying for a qualified forebearance with their mortgage lender, or,
       ii. currently be in or applying for a modification plan with their mortgage lender.
    e. To qualify for funds under the Act, a mortgage lender must certify that there is a "reasonable probability" that the recipient will be able to stay in their home provided economic assistance.
     

Section C: Funding and disbursement
1. The Northeast Region shall provide and make available funds in the amount of $3 billion to towns for this purpose.
2. Funds shall be distributed on a first come, first serve basis.
3. No homeowner shall receive more than $400 per month, nor shall a homeowner receive more than $4,800 in total proceeds from the Act. No homeowner shall receive funds in excess of their FY2009 yearly property tax bill.
4. Funds shall be provided directly to local municipalities, which will in turn reduce the property tax due for qualified home owners. Mortgage companies which collect and pay these taxes on behalf of homeowners shall make an adjustment of said escrow payment within one month of a homeowner qualifying for this program.

Section D: Taxation
1. Funds dispersed through the Act shall be nontaxable for the purposes of the Northeastern Regional income tax.

Section E: Effective Date

1. The Act shall go into effect immediately upon passage, with payments retroactive to the first day of the month of the governor's signature.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 06, 2009, 07:46:18 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 06, 2009, 07:53:33 PM
Present and abstaining.

I generally support the bill, but don't think people who signed contracts with an interest rate reset deserve a taxpayer bailout.  Those who prudently lived within their means and took out a responsible, fixed-rate mortgage to pay for their house shouldn't be subsidizing those who didn't.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 06, 2009, 07:54:44 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 06, 2009, 07:56:16 PM
Present and abstaining.

I generally support the bill, but don't think people who signed contracts with an interest rate reset deserve a taxpayer bailout.  Those who prudently lived within their means and took out a responsible, fixed-rate mortgage to pay for their house shouldn't be subsidizing those who didn't.

Once they get booted out of their homes they will likely be living in public housing.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 06, 2009, 08:05:40 PM
Present and abstaining.

I generally support the bill, but don't think people who signed contracts with an interest rate reset deserve a taxpayer bailout.  Those who prudently lived within their means and took out a responsible, fixed-rate mortgage to pay for their house shouldn't be subsidizing those who didn't.

Once they get booted out of their homes they will likely be living in public housing.

Renting private housing, more likely - which is what they were essentially doing when they took out no-money-down, interest-only or teaser rate loans in the first place.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 06, 2009, 08:08:12 PM
Present and abstaining.

I generally support the bill, but don't think people who signed contracts with an interest rate reset deserve a taxpayer bailout.  Those who prudently lived within their means and took out a responsible, fixed-rate mortgage to pay for their house shouldn't be subsidizing those who didn't.

Once they get booted out of their homes they will likely be living in public housing.

Renting private housing, more likely - which is what they were essentially doing when they took out no-money-down, interest-only or teaser rate loans in the first place.

Order!

The Gentlemen will suspend.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 06, 2009, 08:56:43 PM
Nay.

I support the Bill, except for Section B(1)(c)(2).

Due to the increase in unemployment, I can understand the need to support recently unemployed citizens in getting through these difficult times, but I fear that this Bill will lead to interest rate rises as lending companies see a reduced risk of default for borrowers whose repayments have increased by 20% compared to borrowers whose repayments have increased by, for example, 18%.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 07, 2009, 05:49:03 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 07, 2009, 06:56:23 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 07, 2009, 08:41:02 PM
The Ayes are three, the Nays are two, with one abstention. The Ayes have it.

I hereby present this Bill to the Governor for his signature or veto.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on December 08, 2009, 11:54:13 AM
Yikes.  Sorry folks, been really busy lately (and there's been a work crackdown on Internets.)

Anyway, Aye for the record.  I'm very glad to see this bill got passed—I believe it will do a lot of good to reassure mortgage lenders, homeowners, and the housing market in general by protecting those who face the loss of their home because of the economy, and not because of the kind of greed that caused this mess.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 08, 2009, 12:32:45 PM
Next bill ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 08, 2009, 02:11:58 PM

Sustainable Forestry Act

Section A: Purpose

1. The Northeast region is home to over 40 million acres of hardwood and softwood forests used for construction, manufacturing, energy, and other uses. The Northeast region recognizes that sustainable forestry is necessary to create a healthy and diverse environment and create a lasting industry that continues to provide jobs to Northeasterners. The Northeast recognizes that current forestry practices are unsustainable and that a more reasonable replacement level must be mandated.

Section B: Regulations

1. Forestry (the act of clearing or eliminating trees for commercial purposes) shall be regulated by the region to provide sustainability.

2. The acreage of forestry shall not be allowed below 35 million acres at any given point in time.

3. Forestry on public or private lands by any organization that has not obtained a permit from the Northeast region is hereby prohibited.

4. Any company or organization removing trees for commercial use is REQUIRED to replace the acreage of trees removed at a 1:1 ratio. Companies and/or organizations are REQUIRED to ensure survivability of the new growth.

5. A 5% tax credit is available to any company/organization that prove compliant with the above regulations and publicly commit to sustainable forestry and the preservation of Northeastern biodiversity.

Section C: Non-compliance


1. Any company/organization found violating the terms of this act shall be subject to a fine of no less than twice the amount of estimated damage caused to the region's hardwood and/or softwood forests.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 08, 2009, 03:10:15 PM
You haven't the authority to do that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 08, 2009, 03:14:23 PM
Stop being such a damn jerk all the time, you worthless hack. I`m letting people read the bill here so they don`t have to wait for Barnes to know what is next. You did the same thing once, except that bill you posted wasn`t even the one we were supposed to debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 08, 2009, 05:56:16 PM

Sustainable Forestry Act

Section A: Purpose

1. The Northeast region is home to over 40 million acres of hardwood and softwood forests used for construction, manufacturing, energy, and other uses. The Northeast region recognizes that sustainable forestry is necessary to create a healthy and diverse environment and create a lasting industry that continues to provide jobs to Northeasterners. The Northeast recognizes that current forestry practices are unsustainable and that a more reasonable replacement level must be mandated.

Section B: Regulations

1. Forestry (the act of clearing or eliminating trees for commercial purposes) shall be regulated by the region to provide sustainability.

2. The acreage of forestry shall not be allowed below 35 million acres at any given point in time.

3. Forestry on public or private lands by any organization that has not obtained a permit from the Northeast region is hereby prohibited.

4. Any company or organization removing trees for commercial use is REQUIRED to replace the acreage of trees removed at a 1:1 ratio. Companies and/or organizations are REQUIRED to ensure survivability of the new growth.

5. A 5% tax credit is available to any company/organization that prove compliant with the above regulations and publicly commit to sustainable forestry and the preservation of Northeastern biodiversity.

Section C: Non-compliance

1. Any company/organization found violating the terms of this act shall be subject to a fine of no less than twice the amount of estimated damage caused to the region's hardwood and/or softwood forests.

Sponsor: Rep. Hamilton

The Questions is, shall the Bill be Considered? The Ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Representative Hamilton, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 08, 2009, 05:59:58 PM
The bill is straight forward, we need to protect our natural environment here in the Northeast. I don't really have much to comment on this, but I would like to let the hardcore capitalists know that this is a pro-business bill. If we are going to remain productive, natural resources must be managed at sustainable levels. If we eliminate our forests at the current rate without adequate replenishment, pretty soon we will be a treeless region. How will we capitalize then? The Northeast would lose jobs... We would lose natives species... We would lose our beautiful natural landscape... Is it worth it? If we implement sustainable policies, we will be able to make use of what nature has given us for as long as we dedicate ourselves to responsible policies.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 08, 2009, 07:28:02 PM
Support this, but Section C should be clarified to define "estimated damage" - perhaps the percentage of additional land cleared and not replenished should be factored into the profits made and that would be the cost of the fine. For example, if the company cleared a total of 100 hectares and only replenished 95 hectares, and earned in that time a total profit of $5 million, the fine would work out at double 5% of the total profits of $5,000,000, which would be $500,000 worth of fines. Perhaps also setting a minimum "per hectare" value of a fine, to prevent companies using creative accounting to post a loss in years in which they over-clear.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 08, 2009, 08:15:58 PM
Support this, but Section C should be clarified to define "estimated damage" - perhaps the percentage of additional land cleared and not replenished should be factored into the profits made and that would be the cost of the fine. For example, if the company cleared a total of 100 hectares and only replenished 95 hectares, and earned in that time a total profit of $5 million, the fine would work out at double 5% of the total profits of $5,000,000, which would be $500,000 worth of fines. Perhaps also setting a minimum "per hectare" value of a fine, to prevent companies using creative accounting to post a loss in years in which they over-clear.

That'd be something worth adding. At least it wouldn't make things so open to cheating.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 08, 2009, 08:20:16 PM
What would suffice as a minimum fine per hectare?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 08, 2009, 08:23:59 PM
What would suffice as a minimum fine per hectare?

Should depend on the size of the business... Say for small businesses 500 dollars, and on up..


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 08, 2009, 09:34:46 PM
The bill is straight forward, we need to protect our natural environment here in the Northeast. I don't really have much to comment on this, but I would like to let the hardcore capitalists know that this is a pro-business bill. If we are going to remain productive, natural resources must be managed at sustainable levels. If we eliminate our forests at the current rate without adequate replenishment, pretty soon we will be a treeless region. How will we capitalize then? The Northeast would lose jobs... We would lose natives species... We would lose our beautiful natural landscape... Is it worth it? If we implement sustainable policies, we will be able to make use of what nature has given us for as long as we dedicate ourselves to responsible policies.

I rise in opposition to this bill, especially with respect to restrictions placed on private land.

It is often said that the Northeast has more trees today than we have ever had before.  While that's likely true, it is of no doubt that the Northeast has more trees today than we had at the beginning of the last century.  This is despite the fact that much of our forests are privately owned, unlike out west.

Or is it BECAUSE of that fact?  Private tree farmers who own the land have every incentive to treat their trees with the utmost of respect.  Overcutting today will directly lead to lower expected profits tomorrow - and a declining company value.

I simply don't know why we need heavy handed regulation of something that's working.  There is no danger of the Northeast becoming a treeless region.  It hasn't been heading in that direction for 100 years.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 08, 2009, 09:44:51 PM
I simply don't know why we need heavy handed regulation of something that's working.  There is no danger of the Northeast becoming a treeless region.  It hasn't been heading in that direction for 100 years.

In rural western PA there is a great deal of strip mining and heavy handed lumbering going on. Such as some places are looking completely bare. There's no reason to believe a trend like that would not continue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 08, 2009, 09:49:36 PM
cinyc, do you have statistics to back those claims up? Pardon if I come across as rude, but I did a lot of research about forestry in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire to come up with the minimum amount of acreage required so I've seen quite a bit of information on the subject. I'm just wondering what your sources might be.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 08, 2009, 10:30:27 PM
Yup.

New York: http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/42065.html
Northeast: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1016/is_n5-6_v97/ai_10737450/?tag=content;col1
Hardwood trees, generally, which are the type that mainly grows in the NE: http://www.hardwoodinfo.com/articles/view/135
General, US: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bot00/bot00090.htm


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 08, 2009, 10:42:53 PM
In that case, I might be able to drop the restrictions on private lands. Let me know what you guys think.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 08, 2009, 11:18:56 PM
In rural western PA there is a great deal of strip mining and heavy handed lumbering going on. Such as some places are looking completely bare. There's no reason to believe a trend like that would not continue.

According to Pennsylvania Department of Conservation’s Natural Resources (http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/PA_Forests_2004.pdf), there was no significant net change in PA forest acreage from 1989 to 2004.  663,000 acres were lost, but 617,500 acres were gained.  That's a net loss of 45,500 acres over 15 years - about 3000 acres a year - which is hardly significant when combined with reported gains in the rest of the Northeast or the significant increases earlier in the 20th century.  

The losses was largely due to residential and industrial development, not strip mining or tree farming.  The majority of the gains came from reclaimed agricultural lands.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 08, 2009, 11:54:29 PM
The Bill should only relate to forestry on public land. I think the regulation of the clearing of public forest is fine, after all it is a Regional asset and the Regional government should be able to regulate that, however the regulation of private forestry is unnecessary.

Indeed, as the Bill currently reads, the definition of forestry ("the clearing or elimination of trees for commercial purposes") could possibly result in a person who chops down a tree in their backyard and then sells it for firewood being fined (perhaps the plural may mean they'd only be prosecuted in the case of two or more trees, but regardless, the definition needs to be tightened and I think should only include forestry on public land).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 08, 2009, 11:57:23 PM
Okay, I'm amending this to strike "or private" from the language of clause 3


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 09, 2009, 12:11:15 AM
In rural western PA there is a great deal of strip mining and heavy handed lumbering going on. Such as some places are looking completely bare. There's no reason to believe a trend like that would not continue.

According to Pennsylvania Department of Conservation’s Natural Resources (http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/PA_Forests_2004.pdf), there was no significant net change in PA forest acreage from 1989 to 2004.  663,000 acres were lost, but 617,500 acres were gained.  That's a net loss of 45,500 acres over 15 years - about 3000 acres a year - which is hardly significant when combined with reported gains in the rest of the Northeast or the significant increases earlier in the 20th century.  

The losses was largely due to residential and industrial development, not strip mining or tree farming.  The majority of the gains came from reclaimed agricultural lands.

Really? Cause that's all you see around here...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 09, 2009, 12:15:26 AM
I'll add a Section D, as well

Section D: Public Land Use

1. The Northeast region will no longer be allowed to sell wooded land to private owners.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 09, 2009, 12:16:04 AM
That's not going to be sufficient.  Additional changes will have to be made to the bill because the Northeast isn't regulating of private lands.  For example (subject to whatever changes are made to Section C):

Sustainable Forestry Act

Section A: Purpose

1. The Northeast region is home to over 40 million acres of hardwood and softwood forests used for construction, manufacturing, energy, and other uses. The Northeast region recognizes that sustainable forestry is necessary to create a healthy and diverse environment and create a lasting industry that continues to provide jobs to Northeasterners. The Northeast recognizes that current forestry practices are unsustainable and that a more reasonable replacement level must be mandated.

Section B: Regulations

1. Forestry (the act of clearing or eliminating more than 10 trees for commercial purposes) on Northeast public lands shall be regulated by the region to provide sustainability.

2. The acreage of forestry shall not be allowed below 35 million acres at any given point in time.  (Note: I don't know why we need this when we determine how much forestland we own and the uses thereof)

2.3. Forestry on Northeast public or private lands by any company or organization that has not obtained a permit from the Northeast region is hereby prohibited.

34. Any company or organization removing more than 10 trees from Northeast public land in any calendar year for commercial use is REQUIRED to replace the acreage of trees removed at a 1:1 ratio. Companies and/or organizations are REQUIRED to ensure survivability of the new growth.  [Question: Forever?  Or some set period]

5. A 5% tax credit is available to any company/organization that prove compliant with the above regulations and publicly commit to sustainable forestry and the preservation of Northeastern biodiversity. (Note: I don't know why we'd need to give a credit to companies we're letting cut on public land)

4.  Nothing in this Act shall prohibit individuals from cutting up to 10 trees per year for firewood or other personal use on parcels of Northeast public land where such activity is expressly permitted by the laws or regulations of the Northeast.
 
Section C: Non-compliance

1. Any company/organization found violating the terms of this act shall be subject to a fine of no less than twice the amount of estimated damage caused to the region's hardwood and/or softwood forests.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 09, 2009, 12:19:56 AM
I can accept that, but I still wish to see my Section D added.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 09, 2009, 12:20:16 AM
I'll add a Section D, as well

Section D: Public Land Use

1. The Northeast region will no longer be allowed to sell wooded land to private owners.

That becomes a potential problem when someone wants to build a power line or something to a town that needs it.  We don't have many statewide referenda in New York - but when we do, it's usually granting an exemption of some sort for a trade of public land for private land in Adirondack Park.  At a minimum, we need to allow swaps of equal value.

What about leases?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 09, 2009, 12:21:59 AM
Section D: Public Land Use

1. The Northeast region will no longer be allowed to sell wooded land to private owners for the purpose of commercial forestry.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 09, 2009, 12:22:30 AM

I've provided a link backing up my facts.  The dates of the study are what they are: 1989-2004.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 09, 2009, 12:27:16 AM
New bill:


Sustainable Forestry Act

Section A: Purpose

1. The Northeast region is home to over 40 million acres of hardwood and softwood forests used for construction, manufacturing, energy, and other uses. The Northeast region recognizes that sustainable forestry is necessary to create a healthy and diverse environment and create a lasting industry that continues to provide jobs to Northeasterners. The Northeast recognizes that current forestry practices are unsustainable and that a more reasonable replacement level must be mandated.

Section B: Regulations

1. Forestry (the act of clearing or eliminating more than 10 trees for commercial purposes) on Northeast public lands shall be regulated by the region to provide sustainability.

2. Forestry on Northeast public lands by any company or organization that has not obtained a permit from the Northeast region is hereby prohibited.

3. Any company or organization removing more than 10 trees from Northeast public land in any calendar year for commercial use is REQUIRED to replace the acreage of trees removed at a 1:1 ratio. Companies and/or organizations are REQUIRED to ensure survivability of the new growth.  

4.  Nothing in this Act shall prohibit individuals from cutting up to 10 trees per year for firewood or other personal use on parcels of Northeast public land where such activity is expressly permitted by the laws or regulations of the Northeast.
 
Section C: Non-compliance

1. Any company/organization found violating the terms of this act shall be subject to a fine of no less than twice the amount of estimated damage caused to the region's hardwood and/or softwood forests.

Section D: Public Land Use

1. The Northeast region will no longer be allowed to sell wooded land to private owners for the purpose of commercial forestry.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 09, 2009, 12:34:18 AM

I've provided a link backing up my facts.  The dates of the study are what they are: 1989-2004.

Yeah, I see that... Ok, then... However, I've not seen much residential or industrial deforestation recently. It's been either for strip mining or lumber... Just first hand experience at least around here.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on December 09, 2009, 08:08:40 AM
I don't care much for requiring companies to guarantee the survivability of replaced forests. It seems unusually burdensome considering there's no time attached. Maybe amend to say that it needs to be guaranteed for a year?

Also, how many people chop trees for firewood on PUBLIC land, currently? I wouldn't have thought that to be legal.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 09, 2009, 02:55:46 PM
Making an Amendment to Section B Number 3...



Sustainable Forestry Act

Section A: Purpose

1. The Northeast region is home to over 40 million acres of hardwood and softwood forests used for construction, manufacturing, energy, and other uses. The Northeast region recognizes that sustainable forestry is necessary to create a healthy and diverse environment and create a lasting industry that continues to provide jobs to Northeasterners. The Northeast recognizes that current forestry practices are unsustainable and that a more reasonable replacement level must be mandated.

Section B: Regulations

1. Forestry (the act of clearing or eliminating more than 10 trees for commercial purposes) on Northeast public lands shall be regulated by the region to provide sustainability.

2. Forestry on Northeast public lands by any company or organization that has not obtained a permit from the Northeast region is hereby prohibited.

3. Any company or organization removing more than 10 trees from Northeast public land in any calendar year for commercial use is REQUIRED to replace the acreage of trees removed at a 1:1 ratio. Companies and/or organizations are REQUIRED to ensure survivability of the new growth For two calender years.

4.  Nothing in this Act shall prohibit individuals from cutting up to 10 trees per year for firewood or other personal use on parcels of Northeast public land where such activity is expressly permitted by the laws or regulations of the Northeast.
 
Section C: Non-compliance

1. Any company/organization found violating the terms of this act shall be subject to a fine of no less than twice the amount of estimated damage caused to the region's hardwood and/or softwood forests.

Section D: Public Land Use

1. The Northeast region will no longer be allowed to sell wooded land to private owners for the purpose of commercial forestry.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 09, 2009, 03:03:12 PM
two years, please. one-year old trees aren't worth much.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 09, 2009, 05:12:58 PM
Also, how many people chop trees for firewood on PUBLIC land, currently? I wouldn't have thought that to be legal.

It's perfectly legal (http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/lassen/passes/) to chop trees for on-site campfires with a free permit in some national forests (and perhaps even without a permit in others), and legal to chop trees for firewood or other off-site personal use with a permit - usually for $10 per cord.    You can even cut down a Christmas tree with a permit in some national forests.

Assuming we have similar regulations, it would be unreasonable to force small users to plant replacement trees.

Yeah, I see that... Ok, then... However, I've not seen much residential or industrial deforestation recently. It's been either for strip mining or lumber... Just first hand experience at least around here.

You're talking about the western part of the state, where mining is more prevalent.  A lot of the lost forests lost to urbanizatiion are likely in new exurban areas in the Poconos and Philadelphia area.  There may be offsetting gains in SW PA, with farmland converted to forests and old strip mines being reforested.
-------

I have one other issue with the current legislation.  I'm not sure that it should be applied to existing leases.  If current leases don't include a reforestation provision, I don't see how we can force leaseholders to replant.  The contracts were priced without that extra cost in mind.  If we unilaterally change contract terms on a whim, we'll get less money than we otherwise would  for leases in the future.  Nobody will trust us.  And it's arguably unconstitutional - though possibly not.

I'll have to mark up an amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 09, 2009, 05:14:28 PM
Okay, if you amend that, I will likely accept it as friendly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 09, 2009, 10:52:52 PM
Here's my crack at that:

Sustainable Forestry Act

Section A: Purpose

1. The Northeast region is home to over 40 million acres of hardwood and softwood forests used for construction, manufacturing, energy, and other uses. The Northeast region recognizes that sustainable forestry is necessary to create a healthy and diverse environment and create a lasting industry that continues to provide jobs to Northeasterners. The Northeast recognizes that certain current forestry practices are unsustainable and that a more reasonable replacement level must be mandated.

Section B: Regulations

1. Forestry (the act of clearing or eliminating more than 10 trees two cords of wood for commercial purposes) on Northeast public lands shall be regulated by the region to provide sustainability.

2. Forestry on Northeast public lands by any company or organization that has not obtained a permit from the Northeast region is hereby prohibited.  This section shall not apply to any company or organization which has entered into any lease or other right to remove trees from public land on or before December 21, 2009.

3. Any company or organization removing more than 10 trees two cords of wood from Northeast public land in any calendar year for commercial use under any permit issued after December 21, 2009 is REQUIRED to replace the acreage of trees removed at a 1:1 ratio. Companies and/or organizations are REQUIRED to ensure survivability of the new growth for two calendar years.

4.  Nothing in this Act shall prohibit individuals from cutting up to 10 trees per year  two cords of wood for firewood or other personal use on parcels of Northeast public land where such activity is expressly permitted by the laws or regulations of the Northeast.

5. Nothing in this Act shall supercede the terms of any lease, conveyance or similar arrangement, or any permit issued before December 21, 2009 for the duration of such lease, conveyance, arrangement or permit.
 
Section C: Non-compliance

1. Any company/organization found violating the terms of this act shall be subject to a fine of no less than twice the amount of estimated damage caused to the region's hardwood and/or softwood forests.

Section D: Public Land Use

1. The Northeast region will no longer be allowed to sell wooded land to private owners for the purpose of commercial forestry.
--------
Note - I picked December 21 as the effective date because this law will have to be signed into law or vetoed before then, as the next session of the Assembly meets on that date.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 09, 2009, 10:54:27 PM
These changes are acceptable to me; consider them friendly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 09, 2009, 11:10:09 PM
We've made a good bill, folks...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 10, 2009, 04:26:11 AM
Seems fair enough.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 10, 2009, 04:27:00 AM
Well, I will be very proud of all of us if we can pass this unanimously.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: fezzyfestoon on December 10, 2009, 07:46:46 AM
Great idea, nicely worded bill, I'm aboard for sure.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 10, 2009, 05:19:50 PM
Do you mind if we change "is REQUIRED to replace the acreage of trees removed at a 1:1 ratio." to "is REQUIRED to replace the acreage of trees removed at at least a 1:1 ratio?

We shouldn't object if someone wants to plant more trees - or prohibit them from doing so.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 10, 2009, 05:21:24 PM
Yes, that is acceptable.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 10, 2009, 05:21:59 PM
Btw, can someone help me figure out how to fix Section C?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 10, 2009, 08:58:07 PM
Btw, can someone help me figure out how to fix Section C?

Something along the lines of "Where the value of an acre of timber is calculated by dividing the revenue received by the company divided by the number of acres cleared."


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 10, 2009, 09:00:15 PM
Btw, can someone help me figure out how to fix Section C?
Perhaps:

Any company/ or organization found violating the terms of this Act shall be subject to a fine of no less than twice five times the amount of the estimated damage caused to the region's hardwood and/or softwood forests cost of replacing the removed trees.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 10, 2009, 09:08:19 PM
Because of all the Debate on this Bill, I'm extending the Debating Period.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 10, 2009, 09:19:38 PM
I like cinyc's amendment, but five times sounds like a really hefty fine. Can I get the opinion of a couple other Reps?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 10, 2009, 09:27:51 PM
I like cinyc's amendment, but five times sounds like a really hefty fine. Can I get the opinion of a couple other Reps?

Why not compromise and say three times?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on December 10, 2009, 09:28:27 PM

Me? Ok, the companies that violate the Act will be dicks so a hefty fine is a good fine.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 10, 2009, 09:31:35 PM

Me? Ok, the companies that violate the Act will be dicks so a hefty fine is a good fine.

That is true.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 10, 2009, 09:43:39 PM
This Bill doesn't give any incentive to replace trees, it only waves a big stick (pun unintentional) at companies that don't replace the trees. Therefore an exceptionally hefty punishment provides a bigger stick and I don't have a problem with that.

We should perhaps specify the tree density of an acre of trees for replacement purposes - ie, the minimum number of trees that need to be planted to replace an acre that is cleared.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 10, 2009, 09:44:49 PM
That is a great point. I suppose I will have to do a bit of research to come up with a fair rate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 10, 2009, 11:11:12 PM
I like cinyc's amendment, but five times sounds like a really hefty fine. Can I get the opinion of a couple other Reps?

I'm net wedded to 5 times.  It was just a first cut.  It has to be higher than the replacement cost - at least double - so that it's punitive.  How much higher is open to debate.  Triple works too.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 12, 2009, 01:21:20 PM
Bump.

Could Mr Senator-to-be not forget he's also Northeast Lt Gov. and open a final vote on this bill ? :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 12, 2009, 09:28:06 PM
Bump.

Could Mr Senator-to-be not forget he's also Northeast Lt Gov. and open a final vote on this bill ? :)

We still haven't agreed on the penalty.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 12, 2009, 09:31:35 PM
Give me like 30 minutes and I will have my changes ready :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 12, 2009, 09:58:43 PM
Give me like 30 minutes and I will have my changes ready :)

Yeah, you guys have done great work on this, don't feel rushed by me, I'm just waiting on a final Bill. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 13, 2009, 05:32:04 AM
The SOAP expressly states that the debate lasts for 48 hours... And this bill has been introduced 108 hours ago.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 13, 2009, 11:45:43 AM
The SOAP expressly states that the debate lasts for 48 hours... And this bill has been introduced 108 hours ago.

Well, I extended the period, because there wasn't a full Bill even written up.

Because of all the Debate on this Bill, I'm extending the Debating Period.

But, today is the last day.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 13, 2009, 01:07:14 PM
The SOAP expressly states that the debate lasts for 48 hours... And this bill has been introduced 108 hours ago.

Well, I extended the period, because there wasn't a full Bill even written up.

Because of all the Debate on this Bill, I'm extending the Debating Period.

But, today is the last day.

Well, you hadn't the authority to do, but anyways it doesn't matter... Just don't do again, please.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 13, 2009, 11:33:41 PM
Somebody, please, show me a final version of this thing.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 14, 2009, 01:23:45 AM
The SOAP expressly states that the debate lasts for 48 hours... And this bill has been introduced 108 hours ago.

Well, I extended the period, because there wasn't a full Bill even written up.

Because of all the Debate on this Bill, I'm extending the Debating Period.

But, today is the last day.

Well, you hadn't the authority to do, but anyways it doesn't matter... Just don't do again, please.

Actually, my friend, as presiding officer, he has the right to extend the debate period because the bill was still being debated upon. Don't get your knickers in a twist.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 14, 2009, 01:37:29 AM
The SOAP expressly states that the debate lasts for 48 hours... And this bill has been introduced 108 hours ago.

Well, I extended the period, because there wasn't a full Bill even written up.

Because of all the Debate on this Bill, I'm extending the Debating Period.

But, today is the last day.

Well, you hadn't the authority to do, but anyways it doesn't matter... Just don't do again, please.

Actually, my friend, as presiding officer, he has the right to extend the debate period because the bill was still being debated upon. Don't get your knickers in a twist.

Precisely, and anyone who doesn't agree with his ruling as Presiding Officer has the ability to move the procedural motion: "That - The Chair's Ruling be dissented from." Then everyone can vote on it, but I think the Lt Governor has accurately determined the will of the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 14, 2009, 06:32:33 AM
My purpose is not to bother anyone, but just to prevent the Assembly from getting inactive.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 14, 2009, 11:39:48 AM
Bump.

If we don't go through Hamilton's blatant will to filibuster the Assembly, I'm going to sue someone or something.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 14, 2009, 02:05:38 PM
Bump.

If we don't go through Hamilton's blatant will to filibuster the Assembly, I'm going to sue someone or something.

I don't think it's a blatant filibuster.  I think Hamilton may have been placed on mod review again.

If we don't hear from Hamilton before 6PM today, perhaps we should hold two separate votes: The first on an amendment to the penalty provisions as follows:

Quote
Any company or organization found violating the terms of this Act shall be subject to a fine of no less than three times the cost of replacing any removed trees not replaced.

Then, on the bill itself, which currently reads:

Quote
Sustainable Forestry Act

Section A: Purpose

1. The Northeast region is home to over 40 million acres of hardwood and softwood forests used for construction, manufacturing, energy, and other uses. The Northeast region recognizes that sustainable forestry is necessary to create a healthy and diverse environment and create a lasting industry that continues to provide jobs to Northeasterners. The Northeast recognizes that certain current forestry practices are unsustainable and that a more reasonable replacement level must be mandated.

Section B: Regulations

1. Forestry (the act of clearing or eliminating more than two cords of wood for commercial purposes) on Northeast public lands shall be regulated by the region to provide sustainability.

2. Forestry on Northeast public lands by any company or organization that has not obtained a permit from the Northeast region is hereby prohibited.  This section shall not apply to any company or organization which has entered into any lease or other right to remove trees from public land on or before December 21, 2009.

3. Any company or organization removing more than two cords of wood from Northeast public land in any calendar year for commercial use under any permit issued after December 21, 2009 is REQUIRED to replace the acreage of trees removed at at least a 1:1 ratio. Companies and/or organizations are REQUIRED to ensure survivability of the new growth for two calendar years.

4.  Nothing in this Act shall prohibit individuals from cutting up to two cords of wood per year for firewood or other personal use on parcels of Northeast public land where such activity is expressly permitted by the laws or regulations of the Northeast.

5. Nothing in this Act shall supercede the terms of any lease, conveyance or similar arrangement, or any permit issued before December 21, 2009 for the duration of such lease, conveyance, arrangement or permit.
 
Section C: Non-compliance

1. Any company/organization found violating the terms of this act shall be subject to a fine of no less than twice the amount of estimated damage caused to the region's hardwood and/or softwood forests.

Section D: Public Land Use

1. The Northeast region will no longer be allowed to sell wooded land to private owners for the purpose of commercial forestry.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 14, 2009, 02:11:12 PM
Bump.

If we don't go through Hamilton's blatant will to filibuster the Assembly, I'm going to sue someone or something.

I don't think it's a blatant filibuster.  I think Hamilton may have been placed on mod review again.

Why ? ???


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 14, 2009, 02:20:48 PM
Bump.

If we don't go through Hamilton's blatant will to filibuster the Assembly, I'm going to sue someone or something.

I don't think it's a blatant filibuster.  I think Hamilton may have been placed on mod review again.

Why ? ???

I have no clue.  It was mentioned on one other thread - I think the Examiner results thread.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 14, 2009, 04:39:44 PM
Alright, I open up a vote on this Amendment:
Quote
Any company or organization found violating the terms of this Act shall be subject to a fine of no less than three times the cost of replacing any removed trees not replaced.

Vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 14, 2009, 04:57:24 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 14, 2009, 04:58:46 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 14, 2009, 06:16:14 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 14, 2009, 09:01:27 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 14, 2009, 09:14:53 PM
I won't be around here much, tomorrow. So Smid can close the vote on the Amendment, and then open a final vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 14, 2009, 11:22:04 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 15, 2009, 12:26:09 AM
I won't be around here much, tomorrow. So Smid can close the vote on the Amendment, and then open a final vote.

No worries.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 15, 2009, 02:22:05 AM
Aye

Quote
Any company or organization found violating the terms of this Act shall be subject to a fine of no less than three times the cost of replacing any removed trees not replaced.

Damn, we blocked the legislative work for 3 days for this !!! :o


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 15, 2009, 05:03:53 PM

Damn, we blocked the legislative work for 3 days for this !!! :o

It wasn't blocked so much as there were difficulties with getting the bill to the Lt. Gov. because Hamilton went and got himself under mod review again.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 15, 2009, 10:05:18 PM
The Ayes are Five, the Nays are One. The Amendment is Adopted.

I open up a final vote on this bill. Vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

Sustainable Forestry Act

Section A: Purpose

1. The Northeast region is home to over 40 million acres of hardwood and softwood forests used for construction, manufacturing, energy, and other uses. The Northeast region recognizes that sustainable forestry is necessary to create a healthy and diverse environment and create a lasting industry that continues to provide jobs to Northeasterners. The Northeast recognizes that certain current forestry practices are unsustainable and that a more reasonable replacement level must be mandated.

Section B: Regulations

1. Forestry (the act of clearing or eliminating more than two cords of wood for commercial purposes) on Northeast public lands shall be regulated by the region to provide sustainability.

2. Forestry on Northeast public lands by any company or organization that has not obtained a permit from the Northeast region is hereby prohibited.  This section shall not apply to any company or organization which has entered into any lease or other right to remove trees from public land on or before December 21, 2009.

3. Any company or organization removing more than two cords of wood from Northeast public land in any calendar year for commercial use under any permit issued after December 21, 2009 is REQUIRED to replace the acreage of trees removed at at least a 1:1 ratio. Companies and/or organizations are REQUIRED to ensure survivability of the new growth for two calendar years.

4.  Nothing in this Act shall prohibit individuals from cutting up to two cords of wood per year for firewood or other personal use on parcels of Northeast public land where such activity is expressly permitted by the laws or regulations of the Northeast.

5. Nothing in this Act shall supercede the terms of any lease, conveyance or similar arrangement, or any permit issued before December 21, 2009 for the duration of such lease, conveyance, arrangement or permit.
 
Section C: Non-compliance

1. Any company or organization found violating the terms of this Act shall be subject to a fine of no less than three times the cost of replacing any removed trees not replaced.

Section D: Public Land Use

1. The Northeast region will no longer be allowed to sell wooded land to private owners for the purpose of commercial forestry.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 15, 2009, 10:06:39 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 15, 2009, 10:07:43 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 15, 2009, 11:42:04 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 16, 2009, 08:18:26 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on December 16, 2009, 09:24:54 AM
ok sure


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 16, 2009, 01:44:04 PM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 16, 2009, 04:17:02 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 16, 2009, 10:31:30 PM
The Ayes are six, and there is one abstention. The Ayes have it.

I hereby transmit this Bill to the Governor for his signature, or veto.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 16, 2009, 10:37:50 PM
The New Northeast Minimum Wage Act

1. The Northeast Minimum Wage Act is hereby repealed.
2. The Northeast minimum wage shall be equivalent to the current Federal minimum wage.
3. The Northeast minimum wage shall increase and decrease concurrent to the Federal minimum wage.

Sponsors: Reps. Hamilton

The question is, shall the Bill be considered? Those in favor, say "Aye; those opposed "No".

The Ayes have it.

Representative Hamilton has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 16, 2009, 10:48:33 PM
The New Northeast Minimum Wage Act

1. The Northeast Minimum Wage Act is hereby repealed.
2. The Northeast minimum wage shall be equivalent to the current Federal minimum wage.
3. The Northeast minimum wage shall increase and decrease concurrent to the Federal minimum wage.

Sponsors: Reps. Hamilton and Antonio V

The question is, shall the Bill be considered? Those in favor, say "Aye; those opposed "No".

The Ayes have it.

Either Hamilton, or Antonio, have the floor.

Per the request of Representative Hamilton, Antonio's name is removed as cosponsor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 16, 2009, 11:01:11 PM
Our regional minimum wage has been set below federal standards. This rectifies that problem and ensures it doesn't happen ever again.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 16, 2009, 11:15:20 PM
This is straightforward enough that, unless there are any objections, we should just move on to the final vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 17, 2009, 12:24:55 AM
This is straightforward enough that, unless there are any objections, we should just move on to the final vote.

Why should we let the Atlasian federal government set our minimum wage?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on December 17, 2009, 01:12:57 AM
This is straightforward enough that, unless there are any objections, we should just move on to the final vote.

Why should we let the Atlasian federal government set our minimum wage?

More importantly, what is the current wage set by the government?

Shame I was rather bored with the political process otherwise, if I were still a Representative this item of legislation would have had my backing. Regardless, I must say to all members of the Assembly I commend you all on your collective efforts :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on December 17, 2009, 02:52:36 AM
This is straightforward enough that, unless there are any objections, we should just move on to the final vote.

Why should we let the Atlasian federal government set our minimum wage?

More importantly, what is the current wage set by the government?

Shame I was rather bored with the political process otherwise, if I were still a Representative this item of legislation would have had my backing. Regardless, I must say to all members of the Assembly I commend you all on your collective efforts :)

Run again!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 17, 2009, 04:03:25 AM
I oppose the minimum wage and I oppose having it raised to federal levels.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on December 17, 2009, 10:31:42 AM
Could the sponsor please provide some brief background to the lazier members: What is the current (but, of course, defunct) Northeast minimum wage?  What is the current federal minimum wage that this bill seeks to match?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 17, 2009, 01:18:34 PM
I strongly support this initiative to raise the minimum wage on a reasonable level.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 17, 2009, 09:12:48 PM
I strongly support this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 17, 2009, 10:10:31 PM
Northeast minimum wage is $6.75
Federal minimum wage is set to increase to $8.50 incrementally by the end of fiscal year 2010.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 19, 2009, 09:00:22 AM
Is the Lt Governorship currently vacant ?
It'd be nice to have a final vote of this bill before the beginning of the new session.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 19, 2009, 11:30:24 AM
No, it isn't vacant.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 19, 2009, 11:52:14 AM
So, may Barnes please open the vote ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 19, 2009, 12:09:40 PM
I hereby open up a final vote on this Bill. Vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain. Voting lasts twenty-four hours.

The New Northeast Minimum Wage Act

1. The Northeast Minimum Wage Act is hereby repealed.
2. The Northeast minimum wage shall be equivalent to the current Federal minimum wage.
3. The Northeast minimum wage shall increase and decrease concurrent to the Federal minimum wage.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 19, 2009, 12:14:07 PM
On a rethink, I vote Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 19, 2009, 12:27:11 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 19, 2009, 02:04:36 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 19, 2009, 03:04:29 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 19, 2009, 04:17:49 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 20, 2009, 12:54:53 PM
The Ayes are for; the Nays are one. The Ayes have it, the Bill has passed.


Anti-Discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.

Sponsor: Rep. Hamilton

The question is whether the Bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

The Sponsor, Reprenetative Alexander Hamilton, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 20, 2009, 01:25:42 PM
I'm not going to make a speech but I am open to any questions.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 20, 2009, 01:26:38 PM
As long as this bill doesn't enforce affirmative action, I'm willing to back it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 20, 2009, 01:32:11 PM
As long as this bill doesn't enforce affirmative action, I'm willing to back it.

Does it have any provisions that even begin to hint at affirmative action?

Does anything think that I, of all people, would write a bill in favor of affirmative action?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 20, 2009, 02:01:29 PM
This bill has my full support.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 20, 2009, 02:03:45 PM
With the First Assembly adjourning for good tonight, there will not be enough time to consider this legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 20, 2009, 02:07:31 PM
With the First Assembly adjourning for good tonight, there will not be enough time to consider this legislation.

Well, we have Monday to debate, also. The new term begins on Tuesday.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 20, 2009, 02:09:03 PM
Well, if we can open a final vote ASAP, then we can get this through. I don't think there are many "decisions" to be made on whether or not to support this legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 20, 2009, 02:11:08 PM
Is it possible to have a special motion to shorten the debate time ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 20, 2009, 02:13:01 PM
Is it possible to have a special motion to shorten the debate time ?

Yep.

I take that as a motion. Under Extraordinary Circumstances, I Herby move the debate time to end at 12:00 Midnight. We will proceed with a vote then.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 20, 2009, 02:14:34 PM
Awesome. Also, I'd like to ask my fellow Representatives if they would be interested in a two-bill floor next session. As my final term, I certainly have a lot of proposals, but I don't want to flood the queue and stop other Reps from introducing. I think we will have enough to debate two bills at once next session.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 20, 2009, 02:16:30 PM
I think it would be hard for most of us to follow 2 bills simultaneously.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 20, 2009, 02:17:20 PM
I think it would be hard for most of us to follow 2 bills simultaneously.

It's hard for "most of us" to follow one bill, yet they keep getting voted in and active people left off of ballots. So let's not go down that route.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 20, 2009, 02:27:16 PM
It's hard for "most of us" to follow one bill, yet they keep getting voted in and active people left off of ballots. So let's not go down that route.

Precisely. Do you think it would be easier for them to follow twice at the same time ?
As for me, I'd personally have no problem with this, but people like Fezzy, Mr Moderate, Dr Cynic or Smid would have difficulties to take part in debates in those conditions. Obviously, people, tell me if I'm wrong. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 20, 2009, 02:28:24 PM
It's hard for "most of us" to follow one bill, yet they keep getting voted in and active people left off of ballots. So let's not go down that route.

Precisely. Do you think it would be easier for them to follow twice at the same time ?
As for me, I'd personally have no problem with this, but people like Fezzy, Mr Moderate, Dr Cynic or Smid would have difficulties to take part in debates in those conditions. Obviously, people, tell me if I'm wrong. ;)

And so because of their inactivity, the Assembly's work should suffer? I should hope not. Imagine if the US Senate worked revolved around Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd's ability to participate. Um... Yeah.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 20, 2009, 02:34:22 PM
It's hard for "most of us" to follow one bill, yet they keep getting voted in and active people left off of ballots. So let's not go down that route.

Precisely. Do you think it would be easier for them to follow twice at the same time ?
As for me, I'd personally have no problem with this, but people like Fezzy, Mr Moderate, Dr Cynic or Smid would have difficulties to take part in debates in those conditions. Obviously, people, tell me if I'm wrong. ;)

And so because of their inactivity, the Assembly's work should suffer? I should hope not. Imagine if the US Senate worked revolved around Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd's ability to participate. Um... Yeah.

Only because they're not as involved as us, it doesn't mean they are inactive. And I'd like that they remain able to take part into debates, as they currently do.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 20, 2009, 02:35:48 PM
It's hard for "most of us" to follow one bill, yet they keep getting voted in and active people left off of ballots. So let's not go down that route.

Precisely. Do you think it would be easier for them to follow twice at the same time ?
As for me, I'd personally have no problem with this, but people like Fezzy, Mr Moderate, Dr Cynic or Smid would have difficulties to take part in debates in those conditions. Obviously, people, tell me if I'm wrong. ;)

And so because of their inactivity, the Assembly's work should suffer? I should hope not. Imagine if the US Senate worked revolved around Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd's ability to participate. Um... Yeah.

Only because they're not as involved as us, it doesn't mean they are inactive. And I'd like that they remain able to take part into debates, as they currently do.

Yes, but it is my opinion that we can get ore work done if we have two bills on the floor at once. Some bills take longer to debate, aand some need very little. I think it would be rude of me, or anyone else, to flood the queue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 20, 2009, 02:50:43 PM
It's hard for "most of us" to follow one bill, yet they keep getting voted in and active people left off of ballots. So let's not go down that route.

Precisely. Do you think it would be easier for them to follow twice at the same time ?
As for me, I'd personally have no problem with this, but people like Fezzy, Mr Moderate, Dr Cynic or Smid would have difficulties to take part in debates in those conditions. Obviously, people, tell me if I'm wrong. ;)

And so because of their inactivity, the Assembly's work should suffer? I should hope not. Imagine if the US Senate worked revolved around Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd's ability to participate. Um... Yeah.

Only because they're not as involved as us, it doesn't mean they are inactive. And I'd like that they remain able to take part into debates, as they currently do.

Yes, but it is my opinion that we can get ore work done if we have two bills on the floor at once. Some bills take longer to debate, aand some need very little. I think it would be rude of me, or anyone else, to flood the queue.

Well, I'm still undecided on this. I guess I will wait t hear the others' opinion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 20, 2009, 03:21:30 PM
It's a bad idea.  It's impossible to follow any discussion of two bills simultaneously when we only have one thread for all legislative business.  Things get muddled.  Votes get lost.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 20, 2009, 05:08:30 PM
It's a bad idea.  It's impossible to follow any discussion of two bills simultaneously when we only have one thread for all legislative business.  Things get muddled.  Votes get lost.

I'm reassured that someone agress with me. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 20, 2009, 06:00:36 PM
Well, we have Monday to debate, also. The new term begins on Tuesday.

Why?  The election ends tonight.

Is it possible to have a special motion to shorten the debate time ?

Yep.

I take that as a motion. Under Extraordinary Circumstances, I Herby move the debate time to end at 12:00 Midnight. We will proceed with a vote then.

I object.  Speeding consideration of a bill without a vote violates the SOAP.  We can vote to cut off debate, but that vote must be held open for 24 hours.

The next Assembly should take up this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 20, 2009, 06:23:44 PM
It's a bad idea.  It's impossible to follow any discussion of two bills simultaneously when we only have one thread for all legislative business.  Things get muddled.  Votes get lost.

I agree with this. One thing at a time. There's no reason really to throw two, three or four bills out at once.

I also think it's unfair to list me as inactive. I'm here when I'm home. I have a demanding work schedule that takes up a great deal of my time, but I'm always active here.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 20, 2009, 07:43:19 PM
Well, we have Monday to debate, also. The new term begins on Tuesday.

Why?  The election ends tonight.

Is it possible to have a special motion to shorten the debate time ?

Yep.

I take that as a motion. Under Extraordinary Circumstances, I Herby move the debate time to end at 12:00 Midnight. We will proceed with a vote then.

I object.  Speeding consideration of a bill without a vote violates the SOAP.  We can vote to cut off debate, but that vote must be held open for 24 hours.

The next Assembly should take up this bill.

The Constitution of the NE stipulates that Terms begging on the first Tuesday following the election.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 20, 2009, 09:36:38 PM
The Constitution of the NE stipulates that Terms begging on the first Tuesday following the election.

True.

I still object to holding this vote tonight, as it violates the SOAP.  Even if the vote starts at midnight, the Governor can't sign it until Tuesday, after the new Assembly is in session.  Do we want to create a constitutional crisis should he veto it?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 20, 2009, 09:38:28 PM
The Constitution of the NE stipulates that Terms begging on the first Tuesday following the election.

True.

I still object to holding this vote tonight, as it violates the SOAP.  Even if the vote starts at midnight, the Governor can't sign it until Tuesday, after the new Assembly is in session.  Do we want to create a constitutional crisis should he veto it?

Yes. It'll spice things up, give our lazy CJO something else to do, and hopefully fix the ambiguity in the Constitution.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 21, 2009, 02:41:30 AM
I open up a final vote on this Bill. Vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

Anti-Discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 21, 2009, 02:43:56 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 21, 2009, 02:47:16 AM
I once again object to this bill being brought to the floor before the end of the non-waived 48-hour debate period.

If forced to vote, I vote nay.  This legislation is unnecessary, as discrimination is prohibited under the Atlasian and Northeast Constitutions.  Section 2 is particularly troubling.  One successfully litigated sexual harassment or racial discrimination complaint against a rogue manager - even before a lowly administrative agency - could theoretically cause contracts to be canceled.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 21, 2009, 02:50:19 AM
I once again object to this bill being brought to the floor before the end of the non-waived 48-hour debate period.

Objection noted.

Do you wish to formally challenge the vote?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 21, 2009, 02:53:25 AM
Alright, I'm taking cinyc's objection as a good excuse to amend this bill.

Anti-Discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts for a three-year period to any company or organization which is found to repeatedly discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 21, 2009, 02:54:30 AM
I still wish to see a final vote before the session ends. It's pretty straight forward and no need to cause even more work for next session.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 21, 2009, 03:17:53 AM
I once again object to this bill being brought to the floor before the end of the non-waived 48-hour debate period.

Objection noted.

Do you wish to formally challenge the vote?

Yes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 21, 2009, 08:48:41 AM
What the hell is happening right now ? Are we still debating or is the vote begun ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on December 21, 2009, 11:43:03 AM
Indeed, should debate be reopened for the bill, I would like to see it amended, changing "gender" to "gender identity."

Anyway, with response to us "more casual" posters:
As many of you know, I was just kinda thrust into the Assembly by our kind governor after making a career of legislating in the "big boy" Senate (and soon after, the presidency). Things are done a bit differently there. More bills, longer debate.

I understand there is a desire to have fast paced action here, but the number of people who are addicted to this forum are limited. Some of us have great legislation or debate points to offer, but simply don't get around to it when a bill can be almost entirely finalized before we even see it. I generally don't get to check this forum during the weekends, which can cause me to miss debates and votes in their entirety.

A possible solution to this would be to take up this "two bills at the same time" idea, while simultaneously doubling the amount of time spent debating and voting on each. That way, you leave people like myself more time to participate while still moving along the business of the Assembly at the bill-per-day rate as before.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 21, 2009, 11:47:07 AM
What the hell is happening right now ? Are we still debating or is the vote begun ?

cinyc protested the vote on the grounds that the SOAP couldn't be suspended voluntarily.

I have to agree with him, there will be no time for another vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 21, 2009, 12:13:42 PM
I agree with Mr. Moderate, we can debate two bills at once and extend debate from 48 to 72 hours, we can get more participation and more legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 21, 2009, 12:14:26 PM
I agree with Mr. Moderate, we can debate two bills at once and extend debate from 48 to 72 hours, we can get more participation and more legislation.

Well, then someone needs to propose an Amendment to the SOAP at the start of the new Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 21, 2009, 01:05:15 PM
I agree with Mr. Moderate, we can debate two bills at once and extend debate from 48 to 72 hours, we can get more participation and more legislation.

No way, it's totally counterproductive.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 21, 2009, 01:31:04 PM
I agree with Mr. Moderate, we can debate two bills at once and extend debate from 48 to 72 hours, we can get more participation and more legislation.

No way, it's totally counterproductive.

Um, no, it will result in better legislation and more legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 21, 2009, 01:38:50 PM
I agree with Mr. Moderate, we can debate two bills at once and extend debate from 48 to 72 hours, we can get more participation and more legislation.

No way, it's totally counterproductive.

Um, no, it will result in better legislation and more legislation.

It will result in more confusion and longer debates.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 21, 2009, 01:39:16 PM
I agree with Mr. Moderate, we can debate two bills at once and extend debate from 48 to 72 hours, we can get more participation and more legislation.

No way, it's totally counterproductive.

Um, no, it will result in better legislation and more legislation.

It will result in more confusion and longer debates.

You'd have to be illiterate to get confused.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 21, 2009, 01:53:47 PM
I agree with Mr. Moderate, we can debate two bills at once and extend debate from 48 to 72 hours, we can get more participation and more legislation.

No way, it's totally counterproductive.

Um, no, it will result in better legislation and more legislation.

It will result in more confusion and longer debates.

You'd have to be illiterate to get confused.

Please listen to what said Mr Moderate and Dr Cynic. They explained it better than me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 21, 2009, 02:09:23 PM
I agree with Mr. Moderate, we can debate two bills at once and extend debate from 48 to 72 hours, we can get more participation and more legislation.

No way, it's totally counterproductive.

Um, no, it will result in better legislation and more legislation.

It will result in more confusion and longer debates.

You'd have to be illiterate to get confused.

Please listen to what said Mr Moderate and Dr Cynic. They explained it better than me.

read the bolded


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 21, 2009, 07:13:40 PM
As for you to know, I am candidate for speakership.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 21, 2009, 08:04:21 PM
I will be a candidate for Speaker as well.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 21, 2009, 08:12:56 PM
I will be a candidate for Speaker as well.

:)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 21, 2009, 10:24:05 PM
I will accept votes for the Speakership.

(But I in no way expect to win :P)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 21, 2009, 10:59:26 PM
I will accept votes for the Speakership.

(But I in no way expect to win :P)

Are you actually running? I need to know what names to put on the ballot.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 22, 2009, 12:15:31 AM
Order!

The Second Assembly of the Northeast is now in session.

A majority of members having taken their oaths, we may proceed with the election of a speaker.

Vote for only 1 candidate.
[ ] Anotnio V
[ ] cinyc
[ ] ________ (Write-in)



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 22, 2009, 12:15:52 AM
cinyc


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on December 22, 2009, 12:16:35 AM
[ ] Anotnio V
[X] cinyc
[ ] ________ (Write-in)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 22, 2009, 12:41:22 AM
cinyc


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 22, 2009, 12:57:39 AM
Antonio V


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 22, 2009, 12:58:27 AM
I will accept votes for the Speakership.

(But I in no way expect to win :P)

Are you actually running? I need to know what names to put on the ballot.

I assumed that I was, but appearantly since it's been decided that my wording must've been too ambiguous, forget it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on December 22, 2009, 12:59:49 AM
Eugene Debs (Write-in)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 22, 2009, 04:04:39 AM
[X] Antonio V
[ ] cinyc
[ ] ________ (Write-in)

Considering the domination of the right, I guess I don't have any chance to get in. It's sad because Speakership is not supposed to be a partisan position...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on December 22, 2009, 04:26:39 AM
Speakership is not supposed to be a partisan position...


Bullsh**t.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 22, 2009, 04:32:23 AM

?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 22, 2009, 04:34:54 AM
Considering the domination of the right, I guess I don't have any chance to get in. It's sad because Speakership is not supposed to be a partisan position...

Don't sell yourself short.  I think you're vastly underestimating your chances of winning the Speakership.  This vote really could really go either way.  No one party or particular ideology dominates this Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on December 22, 2009, 04:38:22 AM


All positions are partisan.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on December 22, 2009, 05:08:20 AM
Considering the domination of the right, I guess I don't have any chance to get in. It's sad because Speakership is not supposed to be a partisan position...
Domination of the right?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 22, 2009, 10:28:38 AM

Order!

There will be order.

We will return to the vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on December 22, 2009, 10:34:00 AM

None of this. This type of language is not to be used in this Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 22, 2009, 11:37:51 AM
Antonio's cluelessness and inability to be professional were my reasons for voting against him. He further proved it with his posts in this thread.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 22, 2009, 11:39:12 AM
Antonio's cluelessness and inability to be professional were my reasons for voting against him. He further proved it with his posts in this thread.

Order!

Members will respect one another.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 22, 2009, 11:40:24 AM
Antonio's cluelessness and inability to be professional were my reasons for voting against him. He further proved it with his posts in this thread.

Order!

Members will respect one another.

I respectfully refuse. I speak the truth and nothing but. His immature behavior cost him my vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 22, 2009, 11:41:29 AM
Antonio's cluelessness and inability to be professional were my reasons for voting against him. He further proved it with his posts in this thread.

Order!

Members will respect one another.

I respectfully refuse. I speak the truth and nothing but. His immature behavior cost him my vote.

You mean you refuse to listen to the chair?

I direct the Sergent-At-Arms to remove the Rep. from the Chamber.  Maybe an hour of cooling-off time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 22, 2009, 11:42:34 AM
Antonio's cluelessness and inability to be professional were my reasons for voting against him. He further proved it with his posts in this thread.

Order!

Members will respect one another.

I respectfully refuse. I speak the truth and nothing but. His immature behavior cost him my vote.

You mean you refuse to listen to the chair?

I direct the Sergent-At-Arms to remove the Rep. form the Chamber.  Maybe an hour of cooling-off time.

Yes. I refuse to listen to you or anyone else.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 22, 2009, 11:51:12 AM
Antonio's cluelessness and inability to be professional were my reasons for voting against him. He further proved it with his posts in this thread.

Order!

Members will respect one another.

I respectfully refuse. I speak the truth and nothing but. His immature behavior cost him my vote.

You mean you refuse to listen to the chair?

I direct the Sergent-At-Arms to remove the Rep. form the Chamber.  Maybe an hour of cooling-off time.

Yes. I refuse to listen to you or anyone else.

You will be at order!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on December 22, 2009, 12:00:27 PM
There will be order in the Assembly. This is a first, and final order.  If Representative does not come to order, I will presue this further with the rest of the Assembly, and the CJO.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 22, 2009, 04:55:23 PM
Antonio's cluelessness and inability to be professional were my reasons for voting against him. He further proved it with his posts in this thread.

Can I respectfully ask you what you mean by this ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 22, 2009, 05:23:55 PM
Antonio's cluelessness and inability to be professional were my reasons for voting against him. He further proved it with his posts in this thread.

Can I respectfully ask you what you mean by this ?

Your bitter partisan attacks and inability to respect others led me to vote for cinyc, someone who has never spoke ill of any group without due reason.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 22, 2009, 05:41:25 PM
Antonio's cluelessness and inability to be professional were my reasons for voting against him. He further proved it with his posts in this thread.

Can I respectfully ask you what you mean by this ?

Your bitter partisan attacks and inability to respect others led me to vote for cinyc, someone who has never spoke ill of any group without due reason.

Please, tell me when I ever made partisan attacks and lacked respect toward other Reps. in the Assembly thread.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 22, 2009, 06:17:50 PM
Antonio's cluelessness and inability to be professional were my reasons for voting against him. He further proved it with his posts in this thread.

Can I respectfully ask you what you mean by this ?

Your bitter partisan attacks and inability to respect others led me to vote for cinyc, someone who has never spoke ill of any group without due reason.

Please, tell me when I ever made partisan attacks and lacked respect toward other Reps. in the Assembly thread.

Not in this thread, maybe. I'm not going to dig. But certainly around the bord. You have spread ies and been openly hostile to myself, Libertas, andothers. If you ant a higher office, run for Governor. I will votefor you in February i you do.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on December 22, 2009, 06:26:39 PM
My vote for speaker goes to Cinyc.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 22, 2009, 06:29:52 PM
Antonio's cluelessness and inability to be professional were my reasons for voting against him. He further proved it with his posts in this thread.

Can I respectfully ask you what you mean by this ?

Your bitter partisan attacks and inability to respect others led me to vote for cinyc, someone who has never spoke ill of any group without due reason.

Please, tell me when I ever made partisan attacks and lacked respect toward other Reps. in the Assembly thread.

Not in this thread, maybe. I'm not going to dig. But certainly around the bord. You have spread ies and been openly hostile to myself, Libertas, andothers. If you ant a higher office, run for Governor. I will votefor you in February i you do.

I have always been polite with all of you in legislative debates. Notwithsatnding my personal concerns with you, I voted most of your bills because I found them good and well-written. So please don't call me immature.  I can perfectly accept that you don't vote for me, but please don't throw dishonest attacks against me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on December 22, 2009, 06:31:36 PM
Antonio's cluelessness and inability to be professional were my reasons for voting against him. He further proved it with his posts in this thread.

Can I respectfully ask you what you mean by this ?

Your bitter partisan attacks and inability to respect others led me to vote for cinyc, someone who has never spoke ill of any group without due reason.

Please, tell me when I ever made partisan attacks and lacked respect toward other Reps. in the Assembly thread.

Not in this thread, maybe. I'm not going to dig. But certainly around the bord. You have spread ies and been openly hostile to myself, Libertas, andothers. If you ant a higher office, run for Governor. I will votefor you in February i you do.

I have always been polite with all of you in legislative debates. Notwithsatnding my personal concerns with you, I voted most of your bills because I found them good and well-written. So please don't call me immature.  I can perfectly accept that you don't vote for me, but please don't throw dishonest attacks against me.

But its true though. You treat people you disagree with pretty poorly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 22, 2009, 06:38:04 PM
As a Northeast Representative, I have always debated about issues and never with personal anger. I challenge you to prove the contrary.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 22, 2009, 06:40:41 PM
As a Northeast Representative, I have always debated about issues and never with personal anger. I challenge you to prove the contrary.

Actually, you called me an 'idiot' multiple times.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 22, 2009, 06:48:01 PM
As a Northeast Representative, I have always debated about issues and never with personal anger. I challenge you to prove the contrary.

Actually, you called me an 'idiot' multiple times.

On subjects that had nothing to do with the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 22, 2009, 06:48:48 PM
As a Northeast Representative, I have always debated about issues and never with personal anger. I challenge you to prove the contrary.

Actually, you called me an 'idiot' multiple times.

On subjects that had nothing to do with the Assembly.

No, I'm pretty sure you insulted me in the Assembly too once or twice.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 22, 2009, 07:03:23 PM
If I did, I apologize. Anyways, the attacks thrown by Hamilton against me remain ridiculous and groundless, especially coming from him. But I've now understood that the truth is irrelevant for Hamilton, and that, since he has the majority, he will have no problem to impose his own vision on everything.
Hamilton and Libertas, I really look forward to see what will be your opinion of the bills I have introduced, and if you will just bother to look at the text instead of just making them fail because of who introduced them. If you will propose Amendment or just discard them since the beginning. Now we will see who are the hacks and who are the ones who work for the improvement of our region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 22, 2009, 08:12:52 PM
If I did, I apologize. Anyways, the attacks thrown by Hamilton against me remain ridiculous and groundless, especially coming from him. But I've now understood that the truth is irrelevant for Hamilton, and that, since he has the majority, he will have no problem to impose his own vision on everything.
Hamilton and Libertas, I really look forward to see what will be your opinion of the bills I have introduced, and if you will just bother to look at the text instead of just making them fail because of who introduced them. If you will propose Amendment or just discard them since the beginning. Now we will see who are the hacks and who are the ones who work for the improvement of our region.

See. You just proved correct what I've been saying. "I will have no problem to impose my vision on everyting." lol? What? I've collaborated with almost every Representative on various peices of legislation, have a taken an inclusive approach to legislation and worked to get my bills to pass with as many votes as possble rather than ramming them through with the bare minimum.

You may think what I've said are ttacks, but I think what you've just said here is an attack. You know me well enough by now to know that I will only stop when you do. I have done my best to bridge left and right within my legislation, never once have I been partisan and divisive in my aproach.

What you say around the forum also affected my vote. Don't try to say that I shouldn't judge on things that exit outside this thread. You have been more than eager to vote against me and criticize me despite "strongly suppoprting" the large majority of my legislation. You judge me based on what other people think of me. That's your righ. But if I want to vote for someone abit more civil and respectful,and far less partisan (non-partisan, really), then I shall do so and encourage others to as well.

You neer had a problem with me until te ARC was created. Andbe honest. You'd never even consider votingme in s Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on December 22, 2009, 08:57:39 PM
As a Northeast Representative, I have always debated about issues and never with personal anger. I challenge you to prove the contrary.
The expectation for respect doesn't stop at the borders of this thread.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 22, 2009, 09:34:02 PM
Order!

Do any of you understand that this is not a thread for personal debate?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on December 22, 2009, 10:19:48 PM
Yes, can we please keep this to business for right now. I'd like to get a Speaker elected, so that we can call for a Holiday Recess for the region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 22, 2009, 10:36:10 PM
Yes, can we please keep this to business for right now. I'd like to get a Speaker elected, so that we can call for a Holiday Recess for the region.

Well, we have 7 votes in - everyone but Fezzyfestoon's.  I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for Fezzy to vote, given his past voting history.  Even if he does and votes for Antonio V, I think I would win 4-3-1.

Mr. Lt. Governor - are you going to take your federal seat immediately?  If so, Gov. AndrewCT, can we wait until after the Holiday Recess to recommend a new Lt. Gov. - or should we do that before the recess?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 22, 2009, 10:41:04 PM
Yes, can we please keep this to business for right now. I'd like to get a Speaker elected, so that we can call for a Holiday Recess for the region.

Well, we have 7 votes in - everyone but Fezzyfestoon's.  I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for Fezzy to vote, given his past voting history.  Even if he does and votes for Antonio V, I think I would win 4-3-1.

Mr. Lt. Governor - are you going to take your federal seat immediately?  If so, Gov. AndrewCT, can we wait until after the Holiday Recess to recommend a new Lt. Gov. - or should we do that before the recess?

I plan on resigning after the Speakership election. That should give the Governor ample time. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 23, 2009, 12:18:10 AM
cinyc: 4 votes
Antonio : 2 votes
Write In: 1 vote
One abstention (fezzy)

cinyc is hereby elected Speaker of this Assembly.

Congratulations, Mr. Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 23, 2009, 12:52:50 AM
Thank you, Former Lt. Governor Barnes for your dedicated work as Lt. Governor for the past few months.  Your presence will be missed.  Good luck in your new endeavor at the HAEV!

Is there a motion to adjourn on the floor?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 23, 2009, 02:45:36 AM
Move to adjourn!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 23, 2009, 03:32:17 AM
I'll second that motion, for convenience.  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.

The Northeast Assembly shall stand adjourned until 8:00PM Eastern on Sunday, December 27.  

At that time, pursuant to our obligations under Article IV, Section viii of the New Northeast Constitution (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/New_Northeast_Constitution), we will take up the issue of who the Assembly will recommend the Governor appoint to the now-vacant Lt. Governorship.  Nominations and discussion of the nominees will be allowed until 8:00PM Eastern on Tuesday, December 29, unless members agree to suspend or extend the debate.  A vote will commence shortly thereafter, and remain open for 24 hours.

Have a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

We stand adjourned.

()


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 27, 2009, 08:00:28 PM
()

Welcome back - I hope you all had a good holiday season!

The Northeast Assembly is back in session to discuss who to recommend to fill the Lt. Governor vacancy.  The manner in which we decide (first-past-the-post, PR-STV, some other way) is also open to debate.

For reference, Article IV, Section viii of the New Northeast Constitution states:
Quote
If the office of Lieutenant Governor is to become vacant at some point while he or she is in office, than the Governor may appoint a new one after the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.

The debate period will be open until at least 8PM on Tuesday, December 29, unless we otherwise agree to cut off or extend debate pursuant to the SOAP.

The floor is open.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 27, 2009, 08:04:05 PM
Mr. Speaker, if I may:

I would like to offer forward my recommendation of our former Speaker, Mr. Smid, to Governor Andrew CT for the position of Lt. Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 27, 2009, 08:11:33 PM
Mr. Speaker, if I may:

I would like to offer forward my recommendation of our former Speaker, Mr. Smid, to Governor Andrew CT for the position of Lt. Governor.

Noted. 

Perhaps we should wait to see if there are more  nominees before deciding what vote count method to use - but does anyone have a preference?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 27, 2009, 09:28:50 PM
I nominate segwaystyle2012 and I think we should use a single vote system, with no changes once cast.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 27, 2009, 09:30:34 PM
I nominate segwaystyle2012 and I think we should use a single vote system, with no changes once cast.

Noted.

It probably doesn't matter if there are only two candidates.  We generally haven't allowed vote changes in the Assembly once cast - though that perhaps is due to the fact that no one has changed their vote after it was cast in a meaningful vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 27, 2009, 10:19:29 PM
Mr. Speaker, I have no issues with Rep. Hamilton's voting method proposal, so I'd like to second it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 27, 2009, 10:51:51 PM
I nominate Antonio V, as well.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 28, 2009, 10:17:38 AM
Mr. Speaker, if I may:

I would like to offer forward my recommendation of our former Speaker, Mr. Smid, to Governor Andrew CT for the position of Lt. Governor.

Seconded.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on December 28, 2009, 10:20:09 AM
I nominate segwaystyle2012 and I think we should use a single vote system, with no changes once cast.

I would like to second this nomination and third this voting method proposal.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 28, 2009, 12:52:08 PM

Now that Antonio V has seconded Smid's nomination, does he really want to be on that ballot - or do Smid and segway style for that matter?

The only problem I have with your voting proposal is that there's no one to break a tie.  If there's a tie, what the heck are we going to do?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 28, 2009, 12:56:38 PM

Now that Antonio V has seconded Smid's nomination, does he really want to be on that ballot - or do Smid and segway style for that matter?

The only problem I have with your voting proposal is that there's no one to break a tie.  If there's a tie, what the heck are we going to do?

ties would be a problem with any voting system


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 28, 2009, 01:16:02 PM

Now that Antonio V has seconded Smid's nomination, does he really want to be on that ballot - or do Smid and segway style for that matter?

The only problem I have with your voting proposal is that there's no one to break a tie.  If there's a tie, what the heck are we going to do?

ties would be a problem with any voting system

In a three-way race, a tie or plurality victory is more likely if we use your plan instead of PR-STV.

In any case, what we do in the case of a tie needs to be thought out.  I suppose we could revote or perhaps send both names.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 28, 2009, 01:35:20 PM
As to make it clear, I'm not candidate to Lt Governorship and I officially ask not to be on the ballot.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: fezzyfestoon on December 28, 2009, 10:51:57 PM
Yeah, sorry.  I'm gonna go ahead and resign.  My return was grand and thanks for the support, but I can't get into this stuff again.  It just doesn't do it for me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 28, 2009, 10:53:08 PM
Yeah, sorry.  I'm gonna go ahead and resign.  My return was grand and thanks for the support, but I can't get into this stuff again.  It just doesn't do it for me.

:(


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on December 28, 2009, 11:51:43 PM
I would be glad to accept this nomination and sincerely hope I am given this chance to prove myself. Thank you for considering me as a candidate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 29, 2009, 12:09:51 AM
Yeah, sorry.  I'm gonna go ahead and resign.  My return was grand and thanks for the support, but I can't get into this stuff again.  It just doesn't do it for me.

Thank you for your service.  I will inform the governor (if you haven't already) so that he can name your replacement.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 29, 2009, 06:34:05 AM
Yeah, sorry.  I'm gonna go ahead and resign.  My return was grand and thanks for the support, but I can't get into this stuff again.  It just doesn't do it for me.

Sad. :(


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 29, 2009, 05:21:39 PM
I wouldn't mind having my seat back :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 29, 2009, 06:28:12 PM
I would like nomination.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 29, 2009, 06:44:21 PM
The appointment is up to Governor AndrewCT.  You should be telling him this, by PM or in the Governors' office thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=71572).   We in the Assembly have no say about who the governor appoints to fill a vacant Assembly seat.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 29, 2009, 06:51:07 PM
The appointment is up to Governor AndrewCT.  You should be telling him this, by PM or in the Governors' office thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=71572).   We in the Assembly have no say about who the governor appoints to fill a vacant Assembly seat.

my apologies.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 29, 2009, 07:17:33 PM
The appointment is up to Governor AndrewCT.  You should be telling him this, by PM or in the Governors' office thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=71572).   We in the Assembly have no say about who the governor appoints to fill a vacant Assembly seat.

my apologies.

There's no need to apologize.  The governor simply may not see your interest if it's only expressed on the Assembly thread - that should have been my main point.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 29, 2009, 08:00:08 PM
With only two declared candidates, the Assembly shall determine who to recommend to the vacant Lt. Governorship in a first-past-the-post vote - so please just vote for one candidate.  No other method was proposed and seconded, so there's no need to put the method to a vote.  As in federal elections, your initial vote can only be edited within the first 20 minutes.  Any vote edited after 20 minutes will be void. 

The vote will be held open until the earlier of 8:00PM on Wednesday, December 30, 2009, or when all 7 sitting Northeast Representatives have voted.

()

The question shall now be put to a vote:

The Northeast Assembly recommends that Governor AndrewCT appoint the following Northeast citizen Lt. Governor:

[  ]  segwaystyle2012 (GaryJohnson2012)
[  ]  Smid
[  ]  Write in:_________________________


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 29, 2009, 08:00:24 PM
segwaystyle2012


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on December 29, 2009, 09:03:05 PM

[X]  segwaystyle2012 (GaryJohnson2012)
[  ]  Smid
[  ]  Write in:_________________________


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 29, 2009, 09:11:11 PM
Smid


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 30, 2009, 06:05:54 AM
[  ]  segwaystyle2012 (GaryJohnson2012)
[X]  Smid
[  ]  Write in:_________________________


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on December 30, 2009, 08:10:29 AM
I respectfully abstain. AndyCT is a big boy and he can make big boy decisions all on his lonesome here, just as we don't need him making an executive order suggesting who should be assembly speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 30, 2009, 09:30:54 AM
I respectfully abstain. AndyCT is a big boy and he can make big boy decisions all on his lonesome here, just as we don't need him making an executive order suggesting who should be assembly speaker.

It's not about what he needs or not, it's just how the Northeast Constitution works. Seeing how often you make lawsuits about the unconstitutionality of some practices, I thought you knew it better. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on December 30, 2009, 11:32:33 AM
I respectfully abstain. AndyCT is a big boy and he can make big boy decisions all on his lonesome here, just as we don't need him making an executive order suggesting who should be assembly speaker.

It's not about what he needs or not, it's just how the Northeast Constitution works. Seeing how often you make lawsuits about the unconstitutionality of some practices, I thought you knew it better. :P

There's a lot of stupid crap in our constitution, and no reason why I can't abstain here on an essentially pointless vote to make commentary on it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 30, 2009, 11:34:56 AM
I respectfully abstain. AndyCT is a big boy and he can make big boy decisions all on his lonesome here, just as we don't need him making an executive order suggesting who should be assembly speaker.

It's not about what he needs or not, it's just how the Northeast Constitution works. Seeing how often you make lawsuits about the unconstitutionality of some practices, I thought you knew it better. :P

There's a lot of stupid crap in our constitution, and no reason why I can't abstain here on an essentially pointless vote to make commentary on it.

True. ;) But I'm sure you have an opinion on this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 30, 2009, 11:35:54 AM
I respectfully abstain. AndyCT is a big boy and he can make big boy decisions all on his lonesome here, just as we don't need him making an executive order suggesting who should be assembly speaker.

It's not about what he needs or not, it's just how the Northeast Constitution works. Seeing how often you make lawsuits about the unconstitutionality of some practices, I thought you knew it better. :P

There's a lot of stupid crap in our constitution, and no reason why I can't abstain here on an essentially pointless vote to make commentary on it.

True. ;) But I'm sure you have an opinion on this.

Who cares? There is no vote changing anyway!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 30, 2009, 11:37:31 AM
I respectfully abstain. AndyCT is a big boy and he can make big boy decisions all on his lonesome here, just as we don't need him making an executive order suggesting who should be assembly speaker.

It's not about what he needs or not, it's just how the Northeast Constitution works. Seeing how often you make lawsuits about the unconstitutionality of some practices, I thought you knew it better. :P

There's a lot of stupid crap in our constitution, and no reason why I can't abstain here on an essentially pointless vote to make commentary on it.

True. ;) But I'm sure you have an opinion on this.

Who cares? There is no vote changing anyway!

And obviously I was uselessly trying to influentiate Mr. Moderate in order to make him change his vote, right ? ::)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 30, 2009, 11:39:03 AM
I respectfully abstain. AndyCT is a big boy and he can make big boy decisions all on his lonesome here, just as we don't need him making an executive order suggesting who should be assembly speaker.

It's not about what he needs or not, it's just how the Northeast Constitution works. Seeing how often you make lawsuits about the unconstitutionality of some practices, I thought you knew it better. :P

There's a lot of stupid crap in our constitution, and no reason why I can't abstain here on an essentially pointless vote to make commentary on it.

True. ;) But I'm sure you have an opinion on this.

Who cares? There is no vote changing anyway!

And obviously I was uselessly trying to influentiate Mr. Moderate in order to make him change his vote, right ? ::)

This isn't the first time you've harassed someone for voting a way you disagree with. I know what you did to azmagic and he absolutely owned your sorry self.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 30, 2009, 11:44:06 AM
I know you are ready to anything to achieve your goals, but do you really think you will convince someone with your sneaky talking points ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 30, 2009, 11:46:40 AM
I know you are ready to anything to achieve your goals, but do you really think you will convince someone with your sneaky talking points ?

lol, pathetic.

So what is wrong with me wanting to achieve my goals? You don't want to achieve yours? azmagc was right: "You're such a dolt, dude."

Do you really think you will convince anyone with your sneaky talking points?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 30, 2009, 12:47:29 PM
I'm looking to write an expansive bill centered on urban revitalization. Anyone interested in helping?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on December 30, 2009, 12:50:03 PM
I'm looking to write an expansive bill centered on urban revitalization. Anyone interested in helping?

Sure, what sort of ideas did you have in mind?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 30, 2009, 12:52:20 PM
I'm looking to write an expansive bill centered on urban revitalization. Anyone interested in helping?

Sure, what sort of ideas did you have in mind?

Well, what I want is to create market-based initiatives to bring businesses back to urban centers, improve public schools in inner-city areas, and combat crime in urban centers. I believe if we can successfully manage to work on these three ideas, we can scale back the welfare state and create more opportunities for Northeasterners.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on December 30, 2009, 01:31:51 PM
I'm looking to write an expansive bill centered on urban revitalization. Anyone interested in helping?

Sure, what sort of ideas did you have in mind?

Well, what I want is to create market-based initiatives to bring businesses back to urban centers, improve public schools in inner-city areas, and combat crime in urban centers. I believe if we can successfully manage to work on these three ideas, we can scale back the welfare state and create more opportunities for Northeasterners.
I would think that making available tax credits and low-interest loans for potential business starters within urban areas could jump-start economic growth.

I think the best way to deal with crime would definitely be by employing positive-focused programs to reduce the causes of crime rather than on expanding policing which will only lead to more inner-city resentment.

For education, I'm not sure how much influence regional government should exert on local school systems. But I think the education system could be improved my focusing more on students as individuals. 

Perhaps establish a program to identify the most gifted students within inner city communities and ensure they are able to thrive in well-funded competitive schools, upon graduation of which they would be immediately eligible for a grant if they remain to improve their area?

Students who aren't interested in academics, on the other hand, should be provided the with the resources to develop another skill or trade valuable to society, rather than be forced to fail and grow disillusioned.

Also improvement of mass transportation services is a must for any urban revitalization program.

Just some ideas. Any thoughts? I could write some things up if you wish.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 30, 2009, 01:39:10 PM
I'm looking to write an expansive bill centered on urban revitalization. Anyone interested in helping?

Sure, what sort of ideas did you have in mind?

Well, what I want is to create market-based initiatives to bring businesses back to urban centers, improve public schools in inner-city areas, and combat crime in urban centers. I believe if we can successfully manage to work on these three ideas, we can scale back the welfare state and create more opportunities for Northeasterners.
I would think that making available tax credits and low-interest loans for potential business starters within urban areas could jump-start economic growth.

I think the best way to deal with crime would definitely be by employing positive-focused programs to reduce the causes of crime rather than on expanding policing which will only lead to more inner-city resentment.

For education, I'm not sure how much influence regional government should exert on local school systems. But I think the education system could be improved my focusing more on students as individuals. 

Perhaps establish a program to identify the most gifted students within inner city communities and ensure they are able to thrive in well-funded competitive schools, upon graduation of which they would be immediately eligible for a grant if they remain to improve their area?

Students who aren't interested in academics, on the other hand, should be provided the with the resources to develop another skill or trade valuable to society, rather than be forced to fail and grow disillusioned.

Also improvement of mass transportation services is a must for any urban revitalization program.

Just some ideas. Any thoughts? I could write some things up if you wish.

These are all ideas I have advocated and support. But on problem with local inner-city school districts that they are often influenced by the corrupt politics and special interests.

These are some good ideas to start with. Another idea is a work from home program for single mothers.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on December 30, 2009, 01:43:52 PM
These are all ideas I have advocated and support. But on problem with local inner-city school districts that they are often influenced by the corrupt politics and special interests.
Oh I agree completely. But does the region have jurisdiction to set policy for city school systems?

Quote
These are some good ideas to start with. Another idea is a work from home program for single mothers.

How would such a program work?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 30, 2009, 01:45:40 PM

Quote
These are some good ideas to start with. Another idea is a work from home program for single mothers.

How would such a program work?

Not sure but I will be looking in to it.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 30, 2009, 02:32:54 PM
The Northeast Assembly recommends that Governor AndrewCT appoint the following Northeast citizen Lt. Governor:

[  ]  segwaystyle2012 (GaryJohnson2012)
[X]  Smid
[  ]  Write in:_________________________


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on December 30, 2009, 04:04:52 PM
Perhaps establish a program to identify the most gifted students within inner city communities and ensure they are able to thrive in well-funded competitive schools, upon graduation of which they would be immediately eligible for a grant if they remain to improve their area?

Students who aren't interested in academics, on the other hand, should be provided the with the resources to develop another skill or trade valuable to society, rather than be forced to fail and grow disillusioned.

One of the things I had passed in the Northeast about a year or two ago was a bill creating a system of public school choice.  How it essentially works is that, in the Northeast, a parent has the right to choose which public school their student attends within certain reasonable limits. (It does not allow for regional funding of private schools, like a traditional voucher program might.)

Presumably, this law has encouraged the creation of magnet schools across the region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 30, 2009, 05:30:17 PM
Perhaps establish a program to identify the most gifted students within inner city communities and ensure they are able to thrive in well-funded competitive schools, upon graduation of which they would be immediately eligible for a grant if they remain to improve their area?

Students who aren't interested in academics, on the other hand, should be provided the with the resources to develop another skill or trade valuable to society, rather than be forced to fail and grow disillusioned.

One of the things I had passed in the Northeast about a year or two ago was a bill creating a system of public school choice.  How it essentially works is that, in the Northeast, a parent has the right to choose which public school their student attends within certain reasonable limits. (It does not allow for regional funding of private schools, like a traditional voucher program might.)

Presumably, this law has encouraged the creation of magnet schools across the region.

Yes, I've read this text, but I think what we need is a program that encourages these students to do better and ensures they have opportunities to stay in school.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 30, 2009, 08:00:43 PM
By a vote of 3 in favor of Smid to 2 in favor of segwaystyle2012, with 1 declared abstention and 1 Northeast Representative not voting, the Northeast Assembly recommends that Governor AndrewCT appoint Smid the next Lt. Governor.

()

I will convey this information to the Governor.

Is there a motion to adjourn for the New Years' holiday until 8:00PM on Sunday, January 3, 2010, or shall we consider the first piece of legislation? 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 30, 2009, 08:01:08 PM
Consider legislation! The first piece was already started anyway :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 30, 2009, 08:03:53 PM
Consider legislation! The first piece was already started anyway :P

I don't want to hold a vote on New Years' Day, which is what would happen were I to put something on the floor tonight.  I'd actually prefer to adjourn until the 3rd.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 30, 2009, 08:30:53 PM
Since I do not have unanimous consent to adjourn, we shall consider the first piece of legislation in the queue:

Anti-Discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.

Sponsor: Rep. Hamilton

The question is whether the Bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 8:30PM Eastern on Friday, January 1, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative Alexander Hamilton, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on December 30, 2009, 09:00:09 PM
Anything in specific that the NE Assembly would like from the GM?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 30, 2009, 09:01:55 PM
Anything in specific that the NE Assembly would like from the GM?

education healthcare crime family incomes and jobs


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 30, 2009, 09:02:38 PM
Anything in specific that the NE Assembly would like from the GM?

I'm personally waiting on the diesel tax differential analysis.  By law, we're going to have to phase out highway tolls and replace them with a gas tax in the upcoming year.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on December 30, 2009, 09:11:12 PM
Motion to amend.

Anti-Discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 30, 2009, 09:11:37 PM
I'm putting forward a couple of slight, but important (at least to me) edits.

Anti-Discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, class, sexuality, size, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, size, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, size, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 30, 2009, 09:16:37 PM
Neither are friendly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 30, 2009, 09:17:53 PM
Anti-Discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts for a three-year period to any company or organization which is found to repeatedly discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 30, 2009, 09:28:12 PM
Motion to amend.

Anti-Discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.

What's the purpose of this now-unfriendly amendment, i.e., what's the difference?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 30, 2009, 09:30:34 PM
Motion to amend.

Anti-Discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.

What's the purpose of this now-unfriendly amendment, i.e., what's the difference?

Males than identify as women, females that idenitfy as men.

It's not something believe in or support legitimizing.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on December 30, 2009, 09:38:18 PM
Anything in specific that the NE Assembly would like from the GM?

education healthcare crime family incomes and jobs

I can't actually provide you with those things, but I can write an analysis on them. What, in particular, would you like for some of them? Employment is already done here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=101096.msg2252240#msg2252240). I can do education if that is a priority for the region. Health care is more national at this point, but I can provide figures if you have specific ones in mind.

Anything in specific that the NE Assembly would like from the GM?

I'm personally waiting on the diesel tax differential analysis.  By law, we're going to have to phase out highway tolls and replace them with a gas tax in the upcoming year.

If you tell me what you're planning, I can definitely do this. I have a fair idea of what you're referring to (a tax to bring diesel and gasoline consumption to parity) and I assume this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=101096.msg2192099#msg2192099) is what you would like to respond to? So you're asking how much diesel fuel taxes should increase to equate it with the tax that will be levied on gasoline?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 30, 2009, 10:11:34 PM
If you tell me what you're planning, I can definitely do this. I have a fair idea of what you're referring to (a tax to bring diesel and gasoline consumption to parity) and I assume this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=101096.msg2192099#msg2192099) is what you would like to respond to? So you're asking how much diesel fuel taxes should increase to equate it with the tax that will be levied on gasoline?

Yes.  The question is if we raise non-agricultural diesel taxes by an amount, say 1 cent more per gallon than unleaded gasoline taxes, would we get an equal amount in revenue?

For example:
FY2010: Gasoline 2.1 cents; Non-Agricultural Diesel 3.1 cents (instead of all at 2.6 cents)
FY2011: Gasoline 5.1 cents; Non-Agricultural Diesel 6.1 cents (instead of all at 5.6 cents)
FY2012: Gasoline 8.1 cents; Non-Agricultural Diesel 9.1 cents (instead of all at 8.6 cents)
FY2013: Gasoline 11.1 cents; Non-Agricultural Diesel 12.1 cents (instead of all at 11.6 cents)
FY2014: Gasoline 14.1 cents; Non-Agricultural Diesel 15.1 cents (instead of all at 14.6 cents)

Or does the differential need to be a bit higher or lower?

Many US states have differentials to make trucks pay a bit more - which makes some sense since larger vehicles tend to cause more wear and tear to the roads.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on December 30, 2009, 10:45:36 PM
If you tell me what you're planning, I can definitely do this. I have a fair idea of what you're referring to (a tax to bring diesel and gasoline consumption to parity) and I assume this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=101096.msg2192099#msg2192099) is what you would like to respond to? So you're asking how much diesel fuel taxes should increase to equate it with the tax that will be levied on gasoline?

Yes.  The question is if we raise non-agricultural diesel taxes by an amount, say 1 cent more per gallon than unleaded gasoline taxes, would we get an equal amount in revenue?

For example:
FY2010: Gasoline 2.1 cents; Non-Agricultural Diesel 3.1 cents (instead of all at 2.6 cents)
FY2011: Gasoline 5.1 cents; Non-Agricultural Diesel 6.1 cents (instead of all at 5.6 cents)
FY2012: Gasoline 8.1 cents; Non-Agricultural Diesel 9.1 cents (instead of all at 8.6 cents)
FY2013: Gasoline 11.1 cents; Non-Agricultural Diesel 12.1 cents (instead of all at 11.6 cents)
FY2014: Gasoline 14.1 cents; Non-Agricultural Diesel 15.1 cents (instead of all at 14.6 cents)

Or does the differential need to be a bit higher or lower?

Many US states have differentials to make trucks pay a bit more - which makes some sense since larger vehicles tend to cause more wear and tear to the roads.

Are you looking for equal revenue or parity in use? Because diesel engines provide more miles per gallon, so you would want to tax them more to ensure you are taxing driving, rather than fuel consumption. It would take quite a bit more than that to achieve equal revenue. I can include all of this in an analysis so you can make your own decisions.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 30, 2009, 11:14:11 PM
If you tell me what you're planning, I can definitely do this. I have a fair idea of what you're referring to (a tax to bring diesel and gasoline consumption to parity) and I assume this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=101096.msg2192099#msg2192099) is what you would like to respond to? So you're asking how much diesel fuel taxes should increase to equate it with the tax that will be levied on gasoline?

Yes.  The question is if we raise non-agricultural diesel taxes by an amount, say 1 cent more per gallon than unleaded gasoline taxes, would we get an equal amount in revenue?

For example:
FY2010: Gasoline 2.1 cents; Non-Agricultural Diesel 3.1 cents (instead of all at 2.6 cents)
FY2011: Gasoline 5.1 cents; Non-Agricultural Diesel 6.1 cents (instead of all at 5.6 cents)
FY2012: Gasoline 8.1 cents; Non-Agricultural Diesel 9.1 cents (instead of all at 8.6 cents)
FY2013: Gasoline 11.1 cents; Non-Agricultural Diesel 12.1 cents (instead of all at 11.6 cents)
FY2014: Gasoline 14.1 cents; Non-Agricultural Diesel 15.1 cents (instead of all at 14.6 cents)

Or does the differential need to be a bit higher or lower?

Many US states have differentials to make trucks pay a bit more - which makes some sense since larger vehicles tend to cause more wear and tear to the roads.

Are you looking for equal revenue or parity in use? Because diesel engines provide more miles per gallon, so you would want to tax them more to ensure you are taxing driving, rather than fuel consumption. It would take quite a bit more than that to achieve equal revenue. I can include all of this in an analysis so you can make your own decisions.
I'm looking for equal revenue.

Technically, we're supposed to vote on whatever the commission concludes - so we really can't make our own decision.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on December 31, 2009, 12:43:00 AM
Motion to amend.

Anti-Discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.

What's the purpose of this now-unfriendly amendment, i.e., what's the difference?

Males than identify as women, females that idenitfy as men.

It's not something believe in or support legitimizing.

Yes, it would provide protection for the transgendered. Which is, frankly, much better grounded in science as "not a choice" than homosexuality.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 31, 2009, 12:47:09 AM
Motion to amend.

Anti-Discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.

What's the purpose of this now-unfriendly amendment, i.e., what's the difference?

Males than identify as women, females that idenitfy as men.

It's not something believe in or support legitimizing.

Yes, it would provide protection for the transgendered. Which is, frankly, much better grounded in science as "not a choice" than homosexuality.

I'm sorry, I cannot support this amendment to the legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on December 31, 2009, 01:10:52 AM
Motion to amend.

Anti-Discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.

What's the purpose of this now-unfriendly amendment, i.e., what's the difference?

Males than identify as women, females that idenitfy as men.

It's not something believe in or support legitimizing.

Yes, it would provide protection for the transgendered. Which is, frankly, much better grounded in science as "not a choice" than homosexuality.

So if a company doesn't allow men who claim to identify as women to use women's restroom facilities, this would be considered discrimination?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on December 31, 2009, 01:44:21 AM
If you tell me what you're planning, I can definitely do this. I have a fair idea of what you're referring to (a tax to bring diesel and gasoline consumption to parity) and I assume this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=101096.msg2192099#msg2192099) is what you would like to respond to? So you're asking how much diesel fuel taxes should increase to equate it with the tax that will be levied on gasoline?

Yes.  The question is if we raise non-agricultural diesel taxes by an amount, say 1 cent more per gallon than unleaded gasoline taxes, would we get an equal amount in revenue?

For example:
FY2010: Gasoline 2.1 cents; Non-Agricultural Diesel 3.1 cents (instead of all at 2.6 cents)
FY2011: Gasoline 5.1 cents; Non-Agricultural Diesel 6.1 cents (instead of all at 5.6 cents)
FY2012: Gasoline 8.1 cents; Non-Agricultural Diesel 9.1 cents (instead of all at 8.6 cents)
FY2013: Gasoline 11.1 cents; Non-Agricultural Diesel 12.1 cents (instead of all at 11.6 cents)
FY2014: Gasoline 14.1 cents; Non-Agricultural Diesel 15.1 cents (instead of all at 14.6 cents)

Or does the differential need to be a bit higher or lower?

Many US states have differentials to make trucks pay a bit more - which makes some sense since larger vehicles tend to cause more wear and tear to the roads.

Are you looking for equal revenue or parity in use? Because diesel engines provide more miles per gallon, so you would want to tax them more to ensure you are taxing driving, rather than fuel consumption. It would take quite a bit more than that to achieve equal revenue. I can include all of this in an analysis so you can make your own decisions.
I'm looking for equal revenue.

Technically, we're supposed to vote on whatever the commission concludes - so we really can't make our own decision.

Because the report's recommendations doesn't include a diesel tax, the NE Assembly could always amend it in or pass it separately.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 31, 2009, 05:42:09 AM
Motion to amend.

Anti-Discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.

What's the purpose of this now-unfriendly amendment, i.e., what's the difference?

Males than identify as women, females that idenitfy as men.

It's not something believe in or support legitimizing.

Yes, it would provide protection for the transgendered. Which is, frankly, much better grounded in science as "not a choice" than homosexuality.

I'm sorry, I cannot support this amendment to the legislation.

Can you tell us the reason why you don't ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on December 31, 2009, 07:04:39 AM
Motion to amend.


Anti-Discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, smell, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, smell, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, smell, religion, and disability status.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 31, 2009, 11:15:21 AM
NOT FRIENDLY


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on December 31, 2009, 11:16:39 AM

SMELLIST. >:(


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 31, 2009, 11:22:55 AM
I suggest to strike word "class". There are no social classes recongized under Northeast nor Federal law. I suggest replace term with something like "social background".


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 31, 2009, 11:39:46 AM
I suggest to strike word "class". There are no social classes recongized under Northeast nor Federal law. I suggest replace term with something like "social background".

Nope.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 31, 2009, 11:44:21 AM
I suggest to strike word "class". There are no social classes recongized under Northeast nor Federal law. I suggest replace term with something like "social background".

Nope.

What formidable compromising skills...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 31, 2009, 11:45:26 AM
I suggest to strike word "class". There are no social classes recongized under Northeast nor Federal law. I suggest replace term with something like "social background".
Nope.

What formidable compromising skills...

I'm not compromising.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 31, 2009, 11:49:15 AM
I suggest to strike word "class". There are no social classes recongized under Northeast nor Federal law. I suggest replace term with something like "social background".
Nope.

What formidable compromising skills...

I'm not compromising.

Personal feelings affecting political actions, how classy ::)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 31, 2009, 11:54:36 AM
No, political feelings affecting political actions. Social background was a stupid term that could mean anything. Damn I can't believe I have to deal with this crap for the whole session. I'd resign if I didn't think I'd be replaced with a moron.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 31, 2009, 11:59:56 AM
Social background was a stupid term that could mean anything.

"Class" could mean anything as well.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 31, 2009, 12:02:11 PM
Social background was a stupid term that could mean anything.

"Class" could mean anything as well.

I just suggest we should avoid such terms like "class" of whetever in oficial legislations.

There are no social classes under a law.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 31, 2009, 12:41:42 PM

If my amendment is not friendly, I will not vote for this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 31, 2009, 12:55:39 PM
I ask for a vote on the three proposed Amendments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 31, 2009, 12:57:47 PM
I modify my proposition to strike "class" work at all


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on December 31, 2009, 01:04:00 PM
I modify my proposition to strike "class" work at all

"Socioeconomic status" is the going term. Perhaps someone would like to replace "class," an ambiguous term that only fosters class warfare, with the more common and more appropriate term.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on December 31, 2009, 01:07:02 PM
"Class" is a perfectly appropriate term, and more succinct to boot.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 31, 2009, 01:18:18 PM
"Class" is a perfectly appropriate term, and more succinct to boot.

There are no social classes under a regional nor federal law.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on December 31, 2009, 01:30:03 PM
Agreed that "socioeconomic status" is preferred to "class."


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 31, 2009, 01:31:31 PM
"Class" is a perfectly appropriate term, and more succinct to boot.

Do you get tired of parroting whatever Hamilton says?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on December 31, 2009, 01:48:22 PM
"Class" is a perfectly appropriate term, and more succinct to boot.

Do you get tired of parroting whatever Hamilton says?

When did Hamilton ever say "'Class' is a perfectly appropriate term, and more succinct to boot"?

???


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 31, 2009, 02:32:05 PM

As required under the SOAP, there will be a vote on all FOUR proposed unfriendly amendments (and any others), unless withdrawn, at the end of the debate period.  The debate period ends on Friday, January 1 at 8:30PM.  A vote on the amendments will take place then until 8:30PM January 2.  A vote on the bill, as amended (if any pass), will take place starting Saturday, January 2.

I agree on striking class - it's not defined by Atlasian or Northeast law.  


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 31, 2009, 02:33:27 PM
Agreed that "socioeconomic status" is preferred to "class."

Agreed with this.

I will not withdraw my amendment, and would like to second the motion made by Rep. Antonio.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 31, 2009, 03:20:45 PM
Agreed that "socioeconomic status" is preferred to "class."

Agreed with this.

I will not withdraw my amendment, and would like to second the motion made by Rep. Antonio.

Proposed Bill is very needed, but my only concern is terminology. Socialeconomic status is fair term, because, I repeat, neither regional or federal law allows or recognize any "classes".

I second motion made by Rep. Antonio too. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 01, 2010, 08:29:09 PM
()

We are to vote on four amendments deemed unfriendly by the bill's sponsor, Rep. Hamilton.   This vote will remain open until 8:30PM on January 2, 2010, or all Representatives have voted.  Please specify you vote on each by Number and Sponsor, as provided in the form below.

Proposed Amendment 1 (Rep. Mr. Moderate) (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102877.msg2292659#msg2292659):
1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, class, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.

Proposed Amendment 2 (Rep. Doctor Cynic) (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102877.msg2292660#msg2292660):
1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, class, sexuality, size, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, size, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, size, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.

Proposed Amendment 3 (Rep. Sewer Socialist) (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102877.msg2293249#msg229324):
1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, smell, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, smell, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity, smell, religion, and disability status.

Proposed Amendment 4 (Rep. Kalwjet) (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102877.msg2293714#msg2293714):
1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, class socioeconomic status, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class, socioeconomic status, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, class socioeconomic status, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.

Official Ballot
Amendment 1 (Rep. Mr. Moderate):
Amendment 2 (Rep. Doctor Cynic):
Amendment 3 (Rep. Sewer Socialist):
Amendment 4 (Rep. Kalwjet):


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on January 01, 2010, 08:33:14 PM
Nay
nay
nay
aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 01, 2010, 08:34:45 PM
Official Ballot
Amendment 1 (Rep. Mr. Moderate): Nay
Amendment 2 (Rep. Doctor Cynic): Nay
Amendment 3 (Rep. Sewer Socialist): Nay
Amendment 4 (Rep. Kalwjet): Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 01, 2010, 08:51:09 PM
Amendment 1 (Rep. Mr. Moderate: AYE
Amendment 2 (Rep. Doctor Cynic): AYE
Amendment 3 (Rep. Sewer Socialist): NAY
Amendment 4 (Rep. Kalwjet): AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 01, 2010, 09:11:29 PM
Amendment 1 (Rep. Mr. Moderate): Nay
Amendment 2 (Rep. Doctor Cynic): Nay
Amendment 3 (Rep. Sewer Socialist): Nay
Amendment 4 (Rep. Kalwjet): Nay

I would have voted for Amendment 4 had it just struck class and not substituted socioeconomic status.   It's still too vague.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on January 01, 2010, 09:54:59 PM
Official Ballot
Amendment 1 (Rep. Mr. Moderate): Aye
Amendment 2 (Rep. Doctor Cynic): Aye
Amendment 3 (Rep. Sewer Socialist): Aye
Amendment 4 (Rep. Kalwjet): Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on January 01, 2010, 10:26:26 PM
I'm tabling this. That means it is removed from the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 01, 2010, 10:31:16 PM
I'm tabling this. That means it is removed from the floor.

You can't do that right now.  We're in the middle of a vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on January 01, 2010, 10:31:56 PM
I'm tabling this. That means it is removed from the floor.

You can't do that until the amendment vote is final.

Okay, fine. But if any of the first three amendments pass, consider this tabled by the sponsor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 01, 2010, 10:58:43 PM
I'm tabling this. That means it is removed from the floor.

You can't do that until the amendment vote is final.

Okay, fine. But if any of the first three amendments pass, consider this tabled by the sponsor.

Noted.  That is your right as sponsor under Section 3(e) of the SOAP.   

Arguably, I have the power to table it right now and move on to the next bill, but I prefer not to do so before all Northeast Representatives have had an opportunity to vote on the proposed amendments.  Plus, I don't want to go off-schedule in introducing new bills and votes at a semi-sane hour (around 8PM Eastern) instead of creeping into the wee hours of the morning Eastern time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 02, 2010, 04:58:06 AM
Amendment 1 (Rep. Mr. Moderate): Aye
Amendment 2 (Rep. Doctor Cynic): Aye
Amendment 3 (Rep. Sewer Socialist): Nay
Amendment 4 (Rep. Kalwjet): Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 02, 2010, 09:53:53 AM
Aye
Aye
Nay
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on January 02, 2010, 11:13:39 AM
Note to Moderate: if you want this bill to exist, vote nay on the first two amendments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 02, 2010, 11:18:23 AM
Note to Moderate: if you want this bill to exist, vote nay on the first two amendments.

taking bill a hostage


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on January 02, 2010, 11:19:34 AM
Note to Moderate: if you want this bill to exist, vote nay on the first two amendments.

taking bill a hostage

Saving a bill from being destroyed by kooks.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 02, 2010, 12:36:28 PM
Note to Moderate: if you want this bill to exist, vote nay on the first two amendments.

taking bill a hostage

Saving a bill from being destroyed by kooks.

Don't worry for that, man. ;D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on January 02, 2010, 12:38:07 PM
Note to Moderate: if you want this bill to exist, vote nay on the first two amendments.
taking bill a hostage
Saving a bill from being destroyed by kooks.
Don't worry for that, man. ;D

this won't have the votes to pass unless Smid supports it. Which I would doubt.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 02, 2010, 12:39:35 PM
I agree "smell" amendment is a joke.

But there are things like gender orientation we should not ignore.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on January 02, 2010, 12:42:19 PM
I agree "smell" amendment is a joke.

But there are things like gender orientation we should not ignore.

gender identity is a stupid concept. Size is even worse. I don't need to have sympathy for overeaters, let alone have the government not work with those who don't hire a huge person. Next we know the government is going to have to super size everything.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on January 02, 2010, 12:43:01 PM
I agree "smell" amendment is a joke.

But there are things like gender orientation we should not ignore.

smell is more reasonable than the other two.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 02, 2010, 12:44:18 PM
I agree "smell" amendment is a joke.

But there are things like gender orientation we should not ignore.

smell is more reasonable than the other two.

I'd rather recomment Dr Cynic to withdraw size thing and merge it into anti his Obese disrcriminatory act, modified into anti obese and size discriminatory.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 02, 2010, 12:44:56 PM
I agree "smell" amendment is a joke.

But there are things like gender orientation we should not ignore.

My question on the gender identity issue was never even addressed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 02, 2010, 12:49:53 PM
I don't need to have sympathy for overeaters, let alone have the government not work with those who don't hire a huge person. Next we know the government is going to have to super size everything.

This is not about sympathy, but about justice.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 02, 2010, 12:50:42 PM
I don't need to have sympathy for overeaters, let alone have the government not work with those who don't hire a huge person. Next we know the government is going to have to super size everything.

This is not about sympathy, but about justice.

Size and smell are both choices.

Lose weight and take a shower.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on January 02, 2010, 12:51:26 PM
I don't need to have sympathy for overeaters, let alone have the government not work with those who don't hire a huge person. Next we know the government is going to have to super size everything.

This is not about sympathy, but about justice.

and the weight loss industry is worth billions. Justice.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 02, 2010, 12:52:08 PM
I don't need to have sympathy for overeaters, let alone have the government not work with those who don't hire a huge person. Next we know the government is going to have to super size everything.

This is not about sympathy, but about justice.

Size and smell are both choices.

Lose weight and take a shower.

Obesity is an illness.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 02, 2010, 12:53:18 PM
I don't need to have sympathy for overeaters, let alone have the government not work with those who don't hire a huge person. Next we know the government is going to have to super size everything.

This is not about sympathy, but about justice.

Size and smell are both choices.

Lose weight and take a shower.

Obesity is a disorded. It's not work that way "hey, lose weight".


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 02, 2010, 12:54:09 PM
I don't need to have sympathy for overeaters, let alone have the government not work with those who don't hire a huge person. Next we know the government is going to have to super size everything.

This is not about sympathy, but about justice.

Size and smell are both choices.

Lose weight and take a shower.

Obesity is an illness.

An illness one brings upon oneself by making poor personal choices. There are consequences to be faced. A company shouldn't be forced to bear the burden because a potential employee can't fit through their front door.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 02, 2010, 12:55:37 PM
I don't need to have sympathy for overeaters, let alone have the government not work with those who don't hire a huge person. Next we know the government is going to have to super size everything.

This is not about sympathy, but about justice.

Size and smell are both choices.

Lose weight and take a shower.

Obesity is an illness.

An illness one brings upon oneself by making poor personal choices. There are consequences to be faced. A company shouldn't be forced to bear the burden because a potential employee can't fit through their front door.

In the case you didn't knew that, overeating isn't always the cause of obesity.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on January 02, 2010, 01:08:59 PM
I don't need to have sympathy for overeaters, let alone have the government not work with those who don't hire a huge person. Next we know the government is going to have to super size everything.

This is not about sympathy, but about justice.

Size and smell are both choices.

Lose weight and take a shower.

Obesity is an illness.

No, it isn't.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on January 02, 2010, 01:10:32 PM
I don't need to have sympathy for overeaters, let alone have the government not work with those who don't hire a huge person. Next we know the government is going to have to super size everything.

This is not about sympathy, but about justice.

Size and smell are both choices.

Lose weight and take a shower.

Obesity is an illness.

An illness one brings upon oneself by making poor personal choices. There are consequences to be faced. A company shouldn't be forced to bear the burden because a potential employee can't fit through their front door.

In the case you didn't knew that, overeating isn't always the cause of obesity.

This bill says size, not obesity. Some companies mightnot even own equipment these big/tall/short people can operate. Obesity is a choice. If it is causedby someother precondition, it would already be covered by disability. This is a useless and dangerous addition brought up by special interests.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 02, 2010, 01:11:16 PM
Note to Moderate: if you want this bill to exist, vote nay on the first two amendments.

taking bill a hostage

Saving a bill from being destroyed by kooks.

In what way am I a kook for including size? There is evidence that large people like myself are discriminated against in the workplace. By the way, I don't see why my size makes me any different if I can do the job. I do this job, don't I? I also probably make more money than you on the outside world, since I earn more than 300,000 dollars a year before taxes. So, tell me why if a large person can't do the job they shouldn't be included.

Oh, if you table this bill, I'm sure I'll find a way with my fellow sane Reps to work around your obstructionsit policies.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 02, 2010, 01:12:59 PM
I don't need to have sympathy for overeaters, let alone have the government not work with those who don't hire a huge person. Next we know the government is going to have to super size everything.

This is not about sympathy, but about justice.

Size and smell are both choices.

Lose weight and take a shower.

Obesity is an illness.

An illness one brings upon oneself by making poor personal choices. There are consequences to be faced. A company shouldn't be forced to bear the burden because a potential employee can't fit through their front door.

In the case you didn't knew that, overeating isn't always the cause of obesity.

This bill says size, not obesity. Some companies mightnot even own equipment these big/tall/short people can operate. Obesity is a choice. If it is causedby someother precondition, it would already be covered by disability. This is a useless and dangerous addition brought up by special interests.

Special interests = Looking out for one's own. Sort of like you do. So, go ahead and table the bill when the vote is finished.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 02, 2010, 01:24:37 PM
No, you are trying to make a "poor me, I'm fat" and I findit absolutely sickening. If youthink discrimination against fat people is a problem, write a bill to combat the problem of obesity. We shouldn't accept unsightliness and unhealthiness as "okay" when it is a serious problem. It's not "okay" to be obese. Not only that, but size, again, can mean anything and I already explained why that is a problem.

How can you have a -7 social score and pretend to tell everybody what is "okay" and what is not ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on January 02, 2010, 01:25:06 PM
No, you are trying to make a "poor me, I'm fat" and I findit absolutely sickening. If youthink discrimination against fat people is a problem, write a bill to combat the problem of obesity. We shouldn't accept unsightliness and unhealthiness as "okay" when it is a serious problem. It's not "okay" to be obese. Not only that, but size, again, can mean anything and I already explained why that is a problem.

How can you have a -7 social score and pretend to tell everybody what is "okay" and what is not ?

Because they are trying to intentionally burden our society?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 02, 2010, 01:25:57 PM
No, you are trying to make a "poor me, I'm fat" and I findit absolutely sickening. If youthink discrimination against fat people is a problem, write a bill to combat the problem of obesity. We shouldn't accept unsightliness and unhealthiness as "okay" when it is a serious problem. It's not "okay" to be obese. Not only that, but size, again, can mean anything and I already explained why that is a problem.

How can you have a -7 social score and pretend to tell everybody what is "okay" and what is not ?

The issue of approving unhealthy behavior has what to do with social score?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 02, 2010, 01:30:13 PM
No, you are trying to make a "poor me, I'm fat" and I findit absolutely sickening. If youthink discrimination against fat people is a problem, write a bill to combat the problem of obesity. We shouldn't accept unsightliness and unhealthiness as "okay" when it is a serious problem. It's not "okay" to be obese. Not only that, but size, again, can mean anything and I already explained why that is a problem.

How can you have a -7 social score and pretend to tell everybody what is "okay" and what is not ?

Because they are trying to intentionally burden our society?

Many times, it's not intentional. 90% of the times, it's not entirely intentional. Plus, if the society didn't set excessively restricting and unrealistic beauty canons, 10% of "obeses" wouldn't be considered so.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 02, 2010, 01:31:02 PM
No, you are trying to make a "poor me, I'm fat" and I findit absolutely sickening. If youthink discrimination against fat people is a problem, write a bill to combat the problem of obesity. We shouldn't accept unsightliness and unhealthiness as "okay" when it is a serious problem. It's not "okay" to be obese. Not only that, but size, again, can mean anything and I already explained why that is a problem.

How can you have a -7 social score and pretend to tell everybody what is "okay" and what is not ?

Because they are trying to intentionally burden our society?

Many times, it's not intentional. 90% of the times, it's not entirely intentional. Plus, if the society didn't set excessively restricting and unrealistic beauty canons, 10% of "obeses" wouldn't be considered so.

So you are obese?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 02, 2010, 01:32:04 PM
No, you are trying to make a "poor me, I'm fat" and I findit absolutely sickening. If youthink discrimination against fat people is a problem, write a bill to combat the problem of obesity. We shouldn't accept unsightliness and unhealthiness as "okay" when it is a serious problem. It's not "okay" to be obese. Not only that, but size, again, can mean anything and I already explained why that is a problem.

How can you have a -7 social score and pretend to tell everybody what is "okay" and what is not ?

Because they are trying to intentionally burden our society?

Many times, it's not intentional. 90% of the times, it's not entirely intentional. Plus, if the society didn't set excessively restricting and unrealistic beauty canons, 10% of "obeses" wouldn't be considered so.

So you are obese?

Why do you say that ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 02, 2010, 01:32:58 PM
No, you are trying to make a "poor me, I'm fat" and I findit absolutely sickening. If youthink discrimination against fat people is a problem, write a bill to combat the problem of obesity. We shouldn't accept unsightliness and unhealthiness as "okay" when it is a serious problem. It's not "okay" to be obese. Not only that, but size, again, can mean anything and I already explained why that is a problem.

How can you have a -7 social score and pretend to tell everybody what is "okay" and what is not ?

Because they are trying to intentionally burden our society?

Many times, it's not intentional. 90% of the times, it's not entirely intentional. Plus, if the society didn't set excessively restricting and unrealistic beauty canons, 10% of "obeses" wouldn't be considered so.

So you are obese?

Why do you say that ?

Why are you making up 1001 lame excuses for those who make poor personal choices that burden all of society?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 02, 2010, 01:35:49 PM
No, you are trying to make a "poor me, I'm fat" and I findit absolutely sickening. If youthink discrimination against fat people is a problem, write a bill to combat the problem of obesity. We shouldn't accept unsightliness and unhealthiness as "okay" when it is a serious problem. It's not "okay" to be obese. Not only that, but size, again, can mean anything and I already explained why that is a problem.

How can you have a -7 social score and pretend to tell everybody what is "okay" and what is not ?

Because they are trying to intentionally burden our society?

Many times, it's not intentional. 90% of the times, it's not entirely intentional. Plus, if the society didn't set excessively restricting and unrealistic beauty canons, 10% of "obeses" wouldn't be considered so.

So you are obese?

Why do you say that ?

Why are you making up 1001 lame excuses for those who make poor personal choices that burden all of society?

Because I have got a brain and therefore I'm able to go beyond stupid commonplaces in the style of "fats are ugly so I don't like them".


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 02, 2010, 01:36:47 PM
No, you are trying to make a "poor me, I'm fat" and I findit absolutely sickening. If youthink discrimination against fat people is a problem, write a bill to combat the problem of obesity. We shouldn't accept unsightliness and unhealthiness as "okay" when it is a serious problem. It's not "okay" to be obese. Not only that, but size, again, can mean anything and I already explained why that is a problem.

How can you have a -7 social score and pretend to tell everybody what is "okay" and what is not ?

The issue of approving unhealthy behavior has what to do with social score?

This debate is pointless at this point. No one is going to change their mind, the bill will be tabled, and we will move on to new business. Now, as it pertains to obesity, I don't really care if it is unsightly to you or not. I'm not concerned with attracting Mr. Hamilton. I am however concerned with getting overweight people equal oppertunity to jobs they've applied to. Now, if the employer feels they are not right for the job based on merits, I say don't hire 'em. If they are derelict after they are hired, fire 'em. But if you can do a job, there's no reason not to allow them or anyone else to work.

So, I will await, the Speaker's closing of the vote and for the bill to be tabled and I will enjoy the show it brings.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on January 02, 2010, 01:39:03 PM
I have a duel problem. One is that I am supposed to have a gland that tells me when I'm full, but it doesnt. The other is I have a very slow motabalisim. I work out often, and yet still have a problem losing weight, even though I only have an intake of roughly 1200-1600 calories a day. So, is what being said here is that even though I'm a hard worker, I can be denied work because of my weight?



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on January 02, 2010, 01:40:51 PM
I have a duel problem. One is that I am supposed to have a gland that tells me when I'm full, but it doesnt. The other is I have a very slow motabalisim. I work out often, and yet still have a problem losing weight, even though I only have an intake of roughly 1200-1600 calories a day. So, is what being said here is that even though I'm a hard worker, I can be denied work because of my weight?



That would be covered by disability.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 02, 2010, 01:41:07 PM

So did Alexander Hamilton.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 02, 2010, 01:44:35 PM
No, you are trying to make a "poor me, I'm fat" and I findit absolutely sickening. If youthink discrimination against fat people is a problem, write a bill to combat the problem of obesity. We shouldn't accept unsightliness and unhealthiness as "okay" when it is a serious problem. It's not "okay" to be obese. Not only that, but size, again, can mean anything and I already explained why that is a problem.

How can you have a -7 social score and pretend to tell everybody what is "okay" and what is not ?

The issue of approving unhealthy behavior has what to do with social score?

This debate is pointless at this point. No one is going to change their mind, the bill will be tabled, and we will move on to new business. Now, as it pertains to obesity, I don't really care if it is unsightly to you or not. I'm not concerned with attracting Mr. Hamilton. I am however concerned with getting overweight people equal oppertunity to jobs they've applied to. Now, if the employer feels they are not right for the job based on merits, I say don't hire 'em. If they are derelict after they are hired, fire 'em. But if you can do a job, there's no reason not to allow them or anyone else to work.

So, I will await, the Speaker's closing of the vote and for the bill to be tabled and I will enjoy the show it brings.

So should sumo wrestler organizations be forced to hire thin people?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 02, 2010, 01:56:55 PM
No, you are trying to make a "poor me, I'm fat" and I findit absolutely sickening. If youthink discrimination against fat people is a problem, write a bill to combat the problem of obesity. We shouldn't accept unsightliness and unhealthiness as "okay" when it is a serious problem. It's not "okay" to be obese. Not only that, but size, again, can mean anything and I already explained why that is a problem.

How can you have a -7 social score and pretend to tell everybody what is "okay" and what is not ?

The issue of approving unhealthy behavior has what to do with social score?

This debate is pointless at this point. No one is going to change their mind, the bill will be tabled, and we will move on to new business. Now, as it pertains to obesity, I don't really care if it is unsightly to you or not. I'm not concerned with attracting Mr. Hamilton. I am however concerned with getting overweight people equal oppertunity to jobs they've applied to. Now, if the employer feels they are not right for the job based on merits, I say don't hire 'em. If they are derelict after they are hired, fire 'em. But if you can do a job, there's no reason not to allow them or anyone else to work.

So, I will await, the Speaker's closing of the vote and for the bill to be tabled and I will enjoy the show it brings.

So should sumo wrestler organizations be forced to hire thin people?

I've seen thin sumo wrestlers actually.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 02, 2010, 01:58:16 PM
No, you are trying to make a "poor me, I'm fat" and I findit absolutely sickening. If youthink discrimination against fat people is a problem, write a bill to combat the problem of obesity. We shouldn't accept unsightliness and unhealthiness as "okay" when it is a serious problem. It's not "okay" to be obese. Not only that, but size, again, can mean anything and I already explained why that is a problem.

How can you have a -7 social score and pretend to tell everybody what is "okay" and what is not ?

The issue of approving unhealthy behavior has what to do with social score?

This debate is pointless at this point. No one is going to change their mind, the bill will be tabled, and we will move on to new business. Now, as it pertains to obesity, I don't really care if it is unsightly to you or not. I'm not concerned with attracting Mr. Hamilton. I am however concerned with getting overweight people equal oppertunity to jobs they've applied to. Now, if the employer feels they are not right for the job based on merits, I say don't hire 'em. If they are derelict after they are hired, fire 'em. But if you can do a job, there's no reason not to allow them or anyone else to work.

So, I will await, the Speaker's closing of the vote and for the bill to be tabled and I will enjoy the show it brings.

So should sumo wrestler organizations be forced to hire thin people?

I've seen thin sumo wrestlers actually.

That wasn't the question....


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 02, 2010, 02:00:51 PM
Order! Why didn't we have this debate BEFORE the vote?  

Last I checked, Doctor Cynic has legislation in the queue addressing obesity issues - so any claims that he hasn't addressed the issue in separate legislation are incorrect.

The proposed amendments are still on the floor, as Rep. Mr. Moderate has yet to vote.  This vote will not close until the earlier of 8:30PM or when Rep. Mr. Moderate has voted.  Rep. Hamilton will then be entitled to withdraw the bill, if he wishes, under Section 3(e) of the SOAP.

The proposed amendments CANNOT be withdrawn at this point, since they are currently being voted upon.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 02, 2010, 02:28:47 PM
Aye
Aye
Nay
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on January 02, 2010, 02:35:52 PM
Tabled.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 02, 2010, 02:41:44 PM
()

By a vote of 5-3, Proposed Amendments 1 (Rep. Mr. Moderate) and 2 (Rep. Doctor Cynic) pass.
By a vote of 1-7, Proposed Amendment 3 (Rep. Sewer Socialist) fails.
By a vote of 6-2, Proposed Amendment 4 (Rep. Kalwejt) passes.

The final bill on the floor, as amended, reads as follows:
Anti-Discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, gender identity, socioeconomic status, sexuality, size, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, socioeconomic status, sexuality, size, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, socioeconomic status, sexuality, size, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.

However, as Rep. Hamilton has decided to withdraw the bill, it shall not proceed to a final vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 02, 2010, 02:44:14 PM

Pathetic.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 02, 2010, 02:47:50 PM
()

The next item up for bid is:

Pornography and Age of Consent Act of 2010

An act to liberalise laws restricting sexual activity and to amend the Pornography and Age of Consent Act of 2005

1.   In accordance with the federal Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act of 2009, All individuals 14 years of age or older shall have the right to buy, possess, and view pornography depicting only persons of 18 years of age or older.

2.   All those persons of 14 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons of 14 years up to the age of 21 years.

3.   Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 14 years of age or younger is guilty of statutory rape.

Sponsor: Rep. Hamilton

The question is whether the Bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 2:50PM Eastern on Monday, January 4, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative Alexander Hamilton, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on January 02, 2010, 02:49:16 PM

if the Joe Wilson act still works I wish to use it now


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 02, 2010, 02:55:24 PM

Please bring up your concerns with the Governor.  This Assembly has no role in enforcing the (likely unconstitutional) Joe Wilson Act - and under that law, the Lt. Governor and Northeast Representatives have no power to do anything until the Governor has acted, anyway. 

Do you wish to speak on behalf of your bill?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 02, 2010, 03:02:18 PM
I would like to know what this bill is trying to accomplish - and why?  Are we mandated by federal law to change the definition of statutory rape?  Didn't we debate something like this (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly#Amendment_to_the_Northeast_Pornography_and_Age_of_Consent_Act) in the Provisional Assembly session, settling on 16 instead of 14?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on January 02, 2010, 03:10:45 PM
No, you are trying to make a "poor me, I'm fat" and I findit absolutely sickening. If youthink discrimination against fat people is a problem, write a bill to combat the problem of obesity. We shouldn't accept unsightliness and unhealthiness as "okay" when it is a serious problem. It's not "okay" to be obese. Not only that, but size, again, can mean anything and I already explained why that is a problem.

How can you have a -7 social score and pretend to tell everybody what is "okay" and what is not ?

How can you have a -5 social score and think freedom of speech needs limits?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 02, 2010, 03:20:04 PM
While 14 years should be a reasonable limit for pornography, it's definitely too young for sexual activities.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on January 02, 2010, 03:23:42 PM
While 14 years should be a reasonable limit for pornography, it's definitely too young for sexual activities.

No.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 02, 2010, 03:31:07 PM
I hereby propose this Amendment :

Pornography and Age of Consent Act of 2010

An act to liberalise laws restricting sexual activity and to amend the Pornography and Age of Consent Act of 2005

1.   In accordance with the federal Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act of 2009, All individuals 14 years of age or older shall have the right to buy, possess, and view pornography depicting only persons of 18 years of age or older.

2.   All those persons of 16 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons who are less than 5 years older.

3.   Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 16 years of age or younger is guilty of statutory rape.


I expressed the reason of the first modification. The second is due to a logical concern : why a 20 years-old girl with a 22-years-old boyfriend ?
However, since it's clear that Hamilton hates debate, this Amendment will probably have the same effect that for the last bill...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 02, 2010, 03:35:34 PM
Why change it to 16? 14 is fine.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 02, 2010, 03:36:53 PM
I hereby propose this Amendment :

Pornography and Age of Consent Act of 2010

An act to liberalise laws restricting sexual activity and to amend the Pornography and Age of Consent Act of 2005

1.   In accordance with the federal Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act of 2009, All individuals 14 years of age or older shall have the right to buy, possess, and view pornography depicting only persons of 18 years of age or older.

2.   All those persons of 16 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons who are less than 5 years older.

3.   Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 16 years of age or younger is guilty of statutory rape.


I expressed the reason of the first modification. The second is due to a logical concern : why a 20 years-old girl with a 22-years-old boyfriend ?
However, since it's clear that Hamilton hates debate, this Amendment will probably have the same effect that for the last bill...

I think we're better off striking 2 and 3, since what you've proposed was more or less covered by the Amendment to the Northeast Pornography and Age of Consent Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly#Amendment_to_the_Northeast_Pornography_and_Age_of_Consent_Act) passed in the Provisional Assembly:

Quote from: ATNPAACA
  1.  Section 3, Clause 1 is deleted and replaced with the following "All those persons of 16 years of age or older, not incarcerated for crimes, shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons of 16 years of age or older."
   2. "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 17 years or younger is guilty of statutory rape." is amended to read "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person younger than the age of 16 is guilty of statutory rape."

I don't think 20-year-olds who have sex with 22-year-olds are caught up by the amended law - nor are 16-year-olds who have sex with 22-year-olds.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 02, 2010, 03:39:02 PM

The proposed change is to 14.  Current law is 16.  Adults should not be having sex with 14-year-olds.  It's way too young and the potential for exploitation is far too great.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on January 02, 2010, 03:41:08 PM

The proposed change is to 14.  Current law is 16.  Adults should not be having sex with 14-year-olds.  It's way too young and the potential for exploitation is far too great.

That's why I inserted the statuory rape clause. The point was to lower the age of consent, but this idiocy about completely removing the effect of the bill makes it pointless. I'd rather see it die than butchered like that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 02, 2010, 03:41:28 PM
Would you consider 15? Because 16 is ridicolous.

And 18 instead of 21.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 02, 2010, 03:46:13 PM

The proposed change is to 14.  Current law is 16.  Adults should not be having sex with 14-year-olds.  It's way too young and the potential for exploitation is far too great.

That's why I inserted the statuory rape clause. The point was to lower the age of consent, but this idiocy about completely removing the effect of the bill makes it pointless. I'd rather see it die than butchered like that.

15 will get you 20.  That's the law in most US states.  I see no reason to lower the age of consent.  14 is way too young.

You're no longer a Northeast Representative.  It's up to Hamilton to withdraw the bill. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 02, 2010, 03:48:55 PM
Quote from: ATNPAACA
  1.  Section 3, Clause 1 is deleted and replaced with the following "All those persons of 16 years of age or older, not incarcerated for crimes, shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons of 16 years of age or older."
   2. "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 17 years or younger is guilty of statutory rape." is amended to read "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person younger than the age of 16 is guilty of statutory rape."

I don't think 20-year-olds who have sex with 22-year-olds are caught up by the amended law - nor are 16-year-olds who have sex with 22-year-olds.

As it is written, such situation is forbidden.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 02, 2010, 03:50:07 PM

The proposed change is to 14.  Current law is 16.  Adults should not be having sex with 14-year-olds.  It's way too young and the potential for exploitation is far too great.

Well I would prefer psychological evaluations be mandated in such cases rather than implement a one-sized-fits-all policy. It may be disgusting to think of, but if the 15-year-old has the capacity to consent, what he or she does is his/her business.

If I am reading the bill right, a 21-year-old having sex with a 14-year-old would be illegal, so we are talking about 15+ anyway.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 02, 2010, 03:57:43 PM
Quote from: ATNPAACA
  1.  Section 3, Clause 1 is deleted and replaced with the following "All those persons of 16 years of age or older, not incarcerated for crimes, shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons of 16 years of age or older."
   2. "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 17 years or younger is guilty of statutory rape." is amended to read "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person younger than the age of 16 is guilty of statutory rape."

I don't think 20-year-olds who have sex with 22-year-olds are caught up by the amended law - nor are 16-year-olds who have sex with 22-year-olds.

As it is written, such situation is forbidden.

No it's not.  A 22-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old is forbidden.  Nothing prohibits a 22-year-old from having sex with a 20-year-old with that person's consent.  

Now I see your point.  As the BILL on the floor is written, it could be viewed as a crime for a 20-year-old to have sex with a 22-year-old.  But under current law AS AMENDED BY THE PROVISIONAL ASSEMBLY, anyone 16 or older can have sex with anyone 16 or older. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 02, 2010, 04:12:41 PM
This simply allows 14 year ols to consent with people up to 21. The only change I'm willing to make it to lower 21 to 19.


I propose lower it to 18


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 02, 2010, 04:22:06 PM
This simply allows 14 year ols to consent with people up to 21. The only change I'm willing to make it to lower 21 to 19.


I propose lower it to 18

nah

May I ask why you think otherwise?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 02, 2010, 04:38:53 PM

All right, since we have actual debate.

I generally support that since person reach age of consent (whenever it is 14, 15 or 16) she or he should be free to engage in sexual relationship with others above this age no matter of whenever it's above . But if there's no approval of that, 18 would be fairer than 19.

It's hiporcitical to allow 16 year old to have sex with people up to 19, but not let say 21.

Your turn, Representative.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 02, 2010, 04:40:34 PM

Typical for you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Badger on January 02, 2010, 09:49:02 PM
()

By a vote of 5-3, Proposed Amendments 1 (Rep. Mr. Moderate) and 2 (Rep. Doctor Cynic) pass.
By a vote of 1-7, Proposed Amendment 3 (Rep. Sewer Socialist) fails.
By a vote of 6-2, Proposed Amendment 4 (Rep. Kalwejt) passes.

The final bill on the floor, as amended, reads as follows:
Anti-Discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, gender identity, socioeconomic status, sexuality, size, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, socioeconomic status, sexuality, size, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, socioeconomic status, sexuality, size, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.

However, as Rep. Hamilton has decided to withdraw the bill, it shall not proceed to a final vote.

<wondering why someone doesn't reintroduce the same bill with amendments passed as their own to avoid it being retabled?>


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 02, 2010, 11:11:02 PM
<wondering why someone doesn't reintroduce the same bill with amendments passed as their own to avoid it being retabled?>

Somebody already has - but under our rules, it has to wait in the queue behind other legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 02, 2010, 11:16:48 PM
<wondering why someone doesn't reintroduce the same bill with amendments passed as their own to avoid it being retabled?>

Somebody already has - but under our rules, it has to wait in the queue behind other legislation.

We will not get to it this session and next session the composition will be more favorable to us.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  You're probably forgetting the rule in the SOAP that gives priority to other members' bills after another representative has had 2 pieces of legislation placed on the floor. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 03, 2010, 07:49:24 AM
<wondering why someone doesn't reintroduce the same bill with amendments passed as their own to avoid it being retabled?>

Somebody already has - but under our rules, it has to wait in the queue behind other legislation.

We will not get to it this session and next session the composition will be more favorable to us.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  You're probably forgetting the rule in the SOAP that gives priority to other members' bills after another representative has had 2 pieces of legislation placed on the floor. 

Even so, I will just have it repealed.

Power is starting to make you mad. I foresee you will end up like DWTL.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 03, 2010, 07:52:42 AM
Hamilton proves once again he's only attention-seeker. He's not interested in debate and feel even offended if someone else have suggestions He want to either take full credit or to kill the bill, if we don't follow him like blind zombies. He refuses to engage in debate.

Pathetic.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 03, 2010, 08:03:10 AM
<wondering why someone doesn't reintroduce the same bill with amendments passed as their own to avoid it being retabled?>

Somebody already has - but under our rules, it has to wait in the queue behind other legislation.

We will not get to it this session and next session the composition will be more favorable to us.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  You're probably forgetting the rule in the SOAP that gives priority to other members' bills after another representative has had 2 pieces of legislation placed on the floor. 

Even so, I will just have it repealed.

Power is starting to make you mad. I foresee you will end up like DWTL.
Hamilton proves once again he's only attention-seeker. He's not interested in debate and feel even offended if someone else have suggestions He want to either take full credit or to kill the bill, if we don't follow him like blind zombies. He refuses to engage in debate.

Pathetic.

Would you two trolls please cut the dramatics already? ::)

Rep. Hamilton is perfectly within his right to table his bill if it is ruined with poor amendments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 03, 2010, 12:04:35 PM
Yeah, no one could answer any of our questions about the stupid amendments.

It’s easy to avoid any debate if you just label questions “stupid”

I don’t care if you respond to me, but can’t you show some respect for the Assembly? Where is a dude full of ideas and will of cooperation I remember since first term?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 03, 2010, 12:12:10 PM
I don’t care if you respond to me, but can’t you show some respect for the Assembly?
And you are showing respect for the Assembly by personally attacking other members of the Assembly rather than debating the legislation at hand?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 03, 2010, 01:12:27 PM
I don’t care if you respond to me, but can’t you show some respect for the Assembly?
And you are showing respect for the Assembly by personally attacking other members of the Assembly rather than debating the legislation at hand?

He refused to present his arguments.

How is that debate?

Seriously, guys, we may not love each other, but reserve this for forum community,


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 03, 2010, 01:41:55 PM
This is the forum community. A main board for pointless spamming and a child board for popularity contests

This shows how much respect you have for Atlasian institutions. Now, provided that you despise Atlasia so much, why do you involve in it ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 03, 2010, 02:20:06 PM
()

Order!  The gentlemen will suspend the personal attacks and get back to debating the bill on the floor.

Will all sponsors of unfriendly amendments please let the Speaker and Lt. Governor know by another post whether they have been withdrawn and what the text of those amendments are?  So far, I have Antonio V's amendment.

Thanks.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 03, 2010, 03:09:05 PM
Mr. Speaker,

Today, I have been offered an acting job that will send me to New York for five months. I will still be able to keep up with the forum, but during that time, I will be working long and unpredictable hours which will completely effect any kind of service I could bring.

Regrettably, I have enjoyed this service, but I must resign. I want to thank the members of the Assembly for making me feel at home and for helping me get back in the swing of things. I will be back soon.

Adios for now, folks.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 03, 2010, 03:11:46 PM
Mr. Speaker,

Today, I have been offered an acting job that will send me to New York for five months. I will still be able to keep up with the forum, but during that time, I will be working long and unpredictable hours which will completely effect any kind of service I could bring.

Regrettably, I have enjoyed this service, but I must resign. I want to thank the members of the Assembly for making me feel at home and for helping me get back in the swing of things. I will be back soon.

Adios for now, folks.

Congratulations - in the real world!  In Atlasia, thank you for your service!  I'm sorry to see you go.  I will inform the Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 03, 2010, 03:16:01 PM
Mr. Speaker,

Today, I have been offered an acting job that will send me to New York for five months. I will still be able to keep up with the forum, but during that time, I will be working long and unpredictable hours which will completely effect any kind of service I could bring.

Regrettably, I have enjoyed this service, but I must resign. I want to thank the members of the Assembly for making me feel at home and for helping me get back in the swing of things. I will be back soon.

Adios for now, folks.

Congratulations - in the real world!  In Atlasia, thank you for your service!  I'm sorry to see you go.  I will inform the Governor.

Thanks. Just can't pass up a chance like this..

Thank you all for your service. I hope to return and serve with you all again.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 03, 2010, 04:47:58 PM
It's very sad to hear that (congratulations of job, we can't have all).

We will trurly miss you as much as we will wait for your return :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on January 03, 2010, 06:22:09 PM
Good luck. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on January 03, 2010, 09:45:20 PM
Mr. Speaker,

Today, I have been offered an acting job that will send me to New York for five months. I will still be able to keep up with the forum, but during that time, I will be working long and unpredictable hours which will completely effect any kind of service I could bring.

Regrettably, I have enjoyed this service, but I must resign. I want to thank the members of the Assembly for making me feel at home and for helping me get back in the swing of things. I will be back soon.

Adios for now, folks.


This, of course makes me very sad. You have done a terrific service for the region, and I thank you for all you have done. It will be tough to find someone to fill your shoes, that is for sure.

 I wish you the best of luck!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 04, 2010, 01:45:12 AM
We will trurly miss you as much as we will wait for your return :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 04, 2010, 02:50:41 PM
()

There is one proposed amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102877.msg2296486#msg2296486) to the Pornography and Age of Consent Act of 2010 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102877.msg2296423#msg2296423) on the floor, sponsored by Rep. Antonio V.  Because this proposed amendment was deemed unfriendly by the bill's sponsor, Rep. Alexander Hamilton, the text of that proposed amendment shall be put to a vote:

Quote
2.   All those persons of 16 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons who are less than 5 years older.

3.   Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 16 years of age or younger is guilty of statutory rape.

This vote will remain open until the earlier of 2:50PM Eastern on Tuesday, January 5, 2010, or when all Northeast Representatives have voted.  A vote on the final bill, with any amendments, will commence shortly thereafter unless the sponsor withdraws the bill from consideration. 

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 04, 2010, 02:52:04 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 04, 2010, 02:53:54 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 04, 2010, 03:16:21 PM
NAY


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 04, 2010, 03:21:31 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 04, 2010, 03:45:06 PM
I oppose to substaing ridicolous age of contest.

It should be 14 or 15.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 05, 2010, 09:37:20 AM
sure whatever aye fine by me i don't care'

Is it just me or do we deal with this particular issue, like, a lot?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 05, 2010, 10:29:30 AM
Is it just me or do we deal with this particular issue, like, a lot?

Yes


Too much do we deal with it.


Abstain in protest.

Is it just because someone here really wants to nail a 16-year-old or something?  I don't get it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 05, 2010, 10:58:29 AM
Age of contest of 16 is simply ridicolous.

If we can't have 14, why not 15 as a compromise?

Anyway, I would vote against 16 under ANY circumstances.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 05, 2010, 11:23:31 AM
Well, 15 is a good compromise. If I get the other part of my Amendment passed, it's fine with me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 05, 2010, 12:50:30 PM
Age of contest of 16 is simply ridicolous.

If we can't have 14, why not 15 as a compromise?

Anyway, I would vote against 16 under ANY circumstances.

Because those of us who aren't card-carrying NAMBLA members are uncomfortable enough with 16 as-is.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 05, 2010, 02:07:13 PM
Age of contest of 16 is simply ridicolous.

If we can't have 14, why not 15 as a compromise?

Anyway, I would vote against 16 under ANY circumstances.

Because those of us who aren't card-carrying NAMBLA members are uncomfortable enough with 16 as-is.

Oh yes, what's wrong with 15?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 05, 2010, 03:02:00 PM
()

By a vote of 3 Ayes and 2 Nays, with one abstention and at least one Representative deleting his vote, there is confusion - either the amendment passes, or there is a tie for the Lt. Governor to break.

Representatives are NOT to delete their votes.  Representative Alexander Hamilton is to state his vote before we proceed further.  Rep. Sewer Socialist is to state whether he truly abstained, as evidenced by the quote from Rep. Mr. Moderate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 05, 2010, 03:35:33 PM

Why should a college senior not be having sex with a high school sophomore?  Really?  You need reasons why?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on January 05, 2010, 04:08:42 PM
Sorry to barge in, but I just want to say I'm sorry for not picking a replacement yet. In my opinion, I have two good candidates who are looking for the position, and it's a little difficult to decide which one to choose. I name the replacement tomorrow.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 05, 2010, 04:26:29 PM

Why should a college senior not be having sex with a high school sophomore?  Really?  You need reasons why?

My whole point is that under many juridsictions act of consent is 15 and that's seem perfectly fine (13 would be gross for example).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 05, 2010, 05:16:55 PM
Rep. Sewer Socialist is to state whether he truly abstained, as evidenced by the quote from Rep. Mr. Moderate.

I abstained.

Fair enough. 

Please don't delete your votes - it makes it difficult to make sure I get an accurate count of older posts not on the current page. 

I was ready to call this a tie before I double-checked and saw Hamilton apparently deleted his vote.  Since I didn't check at exactly 2:50 PM, I have no way of knowing when he deleted his post. 

Hamilton has until 8:00PM tonight to justify his deletion (or withdraw the bill) - or I will declare the amendment passed and proceed to a final vote on the bill as amended.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on January 05, 2010, 05:23:11 PM
Hamilton and Libertas have continued to flaunt the system and will now not be able to post at all. All of their posts will be deleted, whether it has to do with their elected offices or jobs because they continue to post when they are not allowed to.

Sewer is still allowed to take part here since he's not spamming this board still. If he continues not spamming like he has been I'll take him off Atlasia's troll list. Before that though I forgot for a second and deleted his newest post about abstaining.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 05, 2010, 05:59:58 PM
Hamilton and Libertas have continued to flaunt the system and will now not be able to post at all. All of their posts will be deleted, whether it has to do with their elected offices or jobs because they continue to post when they are not allowed to.

Sewer is still allowed to take part here since he's not spamming this board still. If he continues not spamming like he has been I'll take him off Atlasia's troll list. Before that though I forgot for a second and deleted his newest post about abstaining.

Deleting posts in this thread is patently unfair to this Assembly and the citizens of the Northeast who elected those two people. 

Hearing what happened, I now declare the vote on the amendment a 3-3 TIE to be broken by the Lt. Governor.  I will inform Lt. Governor Smid that his vote is needed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on January 05, 2010, 06:01:56 PM
Hamilton and Libertas have continued to flaunt the system and will now not be able to post at all. All of their posts will be deleted, whether it has to do with their elected offices or jobs because they continue to post when they are not allowed to.

Sewer is still allowed to take part here since he's not spamming this board still. If he continues not spamming like he has been I'll take him off Atlasia's troll list. Before that though I forgot for a second and deleted his newest post about abstaining.

Deleting posts in this thread is patently unfair to this Assembly and the citizens of the Northeast who elected those two people. 

Hearing what happened, I now declare the vote on the amendment a 3-3 TIE to be broken by the Lt. Governor.  I will inform Lt. Governor Smid that his vote is needed.

As a member of Atlasia I don't like it either but as a Mod I'm stopping their trolling which they won't do. Hopfully they'll both be banned soon anyways with the new system and then the Northeast can get respectable citizens in office. Until then they'll continue to spam and I'll continue to delete their posts.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on January 05, 2010, 06:03:12 PM
Hamilton and Libertas have continued to flaunt the system and will now not be able to post at all. All of their posts will be deleted, whether it has to do with their elected offices or jobs because they continue to post when they are not allowed to.

Sewer is still allowed to take part here since he's not spamming this board still. If he continues not spamming like he has been I'll take him off Atlasia's troll list. Before that though I forgot for a second and deleted his newest post about abstaining.

Deleting posts in this thread is patently unfair to this Assembly and the citizens of the Northeast who elected those two people. 

Hearing what happened, I now declare the vote on the amendment a 3-3 TIE to be broken by the Lt. Governor.  I will inform Lt. Governor Smid that his vote is needed.

How about the Assembly expel the members that bring such shame to the body?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 05, 2010, 06:22:52 PM
Hamilton and Libertas have continued to flaunt the system and will now not be able to post at all. All of their posts will be deleted, whether it has to do with their elected offices or jobs because they continue to post when they are not allowed to.

Sewer is still allowed to take part here since he's not spamming this board still. If he continues not spamming like he has been I'll take him off Atlasia's troll list. Before that though I forgot for a second and deleted his newest post about abstaining.

Deleting posts in this thread is patently unfair to this Assembly and the citizens of the Northeast who elected those two people. 

Hearing what happened, I now declare the vote on the amendment a 3-3 TIE to be broken by the Lt. Governor.  I will inform Lt. Governor Smid that his vote is needed.

How about the Assembly expel the members that bring such shame to the body?

We have no express power to do so.  The Joe Wilson Act takes any power we may have had in that area away from us.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on January 05, 2010, 06:24:51 PM
Hamilton and Libertas have continued to flaunt the system and will now not be able to post at all. All of their posts will be deleted, whether it has to do with their elected offices or jobs because they continue to post when they are not allowed to.

Sewer is still allowed to take part here since he's not spamming this board still. If he continues not spamming like he has been I'll take him off Atlasia's troll list. Before that though I forgot for a second and deleted his newest post about abstaining.

Deleting posts in this thread is patently unfair to this Assembly and the citizens of the Northeast who elected those two people. 

Hearing what happened, I now declare the vote on the amendment a 3-3 TIE to be broken by the Lt. Governor.  I will inform Lt. Governor Smid that his vote is needed.

How about the Assembly expel the members that bring such shame to the body?

We have no express power to do so.  The Joe Wilson Act takes any power we may have had in that area away from us.

A verdict on the Joe Wilson Act is coming soon.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 05, 2010, 06:27:44 PM
We have no express power to do so.  The Joe Wilson Act takes any power we may have had in that area away from us.

Ok, Mr. Speaker, to clarify:

So they cannot post, but cannot be really removed from office too?

That means constant absentions?

With one vacancy, which is to fill, and permanently absent 2 Representatives, who are technically in office, we have 5 members to vote?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 05, 2010, 06:33:38 PM
We have no express power to do so.  The Joe Wilson Act takes any power we may have had in that area away from us.

Ok, Mr. Speaker, to clarify:

So they cannot post, but cannot be really removed from office too?

That means constant absentions?

With one vacancy, which is to fill, and permanently absent 2 Representatives, who are technically in office, we have 5 members to vote?

Well, I guess they could be removed automatically if they do not vote on 3 consecutive bills.  But both Libertas and Hamilton voted on the matter currently on the floor (as did Sewer Socialist).  I SAW Hamilton's Nay vote the amendment before it was erroneously deleted. 

Libertas and Hamilton are eligible to vote if they can vote.  If they do not vote, they will be treated as abstaining.  That should only matter if we're voting on a constitutional amendment.  Otherwise, their non-votes shouldn't matter.

As per past practice, none of Hamilton on Libertas' bills will be brought to the floor while they are under suspension.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 05, 2010, 06:42:41 PM
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for Rep. Antonio V regarding Anti-Discriminatory Act he reintroduced with former Rep. Doctor Cynic as co-sponsor. With Doctor Cynic departure, can I be allowed to act as co-sponson?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 05, 2010, 07:14:53 PM
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for Rep. Antonio V regarding Anti-Discriminatory Act he reintroduced with former Rep. Doctor Cynic as co-sponsor. With Doctor Cynic departure, can I be allowed to act as co-sponson?

Co-sponsors are largely irrelevant.  They don't have any say in whether a bill is amended - that job falls to the person who placed the bill in the queue, not the co-sponsor.

BTW - If anyone wants to sponsor any bills sponsored by Former Rep. Doctor Cynic, they should do so by reposting the bill in the Proposed Legislation thread.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on January 05, 2010, 09:42:23 PM
We have no express power to do so.  The Joe Wilson Act takes any power we may have had in that area away from us.

Ok, Mr. Speaker, to clarify:

So they cannot post, but cannot be really removed from office too?

That means constant absentions?

With one vacancy, which is to fill, and permanently absent 2 Representatives, who are technically in office, we have 5 members to vote?

Well, I guess they could be removed automatically if they do not vote on 3 consecutive bills.  But both Libertas and Hamilton voted on the matter currently on the floor (as did Sewer Socialist).  I SAW Hamilton's Nay vote the amendment before it was erroneously deleted. 

Libertas and Hamilton are eligible to vote if they can vote.  If they do not vote, they will be treated as abstaining.  That should only matter if we're voting on a constitutional amendment.  Otherwise, their non-votes shouldn't matter.

As per past practice, none of Hamilton on Libertas' bills will be brought to the floor while they are under suspension.

I dont know if it helps, but I too saw Hamiltons vote, as well as Sewers abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 06, 2010, 07:14:18 AM
I dont know if it helps, but I too saw Hamiltons vote, as well as Sewers abstain.

We all saw


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 06, 2010, 07:56:54 AM
So, what are we doing with future Hamilton votes ? Can we count his votes while they have to be deleted ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 06, 2010, 02:56:26 PM
So, what are we doing with future Hamilton votes ? Can we count his votes while they have to be deleted ?

If they are cast and remain on the board, I will count them.   If not, I won't.   If I see them, I will quote them in a reply to try to preserve them.  But the bottom line is that the moderators shouldn't be deleting votes in the first place.  It's another reason why we need our own sub-board - so that we can make sure votes don't get deleted.

We're still waiting on the Lt. Governor to break the tie.  I know Smid may take a bit of time to respond since he's been away.  I've PMed him and expect a response soon.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on January 07, 2010, 05:13:15 AM
My apologies for the delay in casting a deciding ballot.

As I read the Bill, the Age of Consent will be adjusted to 16, so long as the other consenting person is younger than the age of 21.

I cast a ballot in favour of this Bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 07, 2010, 05:26:14 AM
My apologies for the delay in casting a deciding ballot.

As I read the Bill, the Age of Consent will be adjusted to 16, so long as the other consenting person is younger than the age of 21.

I cast a ballot in favour of this Bill.

You mean in favor of the Amendment I made on this bill ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 07, 2010, 06:33:24 AM
I'm not happy with the age of consent remaining ridicolous 16, but I'm not going to sink the entire bill.

Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 07, 2010, 06:50:52 AM
I'm not happy with the age of consent remaining ridicolous 16, but I'm not going to sink the entire bill.

Aye.

We're not yet voting on the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 07, 2010, 07:31:34 AM
I'm not happy with the age of consent remaining ridicolous 16, but I'm not going to sink the entire bill.

Aye.

We're not yet voting on the bill.

Ok, sorry for that


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 07, 2010, 02:47:00 PM

We are now.

()

The vote is for final passage of the Pornography and Age of Consent Act of 2010, as amended:

Pornography and Age of Consent Act of 2010

An act to liberalise laws restricting sexual activity and to amend the Pornography and Age of Consent Act of 2005

1.   In accordance with the federal Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act of 2009, All individuals 14 years of age or older shall have the right to buy, possess, and view pornography depicting only persons of 18 years of age or older.

2.   All those persons of 16 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons who are less than 5 years older.

3.   Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 16 years of age or younger is guilty of statutory rape.

This vote will remain open until the earlier of 2:50PM Eastern on Friday, January 8, 2010, or when all Northeast Representatives have voted.  

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain - and please don't delete your vote once cast.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 07, 2010, 02:48:30 PM
Saved - in case deleted by the mods (Hamilton's vote).



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 07, 2010, 02:55:13 PM
Once again, while I'm not pleased with retaining ridicolous 15 as age of concent, I jhave no other choice but to support the bill.

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 07, 2010, 03:14:51 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 07, 2010, 03:53:28 PM
Saved, in case it is deleted by the mods (Libertas' vote):



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 07, 2010, 04:03:22 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on January 07, 2010, 04:06:55 PM
Abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 07, 2010, 04:14:49 PM
Nay

I prefer this to the initial bill, but I worry that we're muddying up the law with multiple provisions stating almost the same thing.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on January 07, 2010, 05:21:11 PM
aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 07, 2010, 05:40:03 PM
()

With 6 ayes, 1 nay and 1 expressed abstention, the Pornography and Age of Consent Act of 2010 passes and will be presented to the Governor for his signature or veto.

-------------------------------------
Reps. Hamilton and Libertas' bills will be temporarily tabled until they inform the Assembly that they are no longer under administrative suspension and able to actively debate amendments.  Therefore, the next piece of legislation on the floor is:

Northeast Economic Recovery Stimulus Act

The 100 billion dollars received by the Northeast Region from the Federal Government of Atlasia in accordance to Section 4 a) of the 2009 Atlasian Relief and Recovery Act shall be employed as follows.

Section 1 : Regional Fund for Economic Recovery

1. The Regional Fund for Economic Recovery (RFER) is hereby established.
2. The RFER shall receive $20 billion dollars for its functioning.
3. The RFER shall have the authority to provide loans to any business expressly asking for which is in a situation close to bankruptcy. Said loans shall be considered as a monetary help coming from the Northeast Region.
4. The RFER shall be free to negotiate interest rates with businesses.
5. The RFER shall be effective at January 1st, 2010, and shall be dismissed at December 31st, 2014, unless the Northeast Legislative Assembly provides otherwise by a majority vote.

Section 2 : Help to green jobs

1. The Northeast Region shall invest $5 billions in renewable energy.
2. Businesses in the economic sector of renewable energy shall receive a monetary help from the Northeast Region, whose total amount shall be $5 billions. The amount of money received shall be proportional to the number of employees of each business.

Section 3 : Help to the lower classes

1. $10 billions shall serve to establish the Economic Recovery Allocation (ERA). The ERA shall be granted to any household of the first and second tax brackets, as defined by the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Its amount shall be the same for any household.
2. $10 billions shall be dealt at December 31, 2010, between every business having employed at least 10 individuals who had been unemployed for more than one year after January 1, 2010.

Section 4 : Budget severity

The remaining $50 billions shall be integrated to the budget of the Northeast Region and used for normal functioning expenses.

Sponsor: Rep. Antonio V

The question is whether the Bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 5:40PM Eastern on Saturday, January 9, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative Antonio V, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 07, 2010, 05:46:54 PM

Welcome to the Northeast Assembly!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 07, 2010, 06:13:00 PM

Meaning what exactly?  Please specify a date and time when you'd like the debate to end.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 08, 2010, 02:19:52 AM
()
There's a motion on the floor to suspend Section 3(a) of the SOAP extend debate until  5:40PM Eastern on Tuesday, January 12, 2010.  

All those in favor shall say Aye, those opposed Nay, those who wish to abstain, Abstain.

This vote shall be held open until the earlier of 2:20AM Eastern on Saturday, January 9, 2010, or when all Northeast Representatives shall have voted.

Debate on the bill on the floor is allowed - and encouraged - during the vote on the motion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 08, 2010, 02:53:36 AM
I would like to know why does Rep. Hamilton wish to extend the debate period. Anyways, since it's an important bill that neeeds discussions about precise issues. So I vote Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on January 08, 2010, 03:24:44 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on January 08, 2010, 09:24:01 AM
I would like to know why does Rep. Hamilton wish to extend the debate period. Anyways, since it's an important bill that neeeds discussions about precise issues. So I vote Aye.

This bill is is a big task that we need to get perfect.

Quoted, incase it's deleted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 08, 2010, 09:31:25 AM
Nay to a motion on the floor to suspend


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 08, 2010, 10:12:28 AM
I would like to know why does Rep. Hamilton wish to extend the debate period. Anyways, since it's an important bill that neeeds discussions about precise issues. So I vote Aye.

This bill is is a big task that we need to get perfect.

I tend to agree with that, so it's fine.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 08, 2010, 11:58:23 AM
Aye.



I'd like to offer a (hopefully friendly) amendment to strike all instances of billions and replace them with billion to correct a grammatical issue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 08, 2010, 02:20:28 PM
Aye, I guess, if the sponsor wants it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on January 08, 2010, 02:22:55 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 08, 2010, 10:57:17 PM

Saved from mod deletion.

()

By a vote of 6-2, including Hamilton's now-deleted vote,  the motion to extend debate until 5:40PM Eastern on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 passes.

Antonio V - you still have the floor to explain your bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 09, 2010, 06:06:11 AM
Fellow Representatives,

Time is up to put an end to the economic crisis. More than one year ago, the collapse of our financial system brutally showed us how much our ideological dogma was out of touch with the real world. While many Atlasian politician were self-assured that State wasn't the solution, but the problem, they are now able to see what "autoregulation of the market" leads to : behaviours hurting common sense, rising inequalities, and finally the economic krach. Only the strong action of the Atlasian State, which a massive and rapid action in favor of failing businesses, prevented the catastophe. So, it's finally time to renounce to the ideological dogma of neoliberalism, and adopt a pragmatic attitude on the reality of our economic situation.

We saved our economy from collapse : now it's time to engage structural reforms of our economy, in order to favor a rapid return to a strong and fairly shared economic growth. That's the purpose of this bill.

This bill pursues four main goals, detailed in each section.
First of all, a continuous help to businesses facing economic difficulties, thanks to thr Regional Fund for Economic recovery. Saving failing businesses is absolutely necessary to avoid a new recession. Plus, thanks to the Fair Distribution of Public Money Act, it will also contribute to save jobs.
Secondly, the second section aims to favor economic sectors favoring the development of ecologic methods of production, turning our economic growth more and more toward activities respecting the environment.
Also, we should not forget that an economy doesn't work without its lower classes. The loss of buying power these persons are suffering from strongly penalizes our economy. So, a priority of our region should be to help them from being reduced to poverty, and supply them the resources necessary to consume. To reach this goal, two means will be employed : firstly, the Economic Recovery Allocation, guaranteed to any low-income household, will give them a help to improve their economic situation. Then, the subvention to businesses employing long-time unemployed persons will generate a massive increase in these people's income, as well as favoring the creation of wealth.
As the Atlasian Relief and Recovery Act advices us, a priority will be given to budget severity : that's why half of the money we received from the federal Government will be spared, allowing our region to keep a balanced budget and avoid indebtedness.

Fellow Representatives, this is not an ideological bill. It's, to the contrary, an equilibrated and pragmatic bill that aims to help our region to get out of depression and to build a stronger regional economy, based on budget balance, strong businesses, buying power, and green activities. That's why I encourage all of you to propose Amendments to improve this bill. That's also why the failure of this bill will be a catastrophe for our region. We received $100 bilions from the federal Government since several month. Now we need a bill defining how we will use them, for the good of the Northeast and its economy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 11, 2010, 06:38:09 AM
Seems that representatives care absolutely nothing of an essential bill that will decide the future of our economy. It's really comfroting.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 11, 2010, 08:42:54 AM
Seems that representatives care absolutely nothing of an essential bill that will decide the future of our economy. It's really comfroting.

Your adress leave me with nothing to add.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 11, 2010, 10:03:02 AM
Seems that representatives care absolutely nothing of an essential bill that will decide the future of our economy. It's really comfroting.

Your adress leave me with nothing to add.

I just hope that those who don't even bother to express concerns won't vote nay on the final vote...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Hash on January 11, 2010, 10:08:16 AM
Note from your Senator: The Regional and Local Fiscal Relief Act gives $7 billion to the Northeast.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Regional_%26_Local_Fiscal_Relief_Act


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 11, 2010, 10:23:36 AM
Sorry for the mistake. I hereby amend the bill as follows :


Northeast Economic Recovery Stimulus Act

The 7 billion dollars received by the Northeast Region from the Federal Government of Atlasia in accordance to Section 4 a) of the 2009 Atlasian Relief and Recovery Act, and the Regional and Local Fiscal Relief Act shall be employed as follows.

Section 1 : Regional Fund for Economic Recovery

1. The Regional Fund for Economic Recovery (RFER) is hereby established.
2. The RFER shall receive $1.5 billion dollars for its functioning.
3. The RFER shall have the authority to provide loans to any business expressly asking for which is in a situation close to bankruptcy. Said loans shall be considered as a monetary help coming from the Northeast Region.
4. The RFER shall be free to negotiate interest rates with businesses.
5. The RFER shall be effective at January 1st, 2010, and shall be dismissed at December 31st, 2014, unless the Northeast Legislative Assembly provides otherwise by a majority vote.

Section 2 : Help to green jobs

1. The Northeast Region shall invest $500 millions in renewable energy.
2. Businesses in the economic sector of renewable energy shall receive a monetary help from the Northeast Region, whose total amount shall be $500 millions. The amount of money received shall be proportional to the number of employees of each business.

Section 3 : Help to the lower classes

1. $1 billion shall serve to establish the Economic Recovery Allocation (ERA). The ERA shall be granted to any household of the first and second tax brackets, as defined by the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Its amount shall be the same for any household.
2. $500 millions shall be dealt at December 31, 2010, between every business having employed at least 10 individuals who had been unemployed for more than one year after January 1, 2010.

Section 4 : Budget severity

The remaining $3 billions shall be integrated to the budget of the Northeast Region and used for normal functioning expenses.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 11, 2010, 05:40:45 PM
Sorry I haven't had a chance to respond earlier - I've been busy.

My main concern with this bill is that between the Economic Tax Recovery Act and Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act, we've already spent the meager stimulus funds we've received from the Atlasian federal government.  We should have received more, but were allocated less due to changes to the original bill made by our regional senator - who should have been looking out for the interests of the Northeast.

The Northeast economy is getting better.  If anything, we should be looking at ways to balance our budget, not increase the deficit.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on January 11, 2010, 05:42:57 PM
why do we need a balanced budget?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on January 11, 2010, 05:52:44 PM

Government is not a business, it can not go go out of business.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 11, 2010, 06:04:23 PM

Government is not a business, it can not go go out of business.

The Northeast can't print money.  Any debt service costs will have to come from the taxpayers, at the expense of something else.  Running a temporary deficit in a time of economic crisis is okay - for a very short period.  Turning that into a permanent structural deficit - or increasing the deficit when things are getting better - would be a huge problem.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 11, 2010, 07:48:06 PM
Am I correct in assuming Rep. Hamilton wants each amendment voted on separately?  If so, I will offer an amendment to Section 4, which I hope will be deemed friendly.  It's intended to clean up the language in case only some of the other proposed amendments pass:

Section 4 : Budget severity

The Any remaining $3 billions amount shall be integrated to the budget of the Northeast Region and used for normal functioning expenses.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 11, 2010, 07:53:23 PM
actually, let's do all of mine as one amendment. otherwise the math wont work out

Okay. 

The math would work if my amendment is deemed friendly, though. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 12, 2010, 02:36:27 AM
Section 4 : Budget severity

The Any remaining $3 billions amount shall be integrated to the budget of the Northeast Region and used for normal functioning expenses.

Friendly, no problem with that.


BTW, you said that we should focus on budget severity : it's indeed what we do. As you see, almost half of the money will go there.

The economic recovery tax act was a good thing, but can"t be enough. We can't base a stimulus bill only on tax credits. My 3 goals (help to businesses, green activities and lower classes) are necessary for an equilibrated economy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 12, 2010, 08:13:42 AM
I again bring up the following grammatical point: It should be $500 million, not millions. And billion, again, without an s. Can we please correct this as friendly?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 12, 2010, 11:10:39 AM
I again bring up the following grammatical point: It should be $500 million, not millions. And billion, again, without an s. Can we please correct this as friendly?

Friendly.
What do you think about the bill itself ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 12, 2010, 01:14:27 PM
Here are the changes I'd like to see made:

Northeast Economic Recovery Stimulus Act

The 7 billion dollars received by the Northeast Region from the Federal Government of Atlasia in accordance to Section 4 a) of the 2009 Atlasian Relief and Recovery Act, and the Regional and Local Fiscal Relief Act shall be employed as follows:

Section 1 : Regional Fund for Economic Recovery

1. The Regional Fund for Economic Recovery (RFER) is hereby established.
2. The RFER shall receive $1.5 billion dollars for its functioning.
3. The RFER shall have the authority to provide loans to any qualified small business expressly asking for which is in a situation close to bankruptcy. Said loans shall be considered as a monetary help coming from the Northeast Region.
4. The RFER shall be free to negotiate interest rates with businesses.
5. The RFER shall be established February 1st, 2010, and shall be dismissed at December 31st, 2014, unless the Northeast Legislative Assembly provides otherwise by a majority vote.

Section 2 : Investment in Green Jobs

1. The Northeast Region shall invest $500 million worth of no-interest loans in businesses in the renewable energy sector.
2. Businesses which are actively hiring new employees, or which seek to hire new employees through use of the no-interest loan, shall be given priority in the loan process.

Section 3 : Lower-class Economic Assistance

1. $1.5 billion shall serve to establish the Economic Recovery Allocation (ERA). The ERA shall be granted to any household in the lowest two income brackets in federal tax year 2009, as defined by the Fiscal Responsibility Act.
2. The amount each eligible household will receive shall be determined by dividing the number of eligible households into $1.5 billion.
3. The ERA is a one-time payment provided by the government of the Northeast for economic stimulus.

Section 4 : Budget severity

The remaining $3 billion shall be integrated into the operating budget of the Northeast Region. These funds shall be prioritized to (1) provide local aid, (2) avoid cuts of service or tax increases, and (3) cover tax revenue shortfalls experienced on a regional level as a result of the current economic recession. These funds shall not be used for the establishment of new services or entitlements.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 12, 2010, 02:50:11 PM
It seems all very good.
Just one thing : what about subventions to enterprises employing long-time unemployed ? I think it's an important part of the bill.

Also, with the draft you have made, we have 3.5 bilion left for budget severity instead of 3. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 12, 2010, 04:31:17 PM
It seems all very good.
Just one thing : what about subventions to enterprises employing long-time unemployed ? I think it's an important part of the bill.

Also, with the draft you have made, we have 3.5 bilion left for budget severity instead of 3. ;)

Oh. I actually took out $500 million because it looked like it was an inadvertent duplicate. I'll revise my version of the bill a little later.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 12, 2010, 05:53:43 PM
I'm going to hold things open until 8PM so that Mr. Moderate and Antonio V can agree on language.  I don't want to put an amendment to a vote if I don't have to.

I will withdraw my amendment if not incorporated in Mr. Moderate's drafr.

We will commence a vote on Hamilton's unfriendly amendment - and any others - at 8PM.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 12, 2010, 08:00:44 PM
()

I WAS going to commence a vote on Hamilton's proposed amendments, but I can't find it because  the Mods DELETED MY POST QUOTING IT.  This is a HUGE infringement on MY rights to post whatever I want - I'm no troll and on no list, and an affront against this body.

I will be IMMEDIATELY seeking an injunction against the mods in Federal court.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on January 12, 2010, 08:18:48 PM
I will resign my seat if and only if the Governor first appoints segwaystyle2012 to replace me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 12, 2010, 08:26:25 PM
I will resign my seat if and only if the Governor first appoints segwaystyle2012 to replace me.

There is no need to resign your seat.   The mods aren't even Northeast citizens and have no business running this Assembly.

Please PM me your proposed amendment so I can put it on the floor. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on January 12, 2010, 08:27:16 PM
I will resign my seat if and only if the Governor first appoints segwaystyle2012 to replace me.

There is no need to resign your seat.   The mods aren't even Northeast citizens and have no business running this Assembly.

Please PM me your proposed amendment so I can put it on the floor. 

I had it saved but erased once I saw you quoted it. Looks like I will have to start all over


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 12, 2010, 08:31:31 PM
I will resign my seat if and only if the Governor first appoints segwaystyle2012 to replace me.

There is no need to resign your seat.   The mods aren't even Northeast citizens and have no business running this Assembly.

Please PM me your proposed amendment so I can put it on the floor.  

I had it saved but erased once I saw you quoted it. Looks like I will have to start all over

I think general tone of your amendment was to delete sections 2 and 3 and reallocate the funds to the RFER in Section 1 - though you might have also changed the text of Section 1 a bit.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on January 12, 2010, 08:32:10 PM
I will resign my seat if and only if the Governor first appoints segwaystyle2012 to replace me.

There is no need to resign your seat.   The mods aren't even Northeast citizens and have no business running this Assembly.

Please PM me your proposed amendment so I can put it on the floor. 

I had it saved but erased once I saw you quoted it. Looks like I will have to start all over

I think general tone of your amendment was to delete section 2 and 3 and reallocate the funds to the RFER in Section 1 - though you might have also changed the text of Section 1 a bit.

I did change quite a bit of Section 1.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on January 12, 2010, 10:03:49 PM
I will resign my seat if and only if the Governor first appoints segwaystyle2012 to replace me.

Don't resign please.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on January 12, 2010, 11:38:32 PM
()

I WAS going to commence a vote on Hamilton's proposed amendments, but I can't find it because  the Mods DELETED MY POST QUOTING IT.  This is a HUGE infringement on MY rights to post whatever I want - I'm no troll and on no list, and an affront against this body.

I will be IMMEDIATELY seeking an injunction against the mods in Federal court.

Good luck with getting them to adhere to a fantasyland court order.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on January 12, 2010, 11:54:38 PM
()

I WAS going to commence a vote on Hamilton's proposed amendments, but I can't find it because  the Mods DELETED MY POST QUOTING IT.  This is a HUGE infringement on MY rights to post whatever I want - I'm no troll and on no list, and an affront against this body.

I will be IMMEDIATELY seeking an injunction against the mods in Federal court.

Good luck with getting them to adhere to a fantasyland court order.

Lucky for the mods, there won't be one. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on January 12, 2010, 11:58:59 PM
I've been told the NE Assembly is a circus at the moment, so I took a peek. Carry on ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 13, 2010, 12:07:12 AM
I've been told the NE Assembly is a circus at the moment, so I took a peek. Carry on ;)

Don't blame me or this Assembly.  The actions of the moderators have made it impossible to run anything.  Legitimate amendments get proposed by sitting members of this Assembly, then deleted by the mods.  This Assembly simply cannot function if I don't have the text of proposed Amendments to put to a vote.  Votes are getting deleted by the mods - how can I get an accurate vote count?  

The mods are making my job impossible.  We have no power to throw members of this Assembly out of office.  Reps. Hamilton and Libertas are still sitting members, still able to propose amendments, still entitled to vote.  

This situation is an absolute disgrace that doesn't reflect well on the mods - especially when they are deleting posts of the Speaker of the Assembly.  I am the furthest thing from a troll.  I've done nothing wrong.

Quite frankly, if this isn't resolved within the next few days, I will resign from this Assembly and Atlasia.   I don't need this crap.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on January 13, 2010, 12:37:21 AM
1) FWIW, I have a real big issue with the policy of deleting all posts made by posters defined as trolls (and creating such guidelines in the first place). 

2) I don't think it's successful because neither moderator or Dave Leip are on the board 24 hours a day and this encourages trolls to spam the boards during the times they aren't here because, well, they can get away with it.

3) Either you place a poster on mod review ("as a troll") such that legitimate posts get through but spamming is prevented or you ban the poster.

4) I think post moderation is becoming too overactive now because of the Post Moderation board, although it does make it easier to respond to complaints.  But seriously, should my post be deleted if I call NCYankee a schizophrenic or bipolar?  I don't think so, after all it is the truth and it's kinda funny too.

5) The reason why #1 and #4 are occurring is because Dave Leip refuses to engage in #3 and, as I have predicted and will continue to predict, most people will think him more unfair for engaging in #1 and #4 than if he had engaged in #3 to begin with.

6) Preventing moderators from deleting posts on these two boards is not the Supreme Court's responsibility which is why we denied your petition.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on January 13, 2010, 01:05:22 AM
FTR, I've been on mod review before and haven't done anything to warrant it again (or else I'd be on it, obviously).

While on mod review, I was able to get many racist posts approved that were deleted  by another mod later. So I'm not sure that system, is very worthwhile.

In other words, you're saying that you should be banned.  Gotcha.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on January 13, 2010, 01:08:33 AM
FTR, I've been on mod review before and haven't done anything to warrant it again (or else I'd be on it, obviously).

While on mod review, I was able to get many racist posts approved that were deleted  by another mod later. So I'm not sure that system, is very worthwhile.

In other words, you're saying that you should be banned.  Gotcha.

No, I'm saying the moderators are either A. approving posts that shouldn't be or B. deleting posts that shouldn't be. Either way the mods suck.

I don't see what a ban would do.

A ban would make sure that neither option A nor option B occur. It is a perfect solution.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on January 13, 2010, 01:19:29 AM
FTR, I've been on mod review before and haven't done anything to warrant it again (or else I'd be on it, obviously).

While on mod review, I was able to get many racist posts approved that were deleted  by another mod later. So I'm not sure that system, is very worthwhile.

In other words, you're saying that you should be banned.  Gotcha.

No, I'm saying the moderators are either A. approving posts that shouldn't be or B. deleting posts that shouldn't be. Either way the mods suck.

I don't see what a ban would do.

A ban would make sure that neither option A nor option B occur. It is a perfect solution.

Everyone knows I'd come back.

So? If someone is a frequent shoplifter, but tells me that if I call the police he will come back and shoplift twice as much after he gets out of jail, it won't stop me from calling the police.

If you are banned, you will either come back Ogis-style and be banned very quickly or you will come back Ogis 2-style and behave yourself while flying under the radar. Either option is preferable to the status quo. This whole thing is an interesting deterrence-style game theory problem.

The order of the forum's preferences is: a) Ban, b) Ban and return under the radar, c) Ban and make a mess, d) status quo. So a>b>c>d.

Your order of preferences is, I presume: d>c>b>a.

So it looks like the equilibrium point is "c," where you will be banned and will make a mess and be re-banned. The only question is how close the forum's preferences are to Dave's. So far, they look more like yours, or maybe even a>b>d>c, which still comes out with status quo (d) as equilibrium. We will see what happens.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on January 13, 2010, 01:30:33 AM
Nothing will happen, and you're irrelevant opinion won't be making an impact, thankfully, for the forum's sake. This place needs me.

I don't think my opinion will impact the judgement of the mods or Dave. I never implied that, nor would I ever think of doing so.

As for the forum needing you, I can only laugh. You contribute almost nothing substantive to the game or the forum at-large. Maybe you can turn out numbers, but in terms of quality you actually detract from the overall experience here. The frequent purging of your posts from Atlasia has been quite nice actually. In anything, this place needs to be rid of you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 13, 2010, 01:31:51 AM
1) FWIW, I have a real big issue with the policy of deleting all posts made by posters defined as trolls (and creating such guidelines in the first place).  

2) I don't think it's successful because neither moderator or Dave Leip are on the board 24 hours a day and this encourages trolls to spam the boards during the times they aren't here because, well, they can get away with it.

3) Either you place a poster on mod review ("as a troll") such that legitimate posts get through but spamming is prevented or you ban the poster.

4) I think post moderation is becoming too overactive now because of the Post Moderation board, although it does make it easier to respond to complaints.  But seriously, should my post be deleted if I call NCYankee a schizophrenic or bipolar?  I don't think so, after all it is the truth and it's kinda funny too.

5) The reason why #1 and #4 are occurring is because Dave Leip refuses to engage in #3 and, as I have predicted and will continue to predict, most people will think him more unfair for engaging in #1 and #4 than if he had engaged in #3 to begin with.

6) Preventing moderators from deleting posts on these two boards is not the Supreme Court's responsibility which is why we denied your petition.

I respectfully disagree with your point 6.   The posts on this thread are posts of the Northeast Assembly.   They are vital to the functioning of Atlasia as a game, not like the rest of the stuff on this board other than the Mideast Assembly and NE Proposed Legislation threads.   The other posts on this board are commentary or polls or something else worth less to the game.   Unfortunately, the Northeast Legislature doesn't have its own board or sub-board, so we're left with moderation by default by the same moderators based on alleged transgressions in posts that have nothing to do with how Assemblymen conduct themselves in the legislature.  Mideast and Midwest residents shouldn't be dictating how the Northeast conducts its legislative business.  In an ideal world, the Lt. Governor or, in his absence (like right now), the Northeast Speaker would be responsible for controlling the debate on a separate Northeast Assembly board.
 
Speaking of which - Order! Northeast Representatives shall refrain from personal attacks in this Assembly!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 13, 2010, 02:03:11 AM
Audience goes wild....


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 13, 2010, 07:31:37 AM
FTR, I oppose deleting cinyc posts, and I consider that as an useless abuse of power.
Anyways, could we please come back in topic ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on January 13, 2010, 11:39:31 AM
Nothing will happen, and you're irrelevant opinion won't be making an impact, thankfully, for the forum's sake. This place needs me.

Adios, muchachos, adios...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on January 13, 2010, 12:31:29 PM
Hamilton has been banned. You can commence to get rid of him now if that doesn't automatically happen.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on January 13, 2010, 12:35:21 PM
Hamilton has been banned. You can commence to get rid of him now if that doesn't automatically happen.

How long is he banned for?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on January 13, 2010, 12:36:14 PM
Hamilton has been banned. You can commence to get rid of him now if that doesn't automatically happen.

How long is he banned for?

He told me he was banned forever.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on January 13, 2010, 12:37:04 PM
Hamilton has been banned. You can commence to get rid of him now if that doesn't automatically happen.

How long is he banned for?

Permenantly. Though I hear he has 6-10+ accounts in waiting from reliable sources.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 13, 2010, 12:39:03 PM
He will be back, and sooner than you can say "IP check".


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on January 13, 2010, 12:39:38 PM
Hamilton has been banned. You can commence to get rid of him now if that doesn't automatically happen.

How long is he banned for?

Permenantly. Though I hear he has 6-10+ accounts in waiting from reliable sources.

I just asked and he said he only has one.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on January 13, 2010, 12:40:10 PM
He wil be back, and sooner than you can say "IP check".

That's why I've said in the trolllist thread let me know about suspicious accounts or really any new accounts registering or posting and I can check them out or get others to check them out.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on January 13, 2010, 12:42:01 PM
Well news from up high is that 4 of his sock accounts were never activated and then deleted today.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on January 13, 2010, 12:42:30 PM
Damn.. okay.. I gotta figure out what to do. I know that he wanted to resign and get GJ into his seat, but not sure if he did that or not. If he didnt, we will have to wait to get an appointment in.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 13, 2010, 12:42:43 PM
He wil be back, and sooner than you can say "IP check".

That's why I've said in the trolllist thread let me know about suspicious accounts or really any new accounts registering or posting and I can check them out or get others to check them out.

Best luck to all of you, you will have to work very hard next days...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on January 13, 2010, 12:44:08 PM
Damn.. okay.. I gotta figure out what to do. I know that he wanted to resign and get GJ into his seat, but not sure if he did that or not. If he didnt, we will have to wait to get an appointment in.

I am still open to serving but I don't want my friendship with him to be a hindrance to anything or anyone else.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 13, 2010, 02:29:24 PM
FTR, I oppose deleting cinyc posts, and I consider that as an useless abuse of power.
Anyways, could we please come back in topic ?

()

Yes.  Do you have an agreement with Rep. Mr. Moderate on the final text of the bill?  If so, I'd like to put it to a vote, seeing no unfriendly amendments on the floor.  Otherwise, I'm going to have to put Mr. Moderate's amendment on the floor.  Please post it ASAP.

Former Rep. Hamilton's proposed amendment is dead since I don't have the text and can't recreate it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 13, 2010, 02:43:55 PM
I tend to favor Rep. Moderate's text overall. However, after I expressed some precise concerns, he said :

I'll revise my version of the bill a little later.

So, I'd wish to see Rep. Moderate's new revision to deem it as friendly.

If we can't do anything to extend the debate period, I will deem Mr Moderate's Amendment as friendly anyways.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 13, 2010, 02:54:08 PM
I tend to favor Rep. Moderate's text overall. However, after I expressed some precise concerns, he said :

I'll revise my version of the bill a little later.

So, I'd wish to see Rep. Moderate's new revision to deem it as friendly.

If we can't do anything to extend the debate period, I will deem Mr Moderate's Amendment as friendly anyways.

I will hold off until 8PM tonight in hopes Mr. Moderate can finalize the language.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 13, 2010, 03:29:14 PM
Damn.. okay.. I gotta figure out what to do. I know that he wanted to resign and get GJ into his seat, but not sure if he did that or not. If he didnt, we will have to wait to get an appointment in.

Governor, since Hamilton has been banished from Atlasia, the seat is simply vacant.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 13, 2010, 08:07:10 PM
()

The proceedings have been delayed long enough.  Since there's no agreement despite two extensions provided to get one, we will vote on Mr. Moderate's amendment as if it were unfriendly:
 
Quote
Northeast Economic Recovery Stimulus Act

The 7 billion dollars received by the Northeast Region from the Federal Government of Atlasia in accordance to Section 4 a) of the 2009 Atlasian Relief and Recovery Act, and the Regional and Local Fiscal Relief Act shall be employed as follows:

Section 1 : Regional Fund for Economic Recovery

1. The Regional Fund for Economic Recovery (RFER) is hereby established.
2. The RFER shall receive $1.5 billion dollars for its functioning.
3. The RFER shall have the authority to provide loans to any qualified small business expressly asking for which is in a situation close to bankruptcy. Said loans shall be considered as a monetary help coming from the Northeast Region.
4. The RFER shall be free to negotiate interest rates with businesses.
5. The RFER shall be established February 1st, 2010, and shall be dismissed at December 31st, 2014, unless the Northeast Legislative Assembly provides otherwise by a majority vote.

Section 2 : Investment in Green Jobs

1. The Northeast Region shall invest $500 million worth of no-interest loans in businesses in the renewable energy sector.
2. Businesses which are actively hiring new employees, or which seek to hire new employees through use of the no-interest loan, shall be given priority in the loan process.

Section 3 : Lower-class Economic Assistance

1. $1.5 billion shall serve to establish the Economic Recovery Allocation (ERA). The ERA shall be granted to any household in the lowest two income brackets in federal tax year 2009, as defined by the Fiscal Responsibility Act.
2. The amount each eligible household will receive shall be determined by dividing the number of eligible households into $1.5 billion.
3. The ERA is a one-time payment provided by the government of the Northeast for economic stimulus.

Section 4 : Budget severity

The remaining $3 billion shall be integrated into the operating budget of the Northeast Region. These funds shall be prioritized to (1) provide local aid, (2) avoid cuts of service or tax increases, and (3) cover tax revenue shortfalls experienced on a regional level as a result of the current economic recession. These funds shall not be used for the establishment of new services or entitlements.

This vote shall be held open until 8:10 PM on Thursday, January 14, 2010, unless all Representatives shall have voted sooner.  A vote on the final bill will proceed shortly thereafter.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on January 13, 2010, 08:12:47 PM
aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on January 13, 2010, 08:54:43 PM
There are parts that aren't so bad, but Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 13, 2010, 09:02:06 PM
Sorry, folks.  Today has been an incredibly busy day for me.

Aye to the amendment.

I would otherwise prefer to keep businesses from getting a mass payout for doing absolutely nothing.  Hopefully, there will still be time to fix the addition error—I think it could do the most good wrapped up into Section 1.  (And FTR, I limited Section 1 to small businesses because small amounts of money could do huge amounts of good there.  A $1.5 billion loan to a company like GE would be a drop in a bucket.)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 14, 2010, 01:47:11 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 14, 2010, 05:36:43 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 14, 2010, 02:51:01 PM
Aye to the amendment, because it cleans up the language. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 14, 2010, 08:09:52 PM
()

By a vote of 5-1 with one absence, the amendment to the bill passes.  We will now vote on final passage of the bill, as amended:

Quote
Northeast Economic Recovery Stimulus Act

The 7 billion dollars received by the Northeast Region from the Federal Government of Atlasia in accordance to Section 4 a) of the 2009 Atlasian Relief and Recovery Act, and the Regional and Local Fiscal Relief Act shall be employed as follows:

Section 1 : Regional Fund for Economic Recovery

1. The Regional Fund for Economic Recovery (RFER) is hereby established.
2. The RFER shall receive $1.5 billion dollars for its functioning.
3. The RFER shall have the authority to provide loans to any qualified small business expressly asking for which is in a situation close to bankruptcy. Said loans shall be considered as a monetary help coming from the Northeast Region.
4. The RFER shall be free to negotiate interest rates with businesses.
5. The RFER shall be established February 1st, 2010, and shall be dismissed at December 31st, 2014, unless the Northeast Legislative Assembly provides otherwise by a majority vote.

Section 2 : Investment in Green Jobs

1. The Northeast Region shall invest $500 million worth of no-interest loans in businesses in the renewable energy sector.
2. Businesses which are actively hiring new employees, or which seek to hire new employees through use of the no-interest loan, shall be given priority in the loan process.

Section 3 : Lower-class Economic Assistance

1. $1.5 billion shall serve to establish the Economic Recovery Allocation (ERA). The ERA shall be granted to any household in the lowest two income brackets in federal tax year 2009, as defined by the Fiscal Responsibility Act.
2. The amount each eligible household will receive shall be determined by dividing the number of eligible households into $1.5 billion.
3. The ERA is a one-time payment provided by the government of the Northeast for economic stimulus.

Section 4 : Budget severity

The remaining $3 billion shall be integrated into the operating budget of the Northeast Region. These funds shall be prioritized to (1) provide local aid, (2) avoid cuts of service or tax increases, and (3) cover tax revenue shortfalls experienced on a regional level as a result of the current economic recession. These funds shall not be used for the establishment of new services or entitlements.

This vote shall be held open until 8:10 PM on Friday, January 15, 2010, unless all Representatives shall have voted sooner. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 14, 2010, 08:47:14 PM
I also vote Nay on final passage.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 14, 2010, 09:09:43 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on January 14, 2010, 09:34:11 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 15, 2010, 11:09:26 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 15, 2010, 12:21:48 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on January 15, 2010, 12:59:07 PM
Aye man


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 15, 2010, 02:26:54 PM
()

By a vote of 4-3 (including Libertas' vote, which was deleted by the moderators, who continue to censor my posts), the Northeast Economic Recovery Stimulus Act passes and will be presented to the Governor for his signature.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 15, 2010, 02:38:18 PM
Next matter:

Amendments to the SOAP for a faster legislative work

1. Section 3, subsection (a) of the SOAP is hereby amended to read : All proposed legislation shall be open for debate for no less than fourty-eight (48) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor. The Lt. Governor shall have the authority to extend the debating period upon ask of any Representative. No extension of the debate period shall exceed 48 hours, and no shortening shall exceed 24 hours.
2. Section 3, subsection (f) of the SOAP is hereby amended to read : A final vote on the proposed legislation shall take place after the Lt. Governor certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period). Such votes shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours, or until an absolute majority of all Representative has voted in favor of said legislation, if earlier. A piece of proposed legislation shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
3. Section 3, subsection (h) of the SOAP is hereby repealed.

Sponsor: Rep. Antonio V

The question is whether the Amendment to the SOAP should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 2:40PM Eastern on Sunday, January 17, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative Antonio V, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 15, 2010, 02:46:18 PM
For reference, the current text of the SOAP is here (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly#Standing_Order_on_Assembly_Procedure).

Section 3(h) states:
Quote
(h) Any Representative may make a motion to suspend sections 3(a), 3(d) or 3(f) of this Standing Order to increase or decrease the time of the debate or voting period. The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor. Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours, or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the relevant period shall be changed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 15, 2010, 04:13:16 PM
I guess the purpose of this bill is self-explanatory. More flexibility for the debating time (by suppressing the necessity of a vote), as well as limiting it too avoid excessive debating times. Plus, the possibility to end a vote as soon as the bill attains the absolute majority.
I precise, if it wasn't clear, that any power granted to the Lt Gov is authomatically granted to the speaker, so cinyc can handle this as he wishes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 15, 2010, 05:14:40 PM
I move strike your Section 2.  

Every representative should be entitled to go on record and vote, even if his or her vote is meaningless.   Waiting for a reasonable period to ensure that is the least we can do.  24 hours is reasonable, as most folks aren't on here every hour of the day and night.

I'm going to have to think whether deleting Section 3(h) has any unintended consequences.  On its face, it refers to Section 3(d), which you're not proposing to amend.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 15, 2010, 05:47:15 PM
I don't like it so much, but I accept striking Section 2 if you really hold to that. Anyways, I hereby Amend the bill as follows :


Amendments to the SOAP for a faster legislative work

1. Section 3, subsection (a) of the SOAP is hereby amended to read : All proposed legislation shall be open for debate for no less than thirty-six (36) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor. The Lt. Governor shall have the authority to extend the debating period upon ask of any Representative. No extension of the debate period shall exceed 60 hours, and no shortening shall exceed 18 hours.
2. Section 3, subsection (f) of the SOAP is hereby amended to read : A final vote on the proposed legislation shall take place after the Lt. Governor certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period). Such votes shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours, or until an absolute majority of all Representative has voted in favor of said legislation, if earlier. A piece of proposed legislation shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
3. Section 3, subsection (h) of the SOAP is hereby repealed.



If there is a broad consensus on the bill, 36 hours are perfectly sufficient to handle this. If not, I increased the "potential increade" time proportionally. This will help us gaining much time for passing new legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 17, 2010, 02:33:51 AM
36 hours presents a challenge for the chair.  If I start debate at 8PM, I'd have to end it at 8AM, and vice versa.  Most people who live in the eastern time zone are on their way to work or school at time - or already there.  Starting it during a lunch break in the afternoon, say at 1 or 2, would require a vote be open in the early morning, when most people are in bed.  Starting and ending at the same time of the day makes things easier to schedule - and less difficult to forget.

48 hours (or something close to it) works best from an administrative standpoint.  I propose you change 36 to 48.  The other changes are fine.

FYI - we can't repeal section (h) of the SOAP if we keep 3(d) and (f).  Instead, we need to amend it as follows:

(h) Any Representative may make a motion to suspend sections 3(a), 3(d) or 3(f) of this Standing Order to increase or decrease the time of the debate or voting period. The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor. Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours, or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the relevant period shall be changed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 17, 2010, 04:41:48 AM
The whole point of the bill was to make the debating time the shorter possible. If you want it to be done at the same exact time, then why not setting it to 24 instead of 48 ? The potential increase period will be raised proportionally.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 17, 2010, 04:45:12 AM
Amendments to the SOAP for a faster legislative work

1. Section 3, subsection (a) of the SOAP is hereby amended to read : All proposed legislation shall be open for debate for twenty-four (24) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor. The Lt. Governor shall have the authority to extend or shorten the debating period upon ask of any Representative. No extension of the debate period shall exceed 72 hours, and no shortening shall exceed 12 hours.
2. Section 3, subsection (h) of the SOAP is hereby amended to read : The Lt. Governor shall have the authority to extend the voting period upon ask of any Representative. No extension of the voting period shall exceed 24 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 17, 2010, 01:06:50 PM
The reason the default debate period is 48 hours is because not every Representative is on this board every day or every hour of the day.  It used to be 72 hours - but was lowered to 48 when someone proposed 24 hours in the past.  48 hours is fair.

What you'd get under my proposal is the chair's discretion to lessen or lengthen the debate period upon request.  A vote is technically required for that now.

Your 3(h) proposal doesn't work well with the current 3(d) or (e), which you left unchanged.

I move to change 24 to 48 in your new proposal, and if that passes, keep my earlier  proposed changes to 3(h).

This will likely be deemed unfriendly and put to a vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 17, 2010, 02:47:48 PM
()

Voting will commence on the amendments to the bill:

Amendment 1:
Quote
1.Section 3, subsection (a) of the SOAP is hereby amended to read : All proposed legislation shall be open for debate for twenty-four (24) forty-eight (48)  hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor. The Lt. Governor shall have the authority to extend or shorten the debating period upon ask the written request of any Representative. No extension of the debate period shall exceed 72 hours, and no shortening shall exceed 12 hours.

Separate Amendment 2, to become effective only upon the passage of Amendment 1:

Quote
2. Section 3, subsection (h) of the SOAP is hereby amended to read: Any Representative may make a motion to suspend sections 3(a), 3(d) or 3(f) of this Standing Order to increase or decrease the time of the debate or voting period. The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor. Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours, or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the relevant period shall be changed.

This vote shall be held open until the earlier of 2:50PM on Monday, January 18, or all Representatives shall have voted.

Please specify your votes on each amendment:
Amendment 1:
Amendment 2:


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 17, 2010, 02:53:54 PM
Amendment 1: Aye
Amendment 2: Aye

I usually wait to vote, but since it's my own amendment, will vote now.  24 hours is too short of a default debate period.  My amendment provides for the status quo, but allows a shorter or longer period if the chair grants a request of a Representative without a vote of all members.

Amendment 2 is a closer call to me, but I don't think Rep. Antonio V's language works well with the SOAP as written.  Plus, I don't see why we'd need to increase the voting period.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 17, 2010, 03:16:41 PM
Agreed. 24 hours is just too short.

Amendment 1: Aye

Amendment 2: Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 17, 2010, 03:19:06 PM
Aye to both


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 17, 2010, 03:53:23 PM
#1 : Nay
#2 : Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 17, 2010, 09:41:51 PM
#1: Aye
#2: Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on January 17, 2010, 09:44:05 PM
#1 : Nay
#2 : Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on January 17, 2010, 09:45:24 PM
1: Aye
2: Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 17, 2010, 09:56:07 PM

This will probably be deleted, but I will reflect this in the vote count regardless of what the mods do.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on January 17, 2010, 09:57:22 PM
I support both amendments because I believe they will help the Assembly legislate more efficiently and effectively.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 18, 2010, 07:20:24 AM

This will probably be deleted, but I will reflect this in the vote count regardless of what the mods do.

I can confirm if needed I saw these votes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 18, 2010, 07:23:19 AM

This will probably be deleted, but I will reflect this in the vote count regardless of what the mods do.

I can confirm if needed I saw these votes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 18, 2010, 02:51:49 PM

This will probably be deleted, but I will reflect this in the vote count regardless of what the mods do.

I can confirm if needed I saw these votes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 18, 2010, 02:57:05 PM
()

By a vote of 5-2 with one absence, Amendment 1 passes.
By a vote of 6-1 with one absence, Amendment 2 passes.

We will now proceed to voting on the bill as amended for final passage:

Quote
Amendments to the SOAP for a faster legislative work

1.  Section 3, subsection (a) of the SOAP is hereby amended to read: All proposed legislation shall be open for debate for forty-eight (48) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor. The Lt. Governor shall have the authority to extend or shorten the debating period upon the written request of any Representative. No extension of the debate period shall exceed 72 hours, and no shortening shall exceed 12 hours.
2.  Section 3, subsection (h) of the SOAP is hereby amended to read: Any Representative may make a motion to suspend sections  3(d) or 3(f) of this Standing Order to increase or decrease the time of the voting period. The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor. Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours, or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the relevant period shall be changed.

This vote shall be held open until the earlier of 3:00PM on Tuesday, January 19, or all Representatives shall have voted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 18, 2010, 03:13:23 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 18, 2010, 04:10:12 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 18, 2010, 04:18:11 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 18, 2010, 04:29:38 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on January 18, 2010, 09:38:03 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 18, 2010, 09:53:32 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on January 19, 2010, 12:40:59 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 19, 2010, 02:08:57 AM

Seems that everybody has voted now. So I guess we can proceed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 19, 2010, 02:26:05 AM

Yes - but I'm not going to put another bill on the floor in the wee hours of the morning Eastern time.   


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 19, 2010, 02:29:55 AM

Yes - but I'm not going to put another bill on the floor in the wee hours of the morning Eastern time.   

Sure, it would make us be too effective and quick... ::)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 19, 2010, 02:31:20 AM

Yes - but I'm not going to put another bill on the floor in the wee hours of the morning Eastern time.   

Sure, it would make us be too effective and quick... ::)

Geez, do you have to be so rude to our speaker?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 19, 2010, 02:32:42 AM

Yes - but I'm not going to put another bill on the floor in the wee hours of the morning Eastern time.   

Sure, it would make us be too effective and quick... ::)

Geez, do you have to be so rude to our speaker?

I'm not being rude.

And anyways, I just noticed that Moderate didn't vote, so  we are still waiting.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 19, 2010, 11:16:28 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 19, 2010, 11:46:05 AM

Yes - but I'm not going to put another bill on the floor in the wee hours of the morning Eastern time.  

Sure, it would make us be too effective and quick... ::)

It would make me have to be up in the wee hours of the morning to open the vote - unlikely.  Either way, there will be a delay.  FYI - I generally only open things up from about 12 Noon to 10 PM Eastern unless there's an emergency.

Edit:  Looks like I screwed up and voted twice on the last bill.  My apologies.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 19, 2010, 11:52:52 AM

Yes - but I'm not going to put another bill on the floor in the wee hours of the morning Eastern time.   

Sure, it would make us be too effective and quick... ::)

It would make me have to be up in the wee hours of the morning to open the vote - unlikely.  Either way, there will be a delay.  FYI - I generally only open things up from about 12 Noon to 10 PM Eastern unless there's an emergency.

If you aren't there at the precise moment when it's required to open/close a vote, nobody would blame you. But since you are, you're supposed to respect what the SOAP provides.

And BTW, now that Moderate has voted, we can close it. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 19, 2010, 11:58:15 AM
()

By a vote of 8-0, the amendment to the SOAP passes.

Rep. Antonio V has now had 2 sponsored pieces of legislation on the Assembly floor this session.  Pursuant to Section 2(a) of the SOAP,  bills from Rep. Antonio V in that are in the queue will be skipped until legislation from members who have not had at least 2 pieces of legislation placed on the floor are considered. 

The next bill on the floor is:

Bill Frist Act
1) All testing on non-human vertebrate animals is hereby banned in the Northeast Region.
2) Violation of this ban shall result in up to five years in prison and up to one million dollars in fines.

Sponsor: Rep. Sewer Socialist

The question is whether the Amendment to the SOAP should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 12:00 Noon Eastern on Thursday, January 21, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative Sewer Socialist, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 19, 2010, 12:02:17 PM
If you aren't there at the precise moment when it's required to open/close a vote, nobody would blame you. But since you are, you're supposed to respect what the SOAP provides.

And BTW, now that Moderate has voted, we can close it. ;)

Actually, section 3(g) of the SOAP says:
"(g) The Lt. Governor shall certify the results of any vote within twenty-four (24) hours of the end of the voting period."

That allows the Lt. Governor or Speaker to begin the debate period at a time that he is sure to be available to promptly open the voting period at the end of the debate period - as required by Section 3(d).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 19, 2010, 12:13:22 PM
Fair enough. Anyways, is what stated by section 2a) an authomatic process or is it upon your discretion ?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 19, 2010, 02:07:45 PM
Let's move this one towards a swift death.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 19, 2010, 02:45:50 PM
I'd prefer a bill regulating and limiting those experiments rather than banning them. The scientific progress needs experiments on animals, it's sad but it's necessary.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 19, 2010, 03:01:55 PM
Here is the Amendment I propose :

Bill Frist Act
1) All testing on non-human vertebrate animals shall not be practiced without the approval of the direction of the research unit in which they are practiced.
2) Violation of section 1 shall result in up to six months in prison and up to fifty thousand dollars in fines.
3) No research structure shall proceed to more than ten testings on non-human vertebrate animals per year.
4) Research structures not respecting section 3 shall be fined of up to five hundred thousand dollar.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 19, 2010, 03:51:46 PM
Rep. Antonio, I'm afraid I don't understand your amendment one.

Are you saying that the companies that do the research would have to get permission from the large corporation they are testing for? Somehow that does seem kinda redundant. However, if I'm misunderstanding, please correct me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 19, 2010, 05:41:15 PM
Fair enough. Anyways, is what stated by section 2a) an authomatic process or is it upon your discretion ?

It should be automatic, except for carryover bills that died on the floor in the last session - which we've traditionally treated as the first item on the floor after election of the Speaker.  I have spoken to the Lt. Governor, who agrees that the rule should be enforced.  Former Rep. Hamilton would have been subject to it had he not been first put on mod review, then banned.

You certainly can have someone else sponsor your bills by reposting them in the thread if you don't think we're going to get back to your legislation this session.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on January 19, 2010, 05:44:23 PM
Here is the Amendment I propose :

Bill Frist Act
1) All testing on non-human vertebrate animals shall not be practiced without the approval of the direction of the research unit in which they are practiced.
2) Violation of section 1 shall result in up to six months in prison and up to fifty thousand dollars in fines.
3) No research structure shall proceed to more than ten testings on non-human vertebrate animals per year.
4) Research structures not respecting section 3 shall be fined of up to five hundred thousand dollar.

Unfriendly Amendment!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 20, 2010, 07:36:55 AM
Rep. Antonio, I'm afraid I don't understand your amendment one.

Are you saying that the companies that do the research would have to get permission from the large corporation they are testing for? Somehow that does seem kinda redundant. However, if I'm misunderstanding, please correct me.

It worths for public companies as well. Yes, administrators of labs will have the power to deny a scientist the right to execute testings on animals. However, the total number of experiments is set by this same law, and aims to prevent abuses.


Fair enough. Anyways, is what stated by section 2a) an authomatic process or is it upon your discretion ?

It should be automatic, except for carryover bills that died on the floor in the last session - which we've traditionally treated as the first item on the floor after election of the Speaker.  I have spoken to the Lt. Governor, who agrees that the rule should be enforced.  Former Rep. Hamilton would have been subject to it had he not been first put on mod review, then banned.

You certainly can have someone else sponsor your bills by reposting them in the thread if you don't think we're going to get back to your legislation this session.

Well, what if a rep. introduces less than 2 bills ? I guess we can proceed to my next bill as soon as we consider some of the bills that have already been proposed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 20, 2010, 02:54:14 PM
Well, what if a rep. introduces less than 2 bills ? I guess we can proceed to my next bill as soon as we consider some of the bills that have already been proposed.
We'd take your bills up as soon as those Reps' bills are considered.  If a Representative has only 1 bill in the queue, he has only 1 bill in the queue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 20, 2010, 03:13:50 PM
Well, what if a rep. introduces less than 2 bills ? I guess we can proceed to my next bill as soon as we consider some of the bills that have already been proposed.
We'd take your bills up as soon as those Reps' bills are considered.  If a Representative has only 1 bill in the queue, he has only 1 bill in the queue.

Fine. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 21, 2010, 10:41:09 AM
How do you define a testing?

Honestly, animal testing is an unfortunate necessity and limiting its practice in such a prohibitive way will set back scientific discovery.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 21, 2010, 12:38:38 PM
()

There is one amendment, proposed by Rep. Antonio V, deemed unfriendly that must be voted upon:

Quote
Bill Frist Act
1) All testing on non-human vertebrate animals shall not be practiced without the approval of the direction of the research unit in which they are practiced.
2) Violation of section 1 shall result in up to six months in prison and up to fifty thousand dollars in fines.
3) No research structure shall proceed to more than ten testings on non-human vertebrate animals per year.
4) Research structures not respecting section 3 shall be fined of up to five hundred thousand dollar.

This vote shall remain open until the earlier of 12:40PM on Friday, January 22, 2010 or when all Representatives shall have voted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 21, 2010, 01:53:22 PM
Sorry, Rep. Sewer Socialist, but your bill in currennt form cannot past and it's better we accomplish even very limited thing

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 21, 2010, 02:17:36 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 21, 2010, 02:31:03 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on January 21, 2010, 02:33:13 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 21, 2010, 03:12:55 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 21, 2010, 03:21:07 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 21, 2010, 03:55:42 PM
Nay

Noting also that Libertas voted Nay, just in case it gets deleted:



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 21, 2010, 04:04:16 PM
I really can't understand why opponents to this bill are voting nay to my Amenment, since it aims to make the bill less tough...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 21, 2010, 04:39:37 PM
I really can't understand why opponents to this bill are voting nay to my Amenment, since it aims to make the bill less tough...

Likely due to the fact that they oppose the bill in general.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 21, 2010, 05:59:41 PM
I really can't understand why opponents to this bill are voting nay to my Amenment, since it aims to make the bill less tough...

Likely due to the fact that they oppose the bill in general.

Pretty much - or oppose any ban on animal testing.  Why give the bill a better chance to pass?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 21, 2010, 06:08:59 PM
I really can't understand why opponents to this bill are voting nay to my Amenment, since it aims to make the bill less tough...

Likely due to the fact that they oppose the bill in general.

Pretty much - or oppose any ban on animal testing.  Why give the bill a better chance to pass?

Even some regulations?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 21, 2010, 06:43:06 PM
I really can't understand why opponents to this bill are voting nay to my Amenment, since it aims to make the bill less tough...

Likely due to the fact that they oppose the bill in general.

Pretty much - or oppose any ban on animal testing.  Why give the bill a better chance to pass?

Even some regulations?

Not everything in the world needs to be regulated by the government.  Organizations can regulate themselves or whistleblowers can raise their concerns with the pubic, who need not buy products of unethical companies. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 21, 2010, 08:07:41 PM
I really can't understand why opponents to this bill are voting nay to my Amenment, since it aims to make the bill less tough...

Likely due to the fact that they oppose the bill in general.

Pretty much - or oppose any ban on animal testing.  Why give the bill a better chance to pass?

Even some regulations?

Not everything in the world needs to be regulated by the government.  Organizations can regulate themselves or whistleblowers can raise their concerns with the pubic, who need not buy products of unethical companies. 

Yes, let it's going wild. It's not working, Mr. Speaker. Never did,


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 21, 2010, 09:14:09 PM
I really can't understand why opponents to this bill are voting nay to my Amenment, since it aims to make the bill less tough...

Likely due to the fact that they oppose the bill in general.

Pretty much - or oppose any ban on animal testing.  Why give the bill a better chance to pass?

Even some regulations?

Not everything in the world needs to be regulated by the government.  Organizations can regulate themselves or whistleblowers can raise their concerns with the pubic, who need not buy products of unethical companies. 

It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that animal testing would be one of the things that SHOULD be regulated. Given it involves living things.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on January 22, 2010, 12:02:44 AM
Amendment 3 breaks the balls of research. Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 22, 2010, 12:49:39 AM
()

By a vote of 3-5, the proposed amendment fails.

We will now vote on final passage of the original, unamended bill:

Quote
Bill Frist Act
1) All testing on non-human vertebrate animals is hereby banned in the Northeast Region.
2) Violation of this ban shall result in up to five years in prison and up to one million dollars in fines.

All those in favor shall vote aye; those opposed nay.  This vote will be held open until the earlier of 12:50AM on Saturday, January 23 or when all Northeast Representatives have cast their vote


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 22, 2010, 12:50:06 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on January 22, 2010, 12:51:37 AM
aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 22, 2010, 12:52:14 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on January 22, 2010, 12:56:46 AM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on January 22, 2010, 12:57:59 AM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 22, 2010, 01:25:13 AM
Nay

Sorry Sewer but tis bill is just too radical.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 22, 2010, 02:26:15 AM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 22, 2010, 09:45:31 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 22, 2010, 12:56:26 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on January 22, 2010, 01:03:08 PM
Nay

the one million is to much. make it 100,000 and I will say aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Hash on January 22, 2010, 01:25:31 PM
Nay

the one million is to much. make it 100,000 and I will say aye.

Are you even a Rep?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on January 22, 2010, 01:28:34 PM
Nay

the one million is to much. make it 100,000 and I will say aye.

Are you even a Rep?
heehehe no I like playing one though. :D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 22, 2010, 01:33:32 PM
Nay

the one million is to much. make it 100,000 and I will say aye.

Are you even a Rep?
heehehe no I like playing one though. :D

LOL ;D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on January 22, 2010, 01:46:17 PM

Doesn't that violate some rule in Fantasy Land?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 22, 2010, 02:58:00 PM

Oh, damn... fortunately not ! Don't try to import your fascism in Atlasia. :P

(here is hoping I will finally get on his sig)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 22, 2010, 02:58:24 PM
Nay

the one million is to much. make it 100,000 and I will say aye.

Are you even a Rep?
heehehe no I like playing one though. :D

Please don't - it makes it more difficult for me to get a count when non-reps vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 22, 2010, 03:05:27 PM
()

By a vote of 2-5 with 1 express abstention, the Bill Frist Act fails.

Next bill:

Northeast Natural Gas Leasing Act
1) The Northeast shall publish an Invitation For Bid (IFB) on leaseholds to drill for natural gas on all Northeast public lands other than public parks, historical sites, highway rights-of-way or any portion of public lands within 660 feet of any inhabited dwelling, school or place of worship.  

2) Bidding Requirements
a) The IFB shall specify the size and location of parcels subject to bidding.
b) The initial term of any leases shall be five years.  The lessor shall have an option to extend the lease for two additional 5-year terms if a well on the parcel produces a commercially marketable quantity of natural gas at any time during the previous 5-year period.
c) The minimum fixed lease bid shall be $2,500 per acre per year.
d) The minimum royalty bid shall be 15% of the market value of the natural gas produced on the leased parcel.  
e) The market value of gas at the mouth of the well is determined by ascertaining the producer's actual marketing costs and subtracting those costs from the producer's gross cash receipts from the sale of the gas. Marketing costs are the costs incurred by the producer to get the gas from the mouth of the well to the market, including:
(i)  costs for compressing the gas sold, (ii)  costs for dehydrating the gas sold, (iii)  costs for sweetening the gas sold, and (iv)  costs for delivering the gas to the purchaser. Marketing costs do not include (i) costs incurred in producing the gas, (ii)  costs incurred in normal lease separation of the oil or condensate, or (iii) insurance premiums on the marketing facility.

3) Environmental Requirements
a) All successful bidders shall be required to secure a $50,000 lease bond for each lease and $100,000 plugging bond for each well drilled.  The Northeast shall be entitled to the proceeds from such bond to remediate any environmental damage caused by drilling or the cost of properly plugging the well.
b) Any successful bidder who drills for natural gas shall provide the Northeast with evidence that it has a Drilling-Well Control Insurance Policy of at least $25,000,000.   The Northeast shall be entitled to the proceeds from such policy to remediate any environmental damage caused by drilling not properly repaired by that bidder.
c) No successful bidder may drill more than one well per square mile on any parcel.
d) All successful bidders shall drill in an environmentally friendly manner without disrupting the water quality of the area drilled, pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Northeast Department of Conservation.  In particular, all wastewater shall be properly treated by the driller in accordance with such regulations and shall not otherwise be disposed of in any lake, stream, river or watershed area.
e) All successful bidders are strictly liable for any environmental damage caused by drilling and drilling-related activity, and shall remediate all environmental damage caused by such activity as soon as possible, and no later than 2 years of the end of the lease term.
f) All successful bidders must submit the location of any proposed drill site, access road, facility or pipeline to the Northeast Department of Conservation.  The Northeast Department of Conservation may require that a successful bidder move any proposed site, road, facility or pipeline to mitigate any potential adverse environmental effects.

4) Use of Proceeds from Leases.  
The government of the Northeast region may not borrow, pledge or transfer any proceeds from leases made under this Act except as follows:
a) 5% shall be transferred to the Northeast Department of Conservation to offset the cost of monitoring compliance with this Act and all other related environmental regulation and legislation.
b) 10% shall be transferred to the Northeast Department of Conservation to purchase additional public lands.
c) 35% shall be transferred to the Northeast Rainy Day Fund.  The Northeast Comptroller shall conservatively invest the corpus of the Northeast Rainy Day Fund and shall not transfer any portion of the Northeast Rainy Day Fund to any person or government fund, entity or agency unless the Northeast budget is in deficit and the Northeast unemployment rate is greater than 10% or the Northeast GDP has fallen by an annualized rate of more than 1% in two of the last four quarters.
d) 50% shall be transferred to the Northeast Permanent Dividend Fund.  The Northeast Comptroller shall conservatively invest the corpus of the Northeast Permanent Dividend Fund.  If the corpus of the Northeast Permanent Dividend Fund exceeds $7,000,000,000, every citizen who has been a permanent resident of the Northeast for at least 183 days in the prior year shall be entitled to a dividend from such fund.  Eligible residents shall file a dividend request on January 1 of each year, along with any information required by the Comptroller to establish such residency.  The gross amount of the dividend to be paid to all eligible residents shall be equal to (i) 30% of the gain in the Northeast Permanent Dividend Fund over the past two years or (ii) if there has been no such gain, the lesser of (1) 0.5% of the amount of the Fund that is over $7,000,000,000, adjusted for inflation after 2015, or (2) the maximum payment over the past 5 years.   The Comptroller shall mail or electronically transfer every eligible resident an equal share of the dividend on May 1.

Sponsor: Rep. cinyc

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 3:05PM Eastern on Sunday, January 24, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative cinyc, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on January 22, 2010, 03:12:50 PM
i has an amendment

Northeast Natural Gas Leasing Act
1) The Northeast shall publish an Invitation For Bid (IFB) on leaseholds to drill for natural gas on all Northeast public lands other than public parks, historical sites, highway rights-of-way or any portion of public lands within 660 feet of any inhabited dwelling, school or place of worship. 

2) Bidding Requirements
a) The IFB shall specify the size and location of parcels subject to bidding.
b) The initial term of any leases shall be five years.  The lessor shall have an option to extend the lease for two additional 5-year terms if a well on the parcel produces a commercially marketable quantity of natural gas at any time during the previous 5-year period.
c) The minimum fixed lease bid shall be $2,500 per acre per year.
d) The minimum royalty bid shall be 15% of the market value of the natural gas produced on the leased parcel. 
e) The market value of gas at the mouth of the well is determined by ascertaining the producer's actual marketing costs and subtracting those costs from the producer's gross cash receipts from the sale of the gas. Marketing costs are the costs incurred by the producer to get the gas from the mouth of the well to the market, including:
(i)  costs for compressing the gas sold, (ii)  costs for dehydrating the gas sold, (iii)  costs for sweetening the gas sold, and (iv)  costs for delivering the gas to the purchaser. Marketing costs do not include (i) costs incurred in producing the gas, (ii)  costs incurred in normal lease separation of the oil or condensate, or (iii) insurance premiums on the marketing facility.

3) Environmental Requirements
a) All successful bidders shall be required to secure a $50,000 lease bond for each lease and $100,000 plugging bond for each well drilled.  The Northeast shall be entitled to the proceeds from such bond to remediate any environmental damage caused by drilling or the cost of properly plugging the well.
b) Any successful bidder who drills for natural gas shall provide the Northeast with evidence that it has a Drilling-Well Control Insurance Policy of at least $25,000,000.   The Northeast shall be entitled to the proceeds from such policy to remediate any environmental damage caused by drilling not properly repaired by that bidder.
c) No successful bidder may drill more than one well per square mile on any parcel.
d) All successful bidders shall drill in an environmentally friendly manner without disrupting the water quality of the area drilled, pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Northeast Department of Conservation.  In particular, all wastewater shall be properly treated by the driller in accordance with such regulations and shall not otherwise be disposed of in any lake, stream, river or watershed area.
e) All successful bidders are strictly liable for any environmental damage caused by drilling and drilling-related activity, and shall remediate all environmental damage caused by such activity as soon as possible, and no later than 2 years of the end of the lease term.
f) All successful bidders must submit the location of any proposed drill site, access road, facility or pipeline to the Northeast Department of Conservation.  The Northeast Department of Conservation may require that a successful bidder move any proposed site, road, facility or pipeline to mitigate any potential adverse environmental effects.

4) Use of Proceeds from Leases
The government of the Northeast region may not borrow, pledge or transfer any proceeds from leases made under this Act except as follows:
a) 5% shall be transferred to the Northeast Department of Conservation to offset the cost of monitoring compliance with this Act and all other related environmental regulation and legislation.
b) 10% shall be transferred to the Northeast Department of Conservation to purchase additional public lands.
c) 35% shall be transferred to the Northeast Rainy Day Fund.  The Northeast Comptroller shall conservatively invest the corpus of the Northeast Rainy Day Fund and shall not transfer any portion of the Northeast Rainy Day Fund to any person or government fund, entity or agency unless the Northeast budget is in deficit and the Northeast unemployment rate is greater than 10% or the Northeast GDP has fallen by an annualized rate of more than 1% in two of the last four quarters.
d) 50% shall be transferred to the Northeast Permanent Dividend Fund.  The Northeast Comptroller shall conservatively invest the corpus of the Northeast Permanent Dividend Fund.  If the corpus of the Northeast Permanent Dividend Fund exceeds $7,000,000,000, every citizen who has been a permanent resident of the Northeast for at least 183 days in the prior year shall be entitled to a dividend from such fund.  Eligible residents shall file a dividend request on January 1 of each year, along with any information required by the Comptroller to establish such residency.  The gross amount of the dividend to be paid to all eligible residents shall be equal to (i) 30% of the gain in the Northeast Permanent Dividend Fund over the past two years or (ii) if there has been no such gain, the lesser of (1) 0.5% of the amount of the Fund that is over $7,000,000,000, adjusted for inflation after 2015, or (2) the maximum payment over the past 5 years.   The Comptroller shall mail or electronically transfer every eligible resident an equal share of the dividend on May 1.

5) Bill Frist.
All testing on non-human vertebrate animals is hereby banned in the Northeast Region. Violation of this ban shall result in up to five years in prison and up to one million dollars in fines.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 22, 2010, 03:17:30 PM
As my fellow Representatives may know, a large natural gas reserve was recently found in the Marcus Shale formation in New York and Pennsylvania.  This bill opens up public lands in those areas for drilling in an enviornmentally friendly manner.  The proceeds from leases are to go toward monitoring compliance (5%), purchase additional public land (10%), a Northeast Rainy Day Fund, to be drawn upon to stabilize state revenues in times of recession (35%), and a Northeast Permanent Dividend Fund - to be distributed to the people of the northeast when sufficiently large - like the Alaskan Permanent Dividend Fund.

All drilling must be done in an environmentally friendly manner.  Wastewater must be properly treated by the driller before disposal.  Drillers must remediate all environmental damage within 2 years of the end of the lease term.  If they do not, the Northeast will be allowed to draw upon a required insurance bond that all drillers must post, and do the work themselves. 

Much of the language in this bill was taken from Pennsylvania law.

I hope you will support this action to allow drilling for cheap, environmentally friendly natural gas in a way that doesn't harm the great lands of the Northeast - and gives the bulk of the proceeds back to the people of this great region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 22, 2010, 03:19:04 PM
Sewer Socialist's amendment is unfriendly -and not germane.  It will be put to a vote at the end of the debate period.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on January 22, 2010, 03:28:28 PM
Sewer, are you trying to derail this bill?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 22, 2010, 03:37:40 PM
Very good bill and really well-drafted, as always. It has my full support.

And BTW, I oppose Sewer's Amendment. If you want something passed on this topic, reintroduce a bill which will be more acceptable to moderates and it may not fail as it did last time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sewer on January 22, 2010, 03:41:08 PM
Sewer, are you trying to derail this bill?

no


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on January 22, 2010, 03:49:22 PM
i just ask because that amendment is the same act that just got voted down, and in the unlikely event it was successfully added, the bill wouldn't pass.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 22, 2010, 11:20:59 PM
The bill is a good one, however, I do not support a complete ban on animal testing. I do support regulations on it, however.

The rest of the bill is fine.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 23, 2010, 03:24:22 AM
I will not vote for the amendment, as it's completly unrelated to the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on January 23, 2010, 08:12:57 PM
Just to keep you guys updated, SewerSocialist has moved to Minnesota (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=34355.msg2328679#msg2328679), and thus has vacated his Assembly seat. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 23, 2010, 08:52:08 PM
Just to keep you guys updated, SewerSocialist has moved to Minnesota (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=34355.msg2328679#msg2328679), and thus has vacated his Assembly seat. 

I'm sorry to hear that and thank Rep. Sewer Socialist for his work this session.  I have informed the governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 24, 2010, 01:42:21 AM
I support the proposed bill, but not with Sewer Socialist's amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 24, 2010, 01:56:36 AM
I support the proposed bill, but not with Sewer Socialist's amendment.

Since Sewer Socialist is no longer a member of this Assembly, his amendment will not be put to a vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 24, 2010, 03:49:29 AM
Just to keep you guys updated, SewerSocialist has moved to Minnesota (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=34355.msg2328679#msg2328679), and thus has vacated his Assembly seat. 

Oh damn... ::)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 24, 2010, 06:41:22 AM
Just to keep you guys updated, SewerSocialist has moved to Minnesota (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=34355.msg2328679#msg2328679), and thus has vacated his Assembly seat. 

Oh damn... ::)

Pity.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 24, 2010, 03:04:07 PM
()

With no unfriendly amendments on the floor, the following bill now be voted upon for final passage:

Quote
Northeast Natural Gas Leasing Act
1) The Northeast shall publish an Invitation For Bid (IFB) on leaseholds to drill for natural gas on all Northeast public lands other than public parks, historical sites, highway rights-of-way or any portion of public lands within 660 feet of any inhabited dwelling, school or place of worship.  

2) Bidding Requirements
a) The IFB shall specify the size and location of parcels subject to bidding.
b) The initial term of any leases shall be five years.  The lessor shall have an option to extend the lease for two additional 5-year terms if a well on the parcel produces a commercially marketable quantity of natural gas at any time during the previous 5-year period.
c) The minimum fixed lease bid shall be $2,500 per acre per year.
d) The minimum royalty bid shall be 15% of the market value of the natural gas produced on the leased parcel.  
e) The market value of gas at the mouth of the well is determined by ascertaining the producer's actual marketing costs and subtracting those costs from the producer's gross cash receipts from the sale of the gas. Marketing costs are the costs incurred by the producer to get the gas from the mouth of the well to the market, including:
(i)  costs for compressing the gas sold, (ii)  costs for dehydrating the gas sold, (iii)  costs for sweetening the gas sold, and (iv)  costs for delivering the gas to the purchaser. Marketing costs do not include (i) costs incurred in producing the gas, (ii)  costs incurred in normal lease separation of the oil or condensate, or (iii) insurance premiums on the marketing facility.

3) Environmental Requirements
a) All successful bidders shall be required to secure a $50,000 lease bond for each lease and $100,000 plugging bond for each well drilled.  The Northeast shall be entitled to the proceeds from such bond to remediate any environmental damage caused by drilling or the cost of properly plugging the well.
b) Any successful bidder who drills for natural gas shall provide the Northeast with evidence that it has a Drilling-Well Control Insurance Policy of at least $25,000,000.   The Northeast shall be entitled to the proceeds from such policy to remediate any environmental damage caused by drilling not properly repaired by that bidder.
c) No successful bidder may drill more than one well per square mile on any parcel.
d) All successful bidders shall drill in an environmentally friendly manner without disrupting the water quality of the area drilled, pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Northeast Department of Conservation.  In particular, all wastewater shall be properly treated by the driller in accordance with such regulations and shall not otherwise be disposed of in any lake, stream, river or watershed area.
e) All successful bidders are strictly liable for any environmental damage caused by drilling and drilling-related activity, and shall remediate all environmental damage caused by such activity as soon as possible, and no later than 2 years of the end of the lease term.
f) All successful bidders must submit the location of any proposed drill site, access road, facility or pipeline to the Northeast Department of Conservation.  The Northeast Department of Conservation may require that a successful bidder move any proposed site, road, facility or pipeline to mitigate any potential adverse environmental effects.

4) Use of Proceeds from Leases.  
The government of the Northeast region may not borrow, pledge or transfer any proceeds from leases made under this Act except as follows:
a) 5% shall be transferred to the Northeast Department of Conservation to offset the cost of monitoring compliance with this Act and all other related environmental regulation and legislation.
b) 10% shall be transferred to the Northeast Department of Conservation to purchase additional public lands.
c) 35% shall be transferred to the Northeast Rainy Day Fund.  The Northeast Comptroller shall conservatively invest the corpus of the Northeast Rainy Day Fund and shall not transfer any portion of the Northeast Rainy Day Fund to any person or government fund, entity or agency unless the Northeast budget is in deficit and the Northeast unemployment rate is greater than 10% or the Northeast GDP has fallen by an annualized rate of more than 1% in two of the last four quarters.
d) 50% shall be transferred to the Northeast Permanent Dividend Fund.  The Northeast Comptroller shall conservatively invest the corpus of the Northeast Permanent Dividend Fund.  If the corpus of the Northeast Permanent Dividend Fund exceeds $7,000,000,000, every citizen who has been a permanent resident of the Northeast for at least 183 days in the prior year shall be entitled to a dividend from such fund.  Eligible residents shall file a dividend request on January 1 of each year, along with any information required by the Comptroller to establish such residency.  The gross amount of the dividend to be paid to all eligible residents shall be equal to (i) 30% of the gain in the Northeast Permanent Dividend Fund over the past two years or (ii) if there has been no such gain, the lesser of (1) 0.5% of the amount of the Fund that is over $7,000,000,000, adjusted for inflation after 2015, or (2) the maximum payment over the past 5 years.   The Comptroller shall mail or electronically transfer every eligible resident an equal share of the dividend on May 1.

This vote shall be held open until the earlier of 3:05PM Eastern on Monday, January 25, 2010 or when all Representatives shall have voted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 24, 2010, 03:04:38 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 24, 2010, 05:28:33 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 24, 2010, 05:37:09 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 24, 2010, 07:04:43 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 24, 2010, 08:11:58 PM
I don't feel I have enough information to cast a thoughtful vote, so I respectfully abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on January 24, 2010, 09:26:13 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 25, 2010, 06:33:28 AM
Aye

Everyone has voted now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 25, 2010, 02:31:30 PM
()
By a vote of 6-0 with one express abstention, the Northeast Natural Gas Leasing Act passes and will be presented to the Governor for his signature or veto.

Next bill - well, it can be one of two, depending on what we do with the fact that Rep. Doctor Cynic left the Assembly for a time.  Since we'll get to the only other two bills currently in the queue not sponsored by Rep. Antonio V or a departed Assemblyman next, it doesn't matter.  Note: this should not serve as a precedent for determining bill order in cases where it really matters.  Anyway, here's the bill:

Northeast Anti-Obese Discriminatory Act

1. The Northeast officially takes the position of non-discrimination for all classes, creeds, and sexes.

2. The Northeast also recognizes the discrimination of those who struggle with issues of obesity.

3. All businesses are required to fair and equal treatment of any obese or otherwise disabled individual.

4. Airlines that charge obese passengers for two seats on any flight within the northeast are required to provide the two seats to that passenger.

5. Obese individuals shall henceforth recieve equal treatment and service within any Northeastern business establishment.

Sponsor: Rep. Doctor Cynic

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 2:30PM Eastern on Wednesday, January 27, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative Doctor Cynic, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 25, 2010, 02:32:49 PM
FYI - when pasting the bill into the thread, my browser's automatic spell check showed that "receive" is spelled incorrectly in paragraph 5.   I'd ask Rep. Doctor Cynic for a friendly amendment to fix that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on January 25, 2010, 02:34:32 PM
Sure, it is the point. But I personally don't think it is important.
However i would vote Aye since it is the right thing to do for the people.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 25, 2010, 02:48:25 PM
Specifically, what is meant in fair and equal treatment? Does this merely express that a person cannot be hired or fired on the basis of their weight? Or will it require special accommodations be made for people of unusual girth?

I'm not quite sure I'm comfortable associating obesity with disability, though I do agree with some basic precepts of the bill. (Section 4, for example.)

I'd rather not start a heated battle about "lifestyle choices" here, but as someone who's experienced life as a size 44 waist and as a size 30 waist, I lean towards disapproving the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 25, 2010, 03:45:54 PM
Northeast Anti-Obese Discriminatory Act

1. The Northeast officially takes the position of non-discrimination for all classes, creeds, and sexes.

2. The Northeast also recognizes the discrimination of those who struggle with issues of obesity.

3. All businesses are required to fair and equal treatment of any obese or otherwise disabled individual.

4. Airlines that charge obese passengers for two seats on any flight within the northeast are required to provide the two seats to that passenger.

5. Obese individuals shall henceforth recieve receive equal treatment and service within any Northeastern business establishment.

Sponsor: Rep. Doctor Cynic


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 25, 2010, 03:49:10 PM
I just want to take a moment to welcome our newest colleague and the first female Northeast Representative in history :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 25, 2010, 03:51:31 PM
Specifically, what is meant in fair and equal treatment? Does this merely express that a person cannot be hired or fired on the basis of their weight? Or will it require special accommodations be made for people of unusual girth?

I'm not quite sure I'm comfortable associating obesity with disability, though I do agree with some basic precepts of the bill. (Section 4, for example.)

I'd rather not start a heated battle about "lifestyle choices" here, but as someone who's experienced life as a size 44 waist and as a size 30 waist, I lean towards disapproving the bill.

It is meant that as long as their weight does not interfere with their work, then they cannot be fired from their job on that basis. It also means that a person cannot be discriminated in an interview on that basis (whether they hire them or not is up to them) For some, obesity can be disabiling. For me, it obviously isn't. Section 4 comes from a personal experince. I was charged two seats and given only one. Why should anyone have to pay two seats without getting them?

If you wish to propose amendments, I would consider friendly ones to clean up the language. It won't really cost the Northeast much in terms of budget, either.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 25, 2010, 03:52:27 PM
I just want to take a moment to welcome our newest colleague and the first female Northeast Representative in history :)

Seconded.

And this bill has my full support, obviously.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on January 25, 2010, 04:04:16 PM
I approve. Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 25, 2010, 04:12:20 PM

Welcome to the Assembly!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on January 25, 2010, 04:13:20 PM
why thank you. * courtesy*


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 25, 2010, 07:46:13 PM

Welcome to the Assembly! 

We're still debating the bill, not voting on it yet.

I am concerned about Sections 3 and 5 of the bill.  Equal treatment and service could mean many things.  For example, would a plus-size clothing line be required to hire skinny models (or vice versa)?  That seems absurd, but could become an issue depending on what "fair and equal treatment" means. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 25, 2010, 08:06:21 PM
All section three says is that a company cannot fire an obese individual if it is not affecting job performance and they cannot discriminate on a qualified applicant simply because they don't like their weight.

Section five is basically saying that Northeastern establishments (Such as clothing stores or restaurants or what have you) have no legal right to exclude obese customers soley on that basis. They can't refuse to sell merchandise or whatever to obese customers.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 25, 2010, 08:51:01 PM
I shall support the bill


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 26, 2010, 09:36:48 AM
It is entirely reasonable for someone who pays for two seats to get two seats. I actually question whether what happened to you is legal under current law to begin with.

In any case, I just want to make sure that there is an established line between what is inappropriate discrimination (i.e., what happened on the airline flight; firing an employee based on weight alone) and what is appropriate (i.e., obese people can face higher health insurance costs).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 26, 2010, 11:50:09 AM
(i.e., obese people can face higher health insurance costs).

Huh, why ? ???


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 26, 2010, 11:54:12 AM
I am opposed to this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 26, 2010, 01:05:07 PM

May I ask fellow Representative Libertas why is he opposing the bill?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 26, 2010, 01:10:38 PM

May I ask fellow Representative Libertas why is he opposing the bill?

He already stated his hatred for overweighted people.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 26, 2010, 01:37:36 PM

Because people who are significantly overweight face far more health complications (diabetes, heart disease) than people who do not?

While few people want to be obese, it is still a lifestyle that some people choose through inaction. It is not something that is fated—people CAN lose weight if they want to. That's not to say it's easy—indeed, for most overweight people, they face issues with metabolism that likely make it harder than most to maintain healthy weights. But there are plenty of options for obese people to get their condition under control, from lifestyle changes to surgery.

In my mind, obesity is somewhat on par with smoking. Neither is cause for discrimination, but both inflict significant related health care costs on the nation as a whole.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on January 26, 2010, 01:40:45 PM

Because people who are significantly overweight face far more health complications (diabetes, heart disease) than people who do not?

While few people want to be obese, it is still a lifestyle that some people choose through inaction. It is not something that is fated—people CAN lose weight if they want to. That's not to say it's easy—indeed, for most overweight people, they face issues with metabolism that likely make it harder than most to maintain healthy weights. But there are plenty of options for obese people to get their condition under control, from lifestyle changes to surgery.

In my mind, obesity is somewhat on par with smoking. Neither is cause for discrimination, but both inflict significant related health care costs on the nation as a whole.

My love for you level went down a little bit. But than I saw your sig, and it went up significantly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 26, 2010, 02:22:11 PM

May I ask fellow Representative Libertas why is he opposing the bill?

Because we need to be encouraging people to lose weight, not forcing everyone else to bend over backwards to tell them their unhealthy lifestyles are alright.

The obese already put a tremendous burden on our society through the costs of healthcare.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on January 26, 2010, 02:34:53 PM

May I ask fellow Representative Libertas why is he opposing the bill?

Because we need to be encouraging people to lose weight, not forcing everyone else to bend over backwards to tell them their unhealthy lifestyles are alright.

The obese already put a tremendous burden on our society through the costs of healthcare.
actually that is not true. I will try and find the video about women who are happier being fat then not.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 26, 2010, 02:37:16 PM

May I ask fellow Representative Libertas why is he opposing the bill?

Because we need to be encouraging people to lose weight, not forcing everyone else to bend over backwards to tell them their unhealthy lifestyles are alright.

The obese already put a tremendous burden on our society through the costs of healthcare.
actually that is not true. I will try and find the video about women who are happier being fat then not.

Um, what would that have to do with what I said, or to do with anything that we are discussing on the Assembly floor? ???


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on January 26, 2010, 02:39:56 PM

May I ask fellow Representative Libertas why is he opposing the bill?

Because we need to be encouraging people to lose weight, not forcing everyone else to bend over backwards to tell them their unhealthy lifestyles are alright.

The obese already put a tremendous burden on our society through the costs of healthcare.
actually that is not true. I will try and find the video about women who are happier being fat then not.

Um, what would that have to do with what I said, or to do with anything that we are discussing on the Assembly floor? ???
you were talking about how it is unhealthy and how everyone has to bend backwards for them. That is all. I was just pointing out that someone people actually are healthier being fat. sorry if you thought it was pointless.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 26, 2010, 02:47:33 PM
you were talking about how it is unhealthy and how everyone has to bend backwards for them. That is all. I was just pointing out that someone people actually are healthier being fat. sorry if you thought it was pointless.

The idea that "some people are healthier being fat" kinda flies in the face of, you know, medical fact.

  • More than 80% of cases of type 2 diabetes can be attributed to being overweight or obese.
  • Overweight people are twice as likely to have high blood pressure, a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke, than people who are not overweight.
  • Someone who is 40% overweight is twice as likely to die prematurely as is an average-weight person.

Happy does not mean healthy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on January 26, 2010, 03:10:07 PM
you were talking about how it is unhealthy and how everyone has to bend backwards for them. That is all. I was just pointing out that someone people actually are healthier being fat. sorry if you thought it was pointless.

The idea that "some people are healthier being fat" kinda flies in the face of, you know, medical fact.

  • More than 80% of cases of type 2 diabetes can be attributed to being overweight or obese.
  • Overweight people are twice as likely to have high blood pressure, a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke, than people who are not overweight.
  • Someone who is 40% overweight is twice as likely to die prematurely as is an average-weight person.

Happy does not mean healthy.
being happy actualy does affect your health.
see check this out. and listen carefullly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 26, 2010, 03:20:51 PM
It is entirely reasonable for someone who pays for two seats to get two seats. I actually question whether what happened to you is legal under current law to begin with.

In any case, I just want to make sure that there is an established line between what is inappropriate discrimination (i.e., what happened on the airline flight; firing an employee based on weight alone) and what is appropriate (i.e., obese people can face higher health insurance costs).

Well, I don't even have health insurance, so I can't tell you whether or not my costs for them would be higher.

I wouldn't say they couldn't be charged higher coverage, but they should still be given coverage should they be willing to pay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 26, 2010, 03:48:32 PM
being happy actualy does affect your health.
see check this out. and listen carefullly.

Happiness does not unclog your plaque-hardened arteries or cure labored breathing.

I fully understand what you are saying. The problem is that what you are saying is ridiculous.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on January 26, 2010, 04:01:55 PM
being happy actualy does affect your health.
see check this out. and listen carefullly.

Happiness does not unclog your plaque-hardened arteries or cure labored breathing.

I fully understand what you are saying. The problem is that what you are saying is ridiculous.
No it is not. You just think that it is not possible.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 26, 2010, 04:14:53 PM
being happy actualy does affect your health.
see check this out. and listen carefullly.

Happiness does not unclog your plaque-hardened arteries or cure labored breathing.

I fully understand what you are saying. The problem is that what you are saying is ridiculous.

Actually, I don't have high cholesterol. I do have high blood pressure, but it's a genetic trait in my family.

As for labored breathing, since I can't drive, I walk pretty much everywhere. I may not be the fastest guy in the world, but I can walk a pretty good distance without breathing heavy. Not everyone is the same, but I've seen plenty of heavy people get around just fine without labored breathing.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 27, 2010, 11:10:01 AM
being happy actualy does affect your health.
see check this out. and listen carefullly.

Happiness does not unclog your plaque-hardened arteries or cure labored breathing.

I fully understand what you are saying. The problem is that what you are saying is ridiculous.
No it is not. You just think that it is not possible.

You are an idiot. The worst kind of idiot: a dangerous idiot. All medical evidence out there points to you being dead wrong.

Obesity is MEDICALLY DANGEROUS regardless of whether someone is "happy" or not. Further, your idea is based on the premise that people wouldn't be "happy" being closer to their ideal body weight, which is preposterous. The negative consequences of obesity outweigh medical benefits of "happiness." Period.

Some of the health-related claims of fat acceptance groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_acceptance_movement#Criticism) are on par with those of AIDS denial groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism). I really hope you educate yourself before continuing to spread dangerous information to others.

Being overweight is unhealthy. Being very overweight is very unhealthy. The links between obesity and disease are undeniable.

Before people jump on me here, I'm not railing against people who are a little thick around the middle, or even moderately overweight. Clearly, these people are not in optimal health, but I can see an argument that there is a acceptable trade off.

The problem comes when people are hundreds of pounds overweight. It is a severe health problem, and one that is growing in this country. It is something that this government should be taking active steps to fight.

I do not want to say it is okay to discriminate against people who are obese, because it's not. The scenario outlined—where someone has to pay for two plane seats but only gets one—is clearly wrong and should be illegal. But I'm incredibly leery of the government stepping in and giving the obese "victim" status, or anything that may give the appearance that it is okay to personally accept a negative health condition as something inevitable.

I know I may be stepping on a lot of toes here, because I'm sure a lot of you are currently in the situation I was in back when I was younger. I understand the challenges and trials of being significantly overweight because I've been there. I'm just not comfortable with obesity being written into law as a protected class.

Actually, I don't have high cholesterol. I do have high blood pressure, but it's a genetic trait in my family.

As for labored breathing, since I can't drive, I walk pretty much everywhere. I may not be the fastest guy in the world, but I can walk a pretty good distance without breathing heavy. Not everyone is the same, but I've seen plenty of heavy people get around just fine without labored breathing.

I hope you do not think my arguments or criticism was directed at you in any way. I did not mean to imply that you or anyone else would be guaranteed certain specific problems.

I merely intended to point out the link between obesity and serious health issues.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 27, 2010, 11:48:23 AM
Please, don't be so emotional.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 27, 2010, 12:03:46 PM
Yeah, now it's time to chill. You are both awesome persons who don't need to come to such quarrels.

And BTW, the like between overweigh and health problem, even though it exists, is not so strong as you seem to believe. Real problems come only with serious obesity. Weighing 90 or 100 kg for an adult isn't a health problem.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on January 27, 2010, 12:29:31 PM

As an observer, I'll tell you the subject is emotional to many, and I support his show of it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on January 27, 2010, 12:48:42 PM
being happy actualy does affect your health.
see check this out. and listen carefullly.

Happiness does not unclog your plaque-hardened arteries or cure labored breathing.

I fully understand what you are saying. The problem is that what you are saying is ridiculous.
No it is not. You just think that it is not possible.

You are an idiot. The worst kind of idiot: a dangerous idiot. All medical evidence out there points to you being dead wrong.

Obesity is MEDICALLY DANGEROUS regardless of whether someone is "happy" or not. Further, your idea is based on the premise that people wouldn't be "happy" being closer to their ideal body weight, which is preposterous. The negative consequences of obesity outweigh medical benefits of "happiness." Period.

Some of the health-related claims of fat acceptance groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_acceptance_movement#Criticism) are on par with those of AIDS denial groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism). I really hope you educate yourself before continuing to spread dangerous information to others.

Being overweight is unhealthy. Being very overweight is very unhealthy. The links between obesity and disease are undeniable.

Before people jump on me here, I'm not railing against people who are a little thick around the middle, or even moderately overweight. Clearly, these people are not in optimal health, but I can see an argument that there is a acceptable trade off.

The problem comes when people are hundreds of pounds overweight. It is a severe health problem, and one that is growing in this country. It is something that this government should be taking active steps to fight.

I do not want to say it is okay to discriminate against people who are obese, because it's not. The scenario outlined—where someone has to pay for two plane seats but only gets one—is clearly wrong and should be illegal. But I'm incredibly leery of the government stepping in and giving the obese "victim" status, or anything that may give the appearance that it is okay to personally accept a negative health condition as something inevitable.

I know I may be stepping on a lot of toes here, because I'm sure a lot of you are currently in the situation I was in back when I was younger. I understand the challenges and trials of being significantly overweight because I've been there. I'm just not comfortable with obesity being written into law as a protected class.

Actually, I don't have high cholesterol. I do have high blood pressure, but it's a genetic trait in my family.

As for labored breathing, since I can't drive, I walk pretty much everywhere. I may not be the fastest guy in the world, but I can walk a pretty good distance without breathing heavy. Not everyone is the same, but I've seen plenty of heavy people get around just fine without labored breathing.

I hope you do not think my arguments or criticism was directed at you in any way. I did not mean to imply that you or anyone else would be guaranteed certain specific problems.

I merely intended to point out the link between obesity and serious health issues.
now I am not denying that. I never did. I agree with you. i am just saying that being happy can make you a little healthier. That is all. I know lots of thin people who are very very unhealthy. So yes, weight can affect your health. No one is saying otherwise.
and I have never been called an idiot in real life so I must not be one. I dont get the hostility with you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 27, 2010, 12:51:19 PM

As an observer, I'll tell you the subject is emotional to many, and I support his show of it.

I understand this because I had obseity problems 3 years ago as well. My point is, we should abstain from calling each other idiots, no matter how we disagree with their positions.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on January 27, 2010, 12:54:53 PM
Yeah, now it's time to chill. You are both awesome persons who don't need to come to such quarrels.

And BTW, the like between overweigh and health problem, even though it exists, is not so strong as you seem to believe. Real problems come only with serious obesity. Weighing 90 or 100 kg for an adult isn't a health problem.

It is if you are 5'5".

We should be fighting obesity, not accepting it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 27, 2010, 02:30:09 PM
Seeing no proposed unfriendly amendments to the bill, we shall vote on its final passage:

Quote
Northeast Anti-Obese Discriminatory Act

1. The Northeast officially takes the position of non-discrimination for all classes, creeds, and sexes.

2. The Northeast also recognizes the discrimination of those who struggle with issues of obesity.

3. All businesses are required to fair and equal treatment of any obese or otherwise disabled individual.

4. Airlines that charge obese passengers for two seats on any flight within the Northeast are required to provide the two seats to that passenger.

5. Obese individuals shall henceforth receive equal treatment and service within any Northeastern business establishment.

This vote shall be held open until  2:30 PM on Thursday, January 28, 2010 unless all Representatives shall have voted earlier.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 27, 2010, 02:31:22 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 27, 2010, 02:51:34 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on January 27, 2010, 03:07:48 PM
aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 27, 2010, 03:11:44 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 27, 2010, 03:23:08 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on January 27, 2010, 03:28:02 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 27, 2010, 03:52:20 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 27, 2010, 11:20:47 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 27, 2010, 11:31:35 PM
()

By a vote of 4-4, we have a tie, to be broken by Lt. Governor Smid.  He has been notified.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on January 28, 2010, 11:14:32 PM
My deciding vote shall be against this Bill.

Obesity is a serious health issue and more should be done to encourage Northeast citizens to make healthy lifestyle choices, rather than merely attempt to make people more comfortable in making unhealthy ones.

I have a further concern that were this Bill to be passed, a gym that sets two different workout programmes - one aimed at muscle tone for a healthy person and another aimed at weightloss for an obese person - could then be charged under this act for discriminating against the obese person due to the workout programme being different.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 28, 2010, 11:17:35 PM
I have a further concern that were this Bill to be passed, a gym that sets two different workout programmes - one aimed at muscle tone for a healthy person and another aimed at weightloss for an obese person - could then be charged under this act for discriminating against the obese person due to the workout programme being different.

I'm not sure that's the case, unless the gym was forbidding the obese person to have the workout plan of their choosing.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on January 28, 2010, 11:20:48 PM
I have a further concern that were this Bill to be passed, a gym that sets two different workout programmes - one aimed at muscle tone for a healthy person and another aimed at weightloss for an obese person - could then be charged under this act for discriminating against the obese person due to the workout programme being different.

I'm not sure that's the case, unless the gym was forbidding the obese person to have the workout plan of their choosing.

Well, the fat people would be holding back the more able people otherwise, right?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 29, 2010, 01:09:33 AM
My deciding vote shall be against this Bill.

Obesity is a serious health issue and more should be done to encourage Northeast citizens to make healthy lifestyle choices, rather than merely attempt to make people more comfortable in making unhealthy ones.

I have a further concern that were this Bill to be passed, a gym that sets two different workout programmes - one aimed at muscle tone for a healthy person and another aimed at weightloss for an obese person - could then be charged under this act for discriminating against the obese person due to the workout programme being different.

That wasn't the intent at all. I will reintroduce the bill in an amended form in the next term if I'm elected.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 29, 2010, 01:54:59 AM
()
With the Lt. Governor casting the vote to break the tie, the bill fails.

I hate introducing things this late, but in the interests of keeping things moving, the next bill is:

Amendments to the Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Any person who has committed a non-murder felony while under the age of 21, will automatically have his rights restored at age 35.
2. Whenever a gun is used as an instrument in the crime, an additional five years will be added to the sentence.

Sponsor: Rep. Dallasfan65

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 2:00AM Eastern on Sunday, January 31, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative Dallasfan65, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 29, 2010, 01:56:09 AM
Does someone want to make a motion to end debate as of 11PM Eastern on Saturday, instead of 2AM on Sunday?  I don't like opening votes at 2AM - I can't guarantee I'll be around.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on January 29, 2010, 02:00:01 AM
We should. now adressing the second part of the bill, when you say "a gun is used as an instrument in the crime" do you mean in the room or area just laying around? or what?

 
Does someone want to make a motion to end debate as of 11PM Eastern on Saturday, instead of 2AM on Sunday?  I don't like opening votes at 2AM - I can't guarantee I'll be around.
we can do that. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 29, 2010, 09:30:14 AM
I'm not really a fan of either provisions of this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 29, 2010, 12:20:19 PM
Damn it. Another disappointing defeat. :(


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 29, 2010, 12:21:24 PM
Does someone want to make a motion to end debate as of 11PM Eastern on Saturday, instead of 2AM on Sunday?  I don't like opening votes at 2AM - I can't guarantee I'll be around.

Yes, I do. There's not so much to say for that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on January 29, 2010, 01:46:00 PM
We should. now adressing the second part of the bill, when you say "a gun is used as an instrument in the crime" do you mean in the room or area just laying around? or what?

 
Does someone want to make a motion to end debate as of 11PM Eastern on Saturday, instead of 2AM on Sunday?  I don't like opening votes at 2AM - I can't guarantee I'll be around.
we can do that. :)
The gun helps the perp commit the crime. Whether that is used in murder, robbery, kidnapping, ETC. If the gun is essential to the perpetrator (IE being used through intimidation or assault) it will tack on an additional penalty.

Does someone want to make a motion to end debate as of 11PM Eastern on Saturday, instead of 2AM on Sunday?  I don't like opening votes at 2AM - I can't guarantee I'll be around.
I also support ending debate at 11PM.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on January 29, 2010, 02:49:03 PM
We should. now adressing the second part of the bill, when you say "a gun is used as an instrument in the crime" do you mean in the room or area just laying around? or what?

 
Does someone want to make a motion to end debate as of 11PM Eastern on Saturday, instead of 2AM on Sunday?  I don't like opening votes at 2AM - I can't guarantee I'll be around.
we can do that. :)
The gun helps the perp commit the crime. Whether that is used in murder, robbery, kidnapping, ETC. If the gun is essential to the perpetrator (IE being used through intimidation or assault) it will tack on an additional penalty.

Does someone want to make a motion to end debate as of 11PM Eastern on Saturday, instead of 2AM on Sunday?  I don't like opening votes at 2AM - I can't guarantee I'll be around.
I also support ending debate at 11PM.
ok. So essentailly how CA does it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on January 29, 2010, 03:37:16 PM
Alright, out of the way everyone. Big Daddy is barging his way into the Assembly!

I would like to take this time to present to you, something horrible, but delicious at the same time. Yes, its the budget. I've based my numbers off of those GM Purple State had announced earlier. Also, I would like to note that I have not used of our funds, I have put some aside for a rainy day fund, since we can not be sure how the next year is going to turn out. I would also like to ask that you not pay too much attention to the "last year" figures, as those are from the last budget put forward, which I presented sometime in late 2007 to early 2008. Without further babling, here is the new budget.

2010-2011 Northeast Budget

State Populations: 49

Connecticut (1)
Delaware (1)
Maine (6) - 
Massachusetts (6)
New Jersey (6)
New Hampshire (3)
New York (11)
Pennsylvania ( 8 )
Rhode Island (4)
Vermont (3)



Northeast Budget:

State                                      Revenue (In Millions)
Connecticut                            $28,495    ($15,918) -2
Delaware                               $6,950      ($15,918) No Change
Maine                                     $8,642      ($92,174) +5
Massachusetts                       $31,285    ($92,174) +3
New Jersey                             $45,785    ($92,174) +1
New Hampshire                      $17,890    ($47,754) No Change
New York                                $78,801    ($175,098) +6
Pennsylvania                          $62,375    ($127,344) +2
Rhode Island                          $7,400      ($63,672) +3
Vermont                                 $15,482     ($47,772) No Change

TOTAL                          $303,105 last year   $769,998 Projected

Expenditures (In Millions)

Law Enforcment/Military             $96.0    $190,500
Education                                   $66.5    $128,650
Health Care                                $56.4    $59,900
Local Government                      $28.00   $145,234
Environment                               $15.8    $105,737
Infrastructure                             $9.8     $43,825
 
TOTAL                                       $278.70    $673,846

Remaining                                       $96,152


Well, there it is. I know it looks cruel and all, but we had to get it all done. I would like to thank frm Lt. Governor Barnes, and Northeast Rep. Whacky Hack for helping to review this a little bit before it came forward.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 29, 2010, 03:42:15 PM
Law Enforcment/Military             $96.0    $190,500

Why so much ? ???


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on January 29, 2010, 05:07:16 PM
in case we get another bush in America and he decides to try to attack Atlasia. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on January 29, 2010, 05:13:16 PM

Because this has to fund every City Officers, County Sheriffs, State Police, and National Guards for the largest region in Atlasia.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 29, 2010, 05:20:50 PM

Because this has to fund every City Officers, County Sheriffs, State Police, and National Guards for the largest region in Atlasia.

Does that money go to fire departments as well?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on January 29, 2010, 05:39:37 PM

Because this has to fund every City Officers, County Sheriffs, State Police, and National Guards for the largest region in Atlasia.

Does that money go to fire departments as well?

Yes and no.  They partially fund volunteer fire departments (such as newer equipment if requested, and some building costs), but most volunteer departments depend on funds from local government, and contributions. Regular local run employee departments are funded in this as well. I forgot to mention that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 30, 2010, 02:43:15 PM
On the Northeast Gun Safety Act -  under current law, I can only see one situation where the automatic restoration at age 35 matters - where a federal judge has decreed someone who has committed a federal felony lose their federal gun rights for life.  I don't see why we should be second-guessing a court's determination - or creating a wedge between Atlasian federal and Northeast law.

As to the increased penalties, what's so special about a gun that shouldn't apply to someone who commits a crime using a knife or some other violent weapon.  Plus, how can this possibly apply to misdemeanors?  It would make them felonies.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on January 30, 2010, 03:39:23 PM
On the Northeast Gun Safety Act -  under current law, I can only see one situation where the automatic restoration at age 35 matters - where a federal judge has decreed someone who has committed a federal felony lose their federal gun rights for life.  I don't see why we should be second-guessing a court's determination - or creating a wedge between Atlasian federal and Northeast law.

As to the increased penalties, what's so special about a gun that shouldn't apply to someone who commits a crime using a knife or some other violent weapon.  Plus, how can this possibly apply to misdemeanors?  It would make them felonies.

I understand the frustration with "liberal" judges, I really do.  But minimum sentencing is even more frustrating.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 30, 2010, 04:00:26 PM
On the Northeast Gun Safety Act -  under current law, I can only see one situation where the automatic restoration at age 35 matters - where a federal judge has decreed someone who has committed a federal felony lose their federal gun rights for life.  I don't see why we should be second-guessing a court's determination - or creating a wedge between Atlasian federal and Northeast law.

As to the increased penalties, what's so special about a gun that shouldn't apply to someone who commits a crime using a knife or some other violent weapon.  Plus, how can this possibly apply to misdemeanors?  It would make them felonies.

Isn't federal law superior to regional?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 30, 2010, 11:00:00 PM
()

Seeing no amendments, it is now time to vote on final passage of the following bill:

Quote
Amendments to the Northeast Gun Safety Act

1. Any person who has committed a non-murder felony while under the age of 21, will automatically have his rights restored at age 35.
2. Whenever a gun is used as an instrument in the crime, an additional five years will be added to the sentence.

This vote will be open until the earlier of 11:00PM Eastern on Sunday, January 31, 2010, or when all Representatives shall have cast a vote.

Note: we will take up the budget next.  Technically, it needs to be approved in January - but I don't think we're going to vote on it until February 1 at the earliest, if we go with a 24-hour debate period.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 30, 2010, 11:17:50 PM
Since I want to sense of my bill be preserved and I don't see much harm (there's always a rehabilitation)...

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 30, 2010, 11:57:45 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on January 31, 2010, 12:59:38 AM
aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on January 31, 2010, 01:15:38 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on January 31, 2010, 01:22:24 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on January 31, 2010, 01:50:42 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on January 31, 2010, 02:28:45 AM
Just letting you guys know, if you have any questions for me on the budget, I'll be watching the discussion. You can also PM me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 31, 2010, 05:13:42 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on January 31, 2010, 10:30:53 AM
Just letting you guys know, if you have any questions for me on the budget, I'll be watching the discussion. You can also PM me.

As will I. I also would like to thank the GM for lending his time for any discussions on the budget.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on January 31, 2010, 11:05:27 PM
()

By a vote of 5-2 with 1 absence, the Northeast Gun Safety Act  passes and will be sent to the Governor for his approval or veto.

Next, unless there is an objection, we will take up Gov. AndrewCT's proposed budget:

2010-2011 Northeast Budget

State Populations: 49

Connecticut (1)
Delaware (1)
Maine (6) -  
Massachusetts (6)
New Jersey (6)
New Hampshire (3)
New York (11)
Pennsylvania ( 8 )
Rhode Island (4)
Vermont (3)



Northeast Budget:

State                                      Revenue (In Millions)
Connecticut                            $28,495    ($15,918) -2
Delaware                               $6,950      ($15,918) No Change
Maine                                     $8,642      ($92,174) +5
Massachusetts                       $31,285    ($92,174) +3
New Jersey                             $45,785    ($92,174) +1
New Hampshire                      $17,890    ($47,754) No Change
New York                                $78,801    ($175,098) +6
Pennsylvania                          $62,375    ($127,344) +2
Rhode Island                          $7,400      ($63,672) +3
Vermont                                 $15,482     ($47,772) No Change

TOTAL                          $303,105 last year   $769,998 Projected

Expenditures (In Millions)

Law Enforcment/Military             $96.0    $190,500
Education                                   $66.5    $128,650
Health Care                                $56.4    $59,900
Local Government                      $28.00   $145,234
Environment                               $15.8    $105,737
Infrastructure                             $9.8     $43,825
 
TOTAL                                       $278.70    $673,846

Remaining                                       $96,152


Debate on the budget shall remain open until 11:05PM on Tuesday, February 2, 2010, unless shortened or lengthened in accordance with the SOAP.

Gov. AndrewCT has the floor, if he so chooses.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on February 01, 2010, 04:24:22 AM
I would like to ask about the surplus. Are there any programs with which they could be added to?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on February 01, 2010, 08:57:46 AM
I would certainly suggest stashing away a portion of that surplus in a "rainy day" fund.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on February 01, 2010, 01:18:46 PM
I would certainly suggest stashing away a portion of that surplus in a "rainy day" fund.
I agree. Better safe than sorry. You never know what will happen.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 01, 2010, 01:21:53 PM
If I'm elected, I plan to store half the surplus in a "rainy-day fund" and give the rest back to the people where it belongs.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on February 01, 2010, 01:28:23 PM
If I'm elected, I plan to store half the surplus in a "rainy-day fund" and give the rest back to the people where it belongs.
but shouldn't you wait to see what you need? And you can give them the money after the year is over. Because if you do it before then you might have needed the money that you gave away, no?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 01, 2010, 01:31:49 PM
If I'm elected, I plan to store half the surplus in a "rainy-day fund" and give the rest back to the people where it belongs.

Lt. Governor don't have such power, dude :P

Assembly does.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 01, 2010, 01:46:28 PM
If I'm elected, I plan to store half the surplus in a "rainy-day fund" and give the rest back to the people where it belongs.

Lt. Governor don't have such power, dude :P

Assembly does.

I missed you're running for Assembly too. Sorry.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 01, 2010, 02:37:27 PM
Is this budget realistic?  We had a little bit of a deficit last quarter and I see nothing for debt service or paying off that debt.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 01, 2010, 03:11:51 PM
Is this budget realistic?  We had a little bit of a deficit last quarter and I see nothing for debt service or paying off that debt.

Well, I guess that's where we'll put this year's surplus.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on February 01, 2010, 04:50:27 PM
First, I would like to say that yes, the "Rainy Day Fund" monies can be placed into other programs if it was wanted. That is one of the reasons that I made sure that the money was there, that way if it was needed somewhere else, I didnt have to take money from something else for it.

Also, this is a realistic budget. The problem is that the last budget created and presented was over two years ago in January or February of 2007. It was difficult to try and create this knowing that the GM reported we had a deficit, but not seeing it reflected on our prior budget.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 02, 2010, 11:10:24 PM
()

Seeing no proposed amendments, we shall now proceed to vote on the budget resolution:

Quote
2010-2011 Northeast Budget

State Populations: 49

Connecticut (1)
Delaware (1)
Maine (6) -  
Massachusetts (6)
New Jersey (6)
New Hampshire (3)
New York (11)
Pennsylvania ( 8 )
Rhode Island (4)
Vermont (3)



Northeast Budget:

State                                      Revenue (In Millions)
Connecticut                            $28,495    ($15,918) -2
Delaware                               $6,950      ($15,918) No Change
Maine                                     $8,642      ($92,174) +5
Massachusetts                       $31,285    ($92,174) +3
New Jersey                             $45,785    ($92,174) +1
New Hampshire                      $17,890    ($47,754) No Change
New York                                $78,801    ($175,098) +6
Pennsylvania                          $62,375    ($127,344) +2
Rhode Island                          $7,400      ($63,672) +3
Vermont                                 $15,482     ($47,772) No Change

TOTAL                          $303,105 last year   $769,998 Projected

Expenditures (In Millions)

Law Enforcment/Military             $96.0    $190,500
Education                                   $66.5    $128,650
Health Care                                $56.4    $59,900
Local Government                      $28.00   $145,234
Environment                               $15.8    $105,737
Infrastructure                             $9.8     $43,825
 
TOTAL                                       $278.70    $673,846

Remaining                                       $96,152

The vote on the budget shall remain open until 11:10PM on Wednesday, February 3, 2010, unless all Representatives shall have voted sooner.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 03, 2010, 01:35:23 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 03, 2010, 01:37:12 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on February 03, 2010, 01:38:28 AM
aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 03, 2010, 01:40:32 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 03, 2010, 07:46:25 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on February 03, 2010, 09:32:09 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on February 03, 2010, 04:13:53 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 03, 2010, 11:10:34 PM
()

By a vote of 6-1 with 1 absence, the Northeast Budget passes.

Next bill:

Deletion Comendation Resolution

The Northeast Assembly is strongly condemding recent acts committed by Atlasia Moderators: deleting a votes and statement mades by Representatives on the Assembly floor, relating to actual business.

We demand that a Troll List enforcement will never again affect or obstruct strickly legislative affairs.

Sponsor: Rep. Kalwejt

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 11:10PM Eastern on Friday, February 5, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative Kalwejt, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 03, 2010, 11:14:33 PM
I propose a few changes to fix a few typos, which I hope will be friendly:

The Northeast Assembly is strongly condemding condemns recent acts committed by Atlasia Moderators: deleting a votes and statement mades statements made by Representatives on the Assembly floor, relating to actual business.

We demand that a Troll List enforcement will never again affect or obstruct strickly strictly legislative affairs.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on February 04, 2010, 01:02:20 AM
aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on February 04, 2010, 01:08:20 AM

It's in the debate stage, not the voting stage at the moment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on February 04, 2010, 01:20:10 AM
Just a quick thought: The current rules for this body make it difficult for emergency matters to be addressed. It does provide a certain amount of equity, in that everything gets its proper turn, but it also makes it difficult for you to respond to short-term events (as exemplified by taking up the current resolution long after the matter has ended).

Perhaps this is something to look into.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on February 04, 2010, 01:22:15 AM
Just a quick thought: The current rules for this body make it difficult for emergency matters to be addressed. It does provide a certain amount of equity, in that everything gets its proper turn, but it also makes it difficult for you to respond to short-term events (as exemplified by taking up the current resolution long after the matter has ended).

Perhaps this is something to look into.

I think that the mover, Rep Kalwejt, could withdraw the motion if he so desired.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on February 04, 2010, 01:23:33 AM
Just a quick thought: The current rules for this body make it difficult for emergency matters to be addressed. It does provide a certain amount of equity, in that everything gets its proper turn, but it also makes it difficult for you to respond to short-term events (as exemplified by taking up the current resolution long after the matter has ended).

Perhaps this is something to look into.

I think that the mover, Rep Kalwejt, could withdraw the motion if he so desired.

Even if he did, it would take quite a while to get to legislation dealing with current issues. Just makes my job hard when you can't react to my reports in a timely fashion (not that most people react at all :P).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on February 04, 2010, 01:37:36 AM
I know but he asked, "The question is whether the bill should be considered?"


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on February 04, 2010, 01:40:43 AM
I know but he asked, "The question is whether the bill should be considered?"

Sorry, should explain - this is a procedural vote and it's automatically assumed the vote is passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 04, 2010, 01:47:05 AM
I'd like to move to shorten the debate period to 12 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on February 04, 2010, 01:50:20 AM
I know but he asked, "The question is whether the bill should be considered?"

Sorry, should explain - this is a procedural vote and it's automatically assumed the vote is passed.
oh. well always better safe than sorry.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 04, 2010, 04:07:49 AM
I'd like to move to shorten the debate period to 12 hours.

I'm not going to give you 12 hours, especially when the sponsor hasn't spoken yet.  Assuming the sponsor speaks and decides whether my amendment is friendly, I'll give you a 20:50 debate period, putting us back on the 8PM Eastern open for voting periods that I prefer anyway.   I'm almost always available around then.  


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 04, 2010, 04:15:28 AM
Just a quick thought: The current rules for this body make it difficult for emergency matters to be addressed. It does provide a certain amount of equity, in that everything gets its proper turn, but it also makes it difficult for you to respond to short-term events (as exemplified by taking up the current resolution long after the matter has ended).

Perhaps this is something to look into.

I think that the mover, Rep Kalwejt, could withdraw the motion if he so desired.

Even if he did, it would take quite a while to get to legislation dealing with current issues. Just makes my job hard when you can't react to my reports in a timely fashion (not that most people react at all :P).

We have a process for putting more than one item on the agenda at a time - IIRC a vote is held to see if the members want to do it.  It was used by Representative Hamilton in the last session to place a resolution supporting New Mexican independence on the floor, which went down in flames.

For whatever reason, Rep. Kalwejt and the rest of us didn't move to place this item immediately on the agenda when it was more urgent (though it's still relevant today).

We can have legislation for any emergency matter put on the floor within 24 hours of it being drafted - or sooner, if all Reps vote sooner.

BTW - Rep. cutie_15 has a proposed Health Act that we'll probably get to before the end of the session which is a direct response to your news about obesity in the Northeast.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 04, 2010, 05:46:38 AM
Mr. Speaker. I realize this thing is rather out-of-date since things returned now to "normalcy". While it was a really huge problem for Assembly works, there are more urgent matters now indeed. So, I hereby withdraw this resolution.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 04, 2010, 05:47:37 AM
Mr. Speaker. I realize this thing is rather out-of-date since things returned now to "normalcy". While it was a really huge problem for Assembly works, there are more urgent matters now indeed. So, I hereby withdraw this resolution.

Good.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 04, 2010, 02:40:50 PM
Mr. Speaker. I realize this thing is rather out-of-date since things returned now to "normalcy". While it was a really huge problem for Assembly works, there are more urgent matters now indeed. So, I hereby withdraw this resolution.

Okay.   The resolution is withdrawn.

()

Next bill:

Lt. Governor Vacancy Amendment

1. Article IV, Section viii of the New Northeast Constitution shall be amended and replaced by the following:

If the office of Governor is to become vacant at some point while he or she is in office, than the Lieutenant Governor is to be immediately sworn in as Governor of the Northeast Region.  If the office of Lieutenant Governor is to become vacant at some point while he or she is in office , than the Governor may appoint a new one after the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region at any time more than two weeks before the next scheduled gubernatorial election, an election shall be held to replace the fill the vacancy.  The Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region will open the booth for such election on the second Friday after such vacancy occurs at 12:00:00am Eastern Standard Time, and will close said both on the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm Eastern Standard Time. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote during this time.  Candidates for Lieutenant Governor will be given until the second Wednesday after such vacancy occurs  to announce his or her candidacy.

2. Article IV, Section xiii of the New Northeast Constitution shall be amended and replaced by the following:

The Lieutenant Governor of the Northeast Region shall be charged with the responsibilities of the Legislative Assembly of the region. He or she shall ensure that the Legislative Assembly has the ability to propose legislation that they are able to be debated on, and voted on during appropriate periods. In the temporary absence of the Lieutenant Governor, than the Governor the Speaker of the Northeast Assembly may take up these responsibilities.

3. Article IV, Section xiv of the New Northeast Constitution shall be amended as follows:

In the temporary absence of the Governor, then the Lieutenant Governor may be allowed to temporarily conduct the duties of the Governor. The Speaker of the Northeast Assembly shall never be allowed to temporarily conduct the duties of the Governor if acting in the temporary absence of the Lieutenant Governor pursuant to Article IV, Section xiii) of this Constitution.

Sponsor: Rep. cinyc

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 2:45PM Eastern on Saturday, February 6, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative cinyc, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 04, 2010, 02:49:07 PM
I support it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 04, 2010, 02:50:13 PM
This is my promised constitutional amendment fixing the Lt. Governor vacancy process.  The current process is unclear and undemocratic.  The Assembly must recommend a replacement to the Governor before he can fill the vacancy, but it's not clear if the Governor must name the person the Assembly recommends.  And since the Assembly is no longer all the citizens of the Northeast, an important elected position is replaced by someone other than the voters.

The amendment calls for an election to fill the vacancy if it occurs at any time more than 2 weeks before the regularly scheduled Gubernatorial election.  The election will be held over the weekend of the second Friday after the vacancy occurs, allowing for time for candidates to declare and campaign.  In the interim, the Speaker takes over the role of Lt. Governor in running the Assembly (technically, the Governor does under the current Constitution), but doesn't get to break ties or automatically fill the shoes of the Governor should that office remain vacant.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 04, 2010, 04:07:17 PM
Mr. Speaker,

Since I've recently introduced a project of the Act which clarifies the issue of gubernatorial absention, voluntairly and unvoluntairly alike, I think it's better to include this to your amendment.

Would you consider these amendments friendly?

3. Article IV, Section xiv of the New Northeast Constitution shall be amended as follows:

In the temporary absence of the Governor, then the Lieutenant Governor may be allowed to temporarily conduct the duties of the Governor. The Speaker of the Northeast Assembly shall never be allowed to temporarily conduct the duties of the Governor if acting in the temporary absence of the Lieutenant Governor pursuant to Article IV, Section xiii) of this Constitution.

The Governor may declare his absence, thereby allowing the Lieutenant Governor, or the Speaker if Lieutenant Governor is not avaviable or office is vacant, to temporarily conduct the duties of the office, under a title of the Acting Governor of Northeast.

If the Governor is inactive for a period longer than six days, Lieutenant Governor (or speaker as mentioned before) shall automatically assume temporarily conduct the duties of the office.

The Governor shall resume the powers and duties of the office by smilliar declaration.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 04, 2010, 09:56:22 PM
Mr. Speaker,

Since I've recently introduced a project of the Act which clarifies the issue of gubernatorial absention, voluntairly and unvoluntairly alike, I think it's better to include this to your amendment.

Would you consider these amendments friendly?

3. Article IV, Section xiv of the New Northeast Constitution shall be amended as follows:

In the temporary absence of the Governor, then the Lieutenant Governor may be allowed to temporarily conduct the duties of the Governor. The Speaker of the Northeast Assembly shall never be allowed to temporarily conduct the duties of the Governor if acting in the temporary absence of the Lieutenant Governor pursuant to Article IV, Section xiii) of this Constitution.

The Governor may declare his absence, thereby allowing the Lieutenant Governor, or the Speaker if Lieutenant Governor is not avaviable or office is vacant, to temporarily conduct the duties of the office, under a title of the Acting Governor of Northeast.

If the Governor is inactive for a period longer than six days, Lieutenant Governor (or speaker as mentioned before) shall automatically assume temporarily conduct the duties of the office.

The Governor shall resume the powers and duties of the office by smilliar declaration.

I'm not so sure about your proposal.  There's an inherent separation of powers issue and huge potential conflict of interest with allowing an elected member of the Assembly (legislature) to assume the powers of the Governor to veto bills.  Some states seem to do it (like New Jersey, where the Senate Majority Leader can become Acting Governor, but that's probably because NJ, until this cycle, didn't have a Lt. Governor.)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 04, 2010, 10:09:42 PM
Mr. Speaker,

Since I've recently introduced a project of the Act which clarifies the issue of gubernatorial absention, voluntairly and unvoluntairly alike, I think it's better to include this to your amendment.

Would you consider these amendments friendly?

3. Article IV, Section xiv of the New Northeast Constitution shall be amended as follows:

In the temporary absence of the Governor, then the Lieutenant Governor may be allowed to temporarily conduct the duties of the Governor. The Speaker of the Northeast Assembly shall never be allowed to temporarily conduct the duties of the Governor if acting in the temporary absence of the Lieutenant Governor pursuant to Article IV, Section xiii) of this Constitution.

The Governor may declare his absence, thereby allowing the Lieutenant Governor, or the Speaker if Lieutenant Governor is not avaviable or office is vacant, to temporarily conduct the duties of the office, under a title of the Acting Governor of Northeast.

If the Governor is inactive for a period longer than six days, Lieutenant Governor (or speaker as mentioned before) shall automatically assume temporarily conduct the duties of the office.

The Governor shall resume the powers and duties of the office by smilliar declaration.

I'm not so sure about your proposal.  There's an inherent separation of powers issue and huge potential conflict of interest with allowing an elected member of the Assembly (legislature) to assume the powers of the Governor to veto bills.  Some states seem to do it (like New Jersey, where the Senate Majority Leader can become Acting Governor, but that's probably because NJ, until this cycle, didn't have a Lt. Governor.)

I understand, but you yourself inluded a proposal of Speaker in the chain of command.

Actually, my point is to include a clear procedure what to do if Governor is absent. I hope you'll accept this part.

(and in NJ it's Senate President, FTR ;))


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on February 04, 2010, 10:13:01 PM
Separation of powers is necessary.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 04, 2010, 10:19:29 PM

So ok, but regarding Lt. Governor and Governor, we should have a procedure to deal with absention issue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 04, 2010, 10:27:50 PM
Mr. Speaker,

Since I've recently introduced a project of the Act which clarifies the issue of gubernatorial absention, voluntairly and unvoluntairly alike, I think it's better to include this to your amendment.

Would you consider these amendments friendly?

3. Article IV, Section xiv of the New Northeast Constitution shall be amended as follows:

In the temporary absence of the Governor, then the Lieutenant Governor may be allowed to temporarily conduct the duties of the Governor. The Speaker of the Northeast Assembly shall never be allowed to temporarily conduct the duties of the Governor if acting in the temporary absence of the Lieutenant Governor pursuant to Article IV, Section xiii) of this Constitution.

The Governor may declare his absence, thereby allowing the Lieutenant Governor, or the Speaker if Lieutenant Governor is not avaviable or office is vacant, to temporarily conduct the duties of the office, under a title of the Acting Governor of Northeast.

If the Governor is inactive for a period longer than six days, Lieutenant Governor (or speaker as mentioned before) shall automatically assume temporarily conduct the duties of the office.

The Governor shall resume the powers and duties of the office by smilliar declaration.

I'm not so sure about your proposal.  There's an inherent separation of powers issue and huge potential conflict of interest with allowing an elected member of the Assembly (legislature) to assume the powers of the Governor to veto bills.  Some states seem to do it (like New Jersey, where the Senate Majority Leader can become Acting Governor, but that's probably because NJ, until this cycle, didn't have a Lt. Governor.)

I understand, but you yourself inluded a proposal of Speaker in the chain of command.

Actually, my point is to include a clear procedure what to do if Governor is absent. I hope you'll accept this part.

(and in NJ it's Senate President, FTR ;))

My Speaker provision merely formalizes the procedure we already have in the SOAP.  The SOAP and Constitution shouldn't be at odds with each other.

Please provide me the actual language you'd propose.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 04, 2010, 10:29:22 PM
Mr. Speaker, what about this:

The Governor may declare his absence, thereby allowing the Lieutenant Governor to temporarily conduct the duties of the office, under a title of the Acting Governor of Northeast.

If the Governor is inactive for a period longer than six days, Lieutenant Governor shall automatically assume temporarily conduct the duties of the office.

The Governor shall resume the powers and duties of the office by smilliar declaration.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 04, 2010, 10:35:30 PM
Mr. Speaker, what about this:

The Governor may declare his absence, thereby allowing the Lieutenant Governor to temporarily conduct the duties of the office, under a title of the Acting Governor of Northeast.

If the Governor is inactive for a period longer than six days, Lieutenant Governor shall automatically assume temporarily conduct the duties of the office.

The Governor shall resume the powers and duties of the office by smilliar declaration.


How do we determine whether a Governor is inactive?  His activity isn't as regular as a member of the Assembly - especially if we don't pass any legislation for over a week.  Failure to post anything in Atlasia?  On the Atlast Forum?  In his office thread?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 04, 2010, 10:55:03 PM
Mr. Speaker, what about this:

The Governor may declare his absence, thereby allowing the Lieutenant Governor to temporarily conduct the duties of the office, under a title of the Acting Governor of Northeast.

If the Governor is inactive for a period longer than six days, Lieutenant Governor shall automatically assume temporarily conduct the duties of the office.

The Governor shall resume the powers and duties of the office by smilliar declaration.


How do we determine whether a Governor is inactive?  His activity isn't as regular as a member of the Assembly - especially if we don't pass any legislation for over a week.  Failure to post anything in Atlasia?  On the Atlast Forum?  In his office thread?

Ok, I see the problem.

I hope you have no problem that Governor can declare absence himself and by transferring temporary his powers to Lt. Governor?

As of undeclared inactivity, let say not performing any duty like signing the bill, after being notified. In other cases, 20 days absence from forum would result in transferring powers to Lt.

How about that?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 05, 2010, 03:47:19 PM
Mr. Speaker, what about this:

The Governor may declare his absence, thereby allowing the Lieutenant Governor to temporarily conduct the duties of the office, under a title of the Acting Governor of Northeast.

If the Governor is inactive for a period longer than six days, Lieutenant Governor shall automatically assume temporarily conduct the duties of the office.

The Governor shall resume the powers and duties of the office by smilliar declaration.


How do we determine whether a Governor is inactive?  His activity isn't as regular as a member of the Assembly - especially if we don't pass any legislation for over a week.  Failure to post anything in Atlasia?  On the Atlast Forum?  In his office thread?

Ok, I see the problem.

I hope you have no problem that Governor can declare absence himself and by transferring temporary his powers to Lt. Governor?

As of undeclared inactivity, let say not performing any duty like signing the bill, after being notified. In other cases, 20 days absence from forum would result in transferring powers to Lt.

How about that?

20 days will work.  21 might be better because it's an even 3 weeks.  It would be pretty clear if the Governor hasn't been active for 21 days.  The courts can decide it, if it's close, I suppose.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 05, 2010, 04:06:36 PM
I hope it's acceatable:

The Governor may declare his absence, thereby allowing the Lieutenant Governor to temporarily conduct the duties of the office, under a title of the Acting Governor of Northeast.

If the Governor is not performing the duties, like signing or vetoing the bill after being notified, for a period longer than seven days, Lieutenant Governor shall automatically assume temporarily conduct the duties of the office. If Governor is inactive in Atlasia for 21 days, even if had not to perform any duties at the time, Lieuteant Governor shall automatically assume powers and duties as well.

The Governor shall resume the powers and duties of the office by declaration.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 05, 2010, 04:10:37 PM
I hope it's acceatable:

The Governor may declare his absence, thereby allowing the Lieutenant Governor to temporarily conduct the duties of the office, under a title of the Acting Governor of Northeast.

If the Governor is not performing the duties, like signing or vetoing the bill after being notified, for a period longer than seven days, Lieutenant Governor shall automatically assume temporarily conduct the duties of the office. If Governor is inactive in Atlasia for 21 days, even if had not to perform any duties at the time, Lieuteant Governor shall automatically assume powers and duties as well.

The Governor shall resume the powers and duties of the office by declaration.



The grammar, spelling and style needs to be fixed a bit, but it's otherwise acceptable as friendly to me if no one else raises an objection.  I'll work on tightening up the language.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 05, 2010, 04:13:57 PM
I hope it's acceatable:

The Governor may declare his absence, thereby allowing the Lieutenant Governor to temporarily conduct the duties of the office, under a title of the Acting Governor of Northeast.

If the Governor is not performing the duties, like signing or vetoing the bill after being notified, for a period longer than seven days, Lieutenant Governor shall automatically assume temporarily conduct the duties of the office. If Governor is inactive in Atlasia for 21 days, even if had not to perform any duties at the time, Lieuteant Governor shall automatically assume powers and duties as well.

The Governor shall resume the powers and duties of the office by declaration.



The grammar, spelling and style needs to be fixed a bit, but it's otherwise acceptable as friendly to me if no one else raises an objection.  I'll work on tightening up the language.

Thanks you, Mr. Speaker :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 05, 2010, 04:20:31 PM
How's this?


3. Article IV, Section xiv of the New Northeast Constitution shall be amended as follows:

xiv)(a) The Governor may publicly declare his absence, thereby allowing the Lieutenant Governor to temporarily conduct the duties of the office, under the title of Acting Governor of Northeast.

b) If the Governor does not perform his or her official duties for a period longer then 7 days,  the Lieutenant Governor shall automatically temporarily conduct the duties of the Governor's office.  Official duties include signing or vetoing bills after being publicly notified of their passage in the Northeast Assembly.  

c) If Governor is inactive on the Atlas Forum for 21 days, the Lieutenant Governor shall automatically temporary conduct the duties of the Governor's office.

d) The Governor shall resume the powers and duties of the office by publicly declaring he is present and able to resume the powers and duties of his office.

e) The Speaker of the Northeast Assembly shall never be allowed to temporarily conduct the duties of the Governor if acting in the temporary absence of the Lieutenant Governor pursuant to Article IV, Section xiii) of this Constitution.


Note that I changed Atlasia to the Atlas Forum.  There could be a situation where the Assembly doesn't pass anything and no actions by the Governor are required.

The last clausewas my original proposed change.

When I have time, I'm going to have to double check whether the new proposal conflicts with any other part of the New Northeast Constitution (I doubt it).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 05, 2010, 04:29:06 PM
One thing we're going to have to think about is how this affects the veto provisions of the constitution. Right now, they are open ended, not putting a time limit on when a bill must be vetoed.  This bill would effectively force the Governor to decide whether to veto a bill within 7 days or be replaced by the Lt. Governor.

Is that something we want to do?  I don't know.  

It fits with the proposed Veto Override Amendment, though - which would force the Governor to decide within 7 days or have the bill deemed passed.

Therefore, we might want to make subsection b) contingent on the Veto Override Amendment passing.

Adding something like:

"4. Proposed Subsection Article IV, Section xiv)(b) shall become effective only if the Proposed Veto Override Amendment to the Northeast Constitution passes in the same election.   If the Proposed Veto Override Amendment to the Northeast Constitution fails, Proposed Section xiv)(b) shall be deleted and Sections xiv)(c)-(e) shall be renumbered xiv)(b)-(d)."

Thoughts?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on February 05, 2010, 07:23:45 PM
Sounds fine, Mr. Speaker.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 05, 2010, 07:45:35 PM
Support.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 06, 2010, 12:47:54 PM
()

I'm probably not going to be available at 2:45PM.  Since there's been no recent debate, I'm going to open the vote a bit early instead of late:

Quote
Lt. Governor Vacancy Amendment

1. Article IV, Section viii of the New Northeast Constitution shall be amended and replaced by the following:

If the office of Governor is to become vacant at some point while he or she is in office, than the Lieutenant Governor is to be immediately sworn in as Governor of the Northeast Region.  If the office of Lieutenant Governor is to become vacant at some point while he or she is in office , than the Governor may appoint a new one after the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region at any time more than two weeks before the next scheduled gubernatorial election, an election shall be held to replace the fill the vacancy.  The Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region will open the booth for such election on the second Friday after such vacancy occurs at 12:00:00am Eastern Standard Time, and will close said both on the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm Eastern Standard Time. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote during this time.  Candidates for Lieutenant Governor will be given until the second Wednesday after such vacancy occurs  to announce his or her candidacy.

2. Article IV, Section xiii of the New Northeast Constitution shall be amended and replaced by the following:

The Lieutenant Governor of the Northeast Region shall be charged with the responsibilities of the Legislative Assembly of the region. He or she shall ensure that the Legislative Assembly has the ability to propose legislation that they are able to be debated on, and voted on during appropriate periods. In the temporary absence of the Lieutenant Governor, than the Governor the Speaker of the Northeast Assembly may take up these responsibilities.

3. Article IV, Section xiv of the New Northeast Constitution shall be deleted and replaced as follows:

xiv)(a) The Governor may publicly declare his absence, thereby allowing the Lieutenant Governor to temporarily conduct the duties of the office, under the title of Acting Governor of Northeast.

b) If the Governor does not perform his or her official duties for a period longer then 7 days,  the Lieutenant Governor shall automatically temporarily conduct the duties of the Governor's office.  Official duties include signing or vetoing bills after being publicly notified of their passage in the Northeast Assembly.  

c) If Governor is inactive on the Atlas Forum for 21 days, the Lieutenant Governor shall automatically temporary conduct the duties of the Governor's office.

d) The Governor shall resume the powers and duties of the office by publicly declaring he is present and able to resume the powers and duties of his office.

e) The Speaker of the Northeast Assembly shall never be allowed to temporarily conduct the duties of the Governor if acting in the temporary absence of the Lieutenant Governor pursuant to Article IV, Section xiii) of this Constitution.

4. Proposed Subsection Article IV, Section xiv)(b) shall become effective only if the Proposed Veto Override Amendment to the Northeast Constitution passes in the same election.   If the Proposed Veto Override Amendment to the Northeast Constitution fails, Proposed Section xiv)(b) shall be deleted and Sections xiv)(c)-(e) shall be renumbered xiv)(b)-(d).

This vote shall remain open until the earlier of 12:50PM Eastern on Sunday, February 6, 2010 or when all Representatives have voted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 06, 2010, 12:48:51 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 06, 2010, 12:54:03 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 06, 2010, 03:37:37 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on February 06, 2010, 08:44:24 PM
AYE.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on February 06, 2010, 10:06:10 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 06, 2010, 10:08:06 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 07, 2010, 01:03:44 PM
()

By a vote of 6-0, with 2 absences, the Lt. Governor Vacancy Amendment meets the requirement that a proposed constitutional amendment receive two-thirds of the overall vote and the vote of a majority of Assembly members.  Therefore, the amendment passes, and will be sent to the Governor for his assent.

Next bill:

Northeast Order of Precedence Act

1. The Northeast Region shall use following order for ceremonial purpouses:
a. Governor
b. Lieutenant Governor
c. Chief Judicial Officer
d. Speaker of the Assembly
e. Former Governors (in order of terms of service)
f. Current Representatives by lenght of service
g. Former Lieutenant Governors (in order of terms of service)
2. In a case when two incumbent Representatives have the same seniority, following factors shall be used to determine higher seniority:
a. Lenght of previous non-consensutive service
b. Number of registered voters in Representative's home state

Sponsor: Rep. Kalwejt

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 1:05PM Eastern on Tuesday, February 9, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative Kalwejt, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 07, 2010, 01:11:08 PM
Rep. Mr. Moderate has missed three consecutive votes without posting an official leave of absence.  This technically means that he is expelled from the Assembly under Article V, Section xiii of the New Northeast Constitution.  I have informed the Governor of the situation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 07, 2010, 02:02:08 PM
Motion to shorten the debate period. To the shortest time you will agree to.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 07, 2010, 02:28:11 PM
Motion to shorten the debate period. To the shortest time you will agree to.

I'd like to hear from the sponsor first before deciding on a shorter period.  It won't be less than 24 hours. 

I have some concerns about this legislation - especially since it conflicts with the order established in the Constitution.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 07, 2010, 02:32:52 PM
Mr. Speaker, fellow Representatives.

I understand that the proposal of the order of precedence act have no other significance than purely symbolic, but since many countries and subnational divisions all around the world, as well as Atlasian Federal Government, are using this, I can see no reason why we shouldn't adopt this as well, as a symbol of our institutions.

Also, I have nothing against shortening the period of debate.

As of ay grammar/language amendments, I'm open for.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 07, 2010, 07:00:21 PM
Okay.  The debate period will be 24 hours.  I will open the vote some time around 1:00 or 2:00PM Eastern tomorrow, depending on when I am available.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 08, 2010, 12:11:22 AM
Inadvertently edited. 

This post had the proposed typo fix included in the final bill and a statement questioning the constitutionality of the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 08, 2010, 07:14:36 AM
Well, if this bill is unconstitutionnal, I can't support it even though I favor the order of precedence proposed by Rep Kalwejt.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 08, 2010, 07:52:41 AM
Mr. Speaker

I would like to point that the act have nothing to do with a chain of command. Just like United States order of precedence have nothing to do with the presidential line of succession. For example, Chief Justice is excluded from the line but appears highly in order of precedence, higher than Senate president pro tempore who's third in line.

This is for ceremonial purpouses only and is not an constitutional issue at all.

I hope I put that clear.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 08, 2010, 01:42:03 PM
Mr. Speaker

I would like to point that the act have nothing to do with a chain of command. Just like United States order of precedence have nothing to do with the presidential line of succession. For example, Chief Justice is excluded from the line but appears highly in order of precedence, higher than Senate president pro tempore who's third in line.

This is for ceremonial purpouses only and is not an constitutional issue at all.

I hope I put that clear.

Noted - though I don't think there's much of a difference.

Is my amendment to the bill friendly?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 08, 2010, 02:43:39 PM
Mr. Speaker

I would like to point that the act have nothing to do with a chain of command. Just like United States order of precedence have nothing to do with the presidential line of succession. For example, Chief Justice is excluded from the line but appears highly in order of precedence, higher than Senate president pro tempore who's third in line.

This is for ceremonial purpouses only and is not an constitutional issue at all.

I hope I put that clear.

Noted - though I don't think there's much of a difference.

Is my amendment to the bill friendly?

Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 08, 2010, 02:59:56 PM
()

We shall now proceed to a vote on the bill:

Quote
Northeast Order of Precedence Act

1. The Northeast Region shall use following order for ceremonial purposes:
a. Governor;
b. Lieutenant Governor;
c. Chief Judicial Officer;
d. Speaker of the Assembly;
e. Former Governors (in order of terms of service);
f. Current Representatives by length of service; and
g. Former Lieutenant Governors (in order of terms of service).
2. In a case when two incumbent Representatives have the same seniority, following factors shall be used to determine higher seniority:
a. Length of previous non-consecutive service; and
b. Number of registered voters in Representative's home state.

This vote will remain open until the earlier of 3:00PM Eastern on Tuesday, February 9, 2010 or when all Representatives shall have voted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 08, 2010, 03:13:36 PM
Aye

(and please... it's clear it's irrevelant to the chain of command)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on February 08, 2010, 03:15:25 PM
Mr. Speaker, fellow Representatives, forgive me for my recent asbsence, but I had no power until late last night and was staying in a motel with no wifi.

As for the vote...

I vote Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 08, 2010, 04:26:59 PM
Nay

Yikes! Rep. Docyor Cynic - snow happens, I guess.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 08, 2010, 09:12:01 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on February 08, 2010, 09:44:54 PM
Nay.

Aye, after discussing it with Kalwejt.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 09, 2010, 07:13:14 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 09, 2010, 03:02:08 PM
()

By a vote of 4-2 with one absence, the Northeast Order of Precedence Act passes, and will be sent to the Governor for his signature or veto.

Next bill:

Health Act

To encourage people to have a healthy body,
If you can prove you belong to a gym, then you can get 5% off your aiprot flight ticket.
To prove you belong to a gym you need:
a) A gym member ship card
b) or a temporary card showing that you did apply for membership.

Sponsor: Rep. cutie_15

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 3:05PM Eastern on Thursday, February 11, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative cutie_15, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on February 09, 2010, 03:53:16 PM
I have a few questions and concerns... First of all, does the waist size of the individual matter as long as they can produce a valid gym membership card?

Second, I don't even believe that it actually does anything to curtail the primary problem as any individual can maintain a gym membership and even then, the airlines could just take the five percent out of the cost of the two seat charge for a heavy individual who may even be going to the gym to work on their issues and still cram them into one seat.

So, again, how does this actually solve the problem?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 09, 2010, 03:57:25 PM
I would like to propose we shorten the debate time to as short as possible for this legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 09, 2010, 04:00:12 PM
I would like to propose we shorten the debate time to as short as possible for this legislation.

Seconded.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on February 09, 2010, 04:01:38 PM
I'd like to propose a friendly amendment to clean up the grammar in this bill.

Health ActTo encourage people to have a healthy body,
If you can prove you belong to a gym, then you can get 5% off your aiprot flight ticket.
To prove you belong to a gym you need:
a) A gym member ship card
b) or a temporary card showing that you did apply for membership.

Health Act

If proven that an individual has membership to a gym, they are eligible for a 5% discount on their airport ticket. For an individual to prove they belong to a gym, they require either a gym membership card or a temporary card showing there was application for membership.

This is not to say that I will vote for the bill. Also...

EDIT: I cancel my motion to amend it, as I will not vote for this bill either way. My support to shorten debate time remains.

I would like to propose we shorten the debate time to as short as possible for this legislation.

Seconded.

Thirded.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 09, 2010, 05:11:02 PM
I would like to propose we shorten the debate time to as short as possible for this legislation.

I will not rule on motions to shorten until we hear from the sponsor. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 09, 2010, 05:19:41 PM
I would like to propose we shorten the debate time to as short as possible for this legislation.

I will not rule on motions to shorten until we hear from the sponsor. 

The bill is not even written in legible English. It is an embarrassment to this Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 09, 2010, 05:24:57 PM
I would like to propose we shorten the debate time to as short as possible for this legislation.

I will not rule on motions to shorten until we hear from the sponsor.  

The bill is not even written in legible English. It is an embarrassment to this Assembly.

I'm not a fan of the bill as written, but it's not the first bill this Assembly has considered that includes a few typos.

The GM says that Northeast obesity is at an epidemic level.  This bill could be used as a vehicle to address that - or to decide that we as the Assembly shouldn't meddle into people's wastelines.

I would like to hear from the sponsor before ruling on any motion to shorten debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on February 09, 2010, 07:03:41 PM
I honestly am not really concerned with how the bill is typed up. There's no rule in the Assembly that says it has to be perfectly written and the fact that we have a few members who are not natural english speakers to begin with, it shouldn't get in the way of getting things done, in my opinion.

Look, if it can help address issues both related to health and equality then I think it's worth working on. At the moment though, it's just a bill that offers a solution to neither of the problems that should be addressed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 09, 2010, 07:09:46 PM
The bill is stupid both in content and in form. Having a gym membership card proves nothing, and what does that have to do with taking an "aiprot flight"?

And its sponsor is from California, not a foreign country.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 09, 2010, 07:27:24 PM
The bill is stupid both in content and in form. Having a gym membership card proves nothing, and what does that have to do with taking an "aiprot flight"?

And its sponsor is from California, not a foreign country.

The sponsor is Norteast citizen.

Edited for personal attack. The rest of the post is, of course, completely off-target but I will leave it up to the author to realize that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on February 09, 2010, 10:12:50 PM
The bill is stupid both in content and in form. Having a gym membership card proves nothing, and what does that have to do with taking an "aiprot flight"?

And its sponsor is from California, not a foreign country.

The point I'm making is I really don't give two crocks whether or not anything is spelled correctly.

Also, I agree... But it's something we can start working towards. Both with obesity figures and the rights of those who still have an issue.

My primary desire is ticket price per seat. Period. One seat, one price.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on February 09, 2010, 11:01:39 PM
I have a few questions and concerns... First of all, does the waist size of the individual matter as long as they can produce a valid gym membership card?

Second, I don't even believe that it actually does anything to curtail the primary problem as any individual can maintain a gym membership and even then, the airlines could just take the five percent out of the cost of the two seat charge for a heavy individual who may even be going to the gym to work on their issues and still cram them into one seat.

So, again, how does this actually solve the problem?
sorry for a delayed answer.

anyways Yes it would. People would loose wait if they actually went the the gym. Since gym membership is so expensive they wouldn't waste money unless they used it.
and the two seat thing. come on!!! I even take up two seats. but the question is would you rather have to pay full price. ;)
Kidding if you want you could tweak it to put a two seat thing in if you want.



and it is online. who gives a rats ass about how people think spelling is so important on a forum where no one will ever meet you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 09, 2010, 11:03:55 PM
The bill is stupid both in content and in form. Having a gym membership card proves nothing, and what does that have to do with taking an "aiprot flight"?

And its sponsor is from California, not a foreign country.

The point I'm making is I really don't give two crocks whether or not anything is spelled correctly.

Also, I agree... But it's something we can start working towards. Both with obesity figures and the rights of those who still have an issue.

My primary desire is ticket price per seat. Period. One seat, one price.

This bill doesn't appear to address your issue about being charged for multiple seats.

All it seems to do is allow people to just apply for a membership card at a gym and then get a taxpayer-funded discount on airfare for some reason. Of course they could always cancel the card after and not even pay for the gym, or never show up at the gym even if they did remain a member.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on February 09, 2010, 11:18:05 PM
My issue is that if I'm being charged two seats, I want the two seats. If I'm given one seat, then I only want to pay for one seat. I think if it was the government rather than the corporate world that levied such a price, conservatives would be outraged.

I don't support this particular bill as I don't believe it solves the dual issues. I have a gym membership for one full year, but I hardly go... So, I don't see what it does...

If I'm re-elected in the next session, I'll have a modified proposal to deal with the twin issues.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on February 09, 2010, 11:24:06 PM
My issue is that if I'm being charged two seats, I want the two seats. If I'm given one seat, then I only want to pay for one seat. I think if it was the government rather than the corporate world that levied such a price, conservatives would be outraged.

I don't support this particular bill as I don't believe it solves the dual issues. I have a gym membership for one full year, but I hardly go... So, I don't see what it does...

If I'm re-elected in the next session, I'll have a modified proposal to deal with the twin issues.

screw this computer!!!!
......
well see people hate wasting money Here one moth member ship for a gym is 80-100 a month. but then you might have money to toss around. I went rocking climbing and I lost two inches. And about the seat thing, have you ever said anything about it? You should just but two seat, aka claim another person is coming and use the other seat. Or later say they charged you to much and demand a refund. there are ways to go around it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 10, 2010, 12:53:21 AM
Rep. cutie_15 - we're making laws for the Northeast.  Typos don't matter much in your posts as long as we can read it, but it does matter in our laws, which should be free of typos and easily readable.   It embarrasses us as an Assembly to pass  laws full of typos and mistakes.

Would you object to shortening the debate period to open the vote at 8:00PM tomorrow?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on February 10, 2010, 01:41:54 AM
Rep. cutie_15 - we're making laws for the Northeast.  Typos don't matter much in your posts as long as we can read it, but it does matter in our laws, which should be free of typos and easily readable.   It embarrasses us as an Assembly to pass  laws full of typos and mistakes.

Would you object to shortening the debate period to open the vote at 8:00PM tomorrow?
not at all.

And I understand. Laws are a serious thing.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 10, 2010, 01:52:25 AM
We will open the vote on this bill at 8PM on Wednesday, February 10.

I'm going to propose an amendment to fix typos and avoid the use of the word "you", which I hope will be deemed friendly:

Quote
To encourage people to have a healthy body,:
If you can prove you belong to a gym, then youNortheast residents who belong to a gym are entitled to can get a 5% discount off your aiprot airport flight tickets.
To prove you belong to a gym you need membership, a Northeast resident must provide:
a) A gym member ship membership card; or
b) or a temporary card showing that you did apply an application for membership.

This doesn't mean I support the bill - I don't think the Northeast government should force airlines to cut fares for anyone or tell people how to regulate their weight.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on February 10, 2010, 01:54:16 AM
If you guys disagree with the bill (or just think it is worded poorly), might I advise offering amendments that essentially gut the legislation and use the bill's "shell" to address the issue of obesity (if you actually believe the government should address the issue)?

Seems foolish to waste this opportunity because the initial bill lacks syntax or is not thought out well enough. Just amend it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 10, 2010, 01:56:14 AM
The bill is useless meaningless garbage holding up the queue and preventing real legislation from being discussed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on February 10, 2010, 01:59:06 AM
The bill is useless meaningless garbage holding up the queue and preventing real legislation from being discussed.

So gut it with an amendment.

You have a shell. Why waste the time to vote this down and bring up a new bill when you can remove the current language, put in language you do like and actually accomplish something with this?

Unless you don't believe the government should have anything to do with reducing the region's obesity rate, in which case voting this down as quickly as possible without amending it is the intelligent thing to do.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on February 10, 2010, 02:01:35 AM
The bill is useless meaningless garbage holding up the queue and preventing real legislation from being discussed.

So gut it with an amendment.

You have a shell. Why waste the time to vote this down and bring up a new bill when you can remove the current language, put in language you do like and actually accomplish something with this?

Unless you don't believe the government should have anything to do with reducing the region's obesity rate, in which case voting this down as quickly as possible without amending it is the intelligent thing to do.

Stop barging in. The Populares have work to do. We have to get these amendments on the damn ballot so we don't have to wait four months longer. This unnecessary and poorly-written trash needs to be tossed out so we can get some actual work done. Please, Speaker, let the Assembly focus on some much needed amendments before the opportunity is lost for four more months.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on February 10, 2010, 02:06:24 AM
You know what, screw yall!!!!!! And take that final vocab up your ass! all I wanted to do was have fun and be nice. But yall are to damn judgemental.
 I quit!

sorry Andrew. I tired but this place is just turning into a huge sh**t hole.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on February 10, 2010, 02:07:51 AM
The bill is useless meaningless garbage holding up the queue and preventing real legislation from being discussed.

So gut it with an amendment.

You have a shell. Why waste the time to vote this down and bring up a new bill when you can remove the current language, put in language you do like and actually accomplish something with this?

Unless you don't believe the government should have anything to do with reducing the region's obesity rate, in which case voting this down as quickly as possible without amending it is the intelligent thing to do.

Stop barging in. The Populares have work to do. We have to get these amendments on the damn ballot so we don't have to wait four months longer. This unnecessary and poorly-written trash needs to be tossed out so we can get some actual work done. Please, Speaker, let the Assembly focus on some much needed amendments before the opportunity is lost for four more months.

I thought this was the Northeast Assembly. What does the work of the Populares have anything to do with service to your citizens?

As the one that recommended that the Northeast take note of its obesity epidemic, I hardly consider it "barging in" for me to prompt this legislature to take the time to look at the issue. If you decide it's not something you believe government should do, that is fine. But to do away with it because you have more important things to do is a disservice to the people of this region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on February 10, 2010, 02:09:16 AM
The bill is useless meaningless garbage holding up the queue and preventing real legislation from being discussed.

So gut it with an amendment.

You have a shell. Why waste the time to vote this down and bring up a new bill when you can remove the current language, put in language you do like and actually accomplish something with this?

Unless you don't believe the government should have anything to do with reducing the region's obesity rate, in which case voting this down as quickly as possible without amending it is the intelligent thing to do.

Stop barging in. The Populares have work to do. We have to get these amendments on the damn ballot so we don't have to wait four months longer. This unnecessary and poorly-written trash needs to be tossed out so we can get some actual work done. Please, Speaker, let the Assembly focus on some much needed amendments before the opportunity is lost for four more months.

I thought this was the Northeast Assembly. What does the work of the Populares have anything to do with service to your citizens?

We have committed ourselves to game reform and have important amendments we need to get on the ballot before the election.

Quote
As the one that recommended that the Northeast take note of its obesity epidemic, I hardly consider it "barging in" for me to prompt this legislature to take the time to look at the issue. If you decide it's not something you believe government should do, that is fine. But to do away with it because you have more important things to do is a disservice to the people of this region.

You mean a legislature shouldn't prioritize?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 10, 2010, 03:21:02 AM
()

There will be order - and the gentlemen will suspend.

You are always free to move to consider more than one item at a time under the SOAP.  If you do not, the legislation of this region will follow the order in which it is in the queue subject to the 2 piece per Representative limit, as required under the SOAP.
 
Regardless of what any particular Representative thinks about the merits of a bill, it was important to the sponsor and will be treated as such by the Speaker.  As the GM points out, this bill could be used as a vehicle to deal with the obesity epidemic - if we think that is something the government should be dealing with.  I personally do not think it is, but others may have a different opinion.

Rep. cutie_15 - please don't resign because some Representatives don't like your bill.  If every representative resigned because others don't like what is being proposed, we'd have no Assembly at all.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on February 10, 2010, 04:10:03 AM
I'd like to propose the additional amendment of:

"Any airline who forces an obese customer to purchase two tickets, MUST provide the two seats or the cost shall be reduced to one."


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 10, 2010, 07:35:57 AM
The bill makes sense but seems quite poorly written. Some amendments are needed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on February 10, 2010, 10:38:58 AM
Rep. cutie_15 - please don't resign because some Representatives don't like your bill.  If every representative resigned because others don't like what is being proposed, we'd have no Assembly at all.
It is not that they don't like it, it is them being rude. I can't stand rude people.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 10, 2010, 10:42:29 AM
The bill is useless meaningless garbage holding up the queue and preventing real legislation from being discussed.

Introduced bills should receive equal consideration, duh.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 10, 2010, 10:58:12 AM
I like the idea of encouraging to attend gym. Bill shall be perfectly fine with these clarification amdendments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on February 10, 2010, 11:28:44 AM
Wow.  Just... wow.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 10, 2010, 11:42:13 AM

Hey, Mr. Moderate, where have you been?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 10, 2010, 12:16:11 PM
Rep. cutie_15 - please don't resign because some Representatives don't like your bill.  If every representative resigned because others don't like what is being proposed, we'd have no Assembly at all.
It is not that they don't like it, it is them being rude. I can't stand rude people.

The rudeness must stop - and will stop.

Have you officially tendered your resignation to the Governor?  If so, this bill will be taken off the floor.  I also need to know how many Representatives we currently have for voting purposes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on February 10, 2010, 03:24:18 PM
Just a friendly reminder, this Assembly does not, and will never belong to a party. This Assembly is for all people of the Northeast, and we need to make sure that we do what is right for our citizens, and not our parties.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on February 10, 2010, 04:08:06 PM
I will wait. >:(
thanks a lot of bugging me antonio. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 10, 2010, 05:32:04 PM
Rep. cutie_15 - Is my proposed amendment friendly?  If it's not, I'll have to consider withdrawing it or whether to hold a separate vote on it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on February 10, 2010, 05:43:10 PM
Rep. cutie_15 - Is my proposed amendment friendly?  If it's not, I'll have to consider withdrawing it or whether to hold a separate vote on it.
well yeah. But why the weird lingo?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 10, 2010, 07:41:32 PM
Rep. cutie_15 - Is my proposed amendment friendly?  If it's not, I'll have to consider withdrawing it or whether to hold a separate vote on it.
well yeah. But why the weird lingo?

Most of our laws are in legaleese.   

Friendly means we don't have to hold a separate vote on an amendment because the sponsor agrees to it.  Unfriendly means we have to hold a separate vote because the sponsor doesn't agree to it.

What about Rep. Doctor Cynic's amendment?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on February 10, 2010, 08:30:38 PM
Rep. cutie_15 - Is my proposed amendment friendly?  If it's not, I'll have to consider withdrawing it or whether to hold a separate vote on it.
well yeah. But why the weird lingo?

Most of our laws are in legaleese.   

Friendly means we don't have to hold a separate vote on an amendment because the sponsor agrees to it.  Unfriendly means we have to hold a separate vote because the sponsor doesn't agree to it.

What about Rep. Doctor Cynic's amendment?
that is friendly as well. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 10, 2010, 08:39:26 PM
()

Because all proposed amendments have been deemed friendly, it's time to vote on final passage of the Health Act:

Quote
Health Act

To encourage people to have a healthy body:
1. Northeast residents who belong to a gym are entitled to a 5% discount off airport flight tickets.  To prove gym membership, a Northeast resident must provide:
a) A gym membership card; or
b) a temporary card showing an application for membership.
2.  Any airline who forces an obese customer to purchase two tickets, must provide the two seats or the cost shall be reduced to one.

This vote will remain open until the earlier of 8:40 PM on Thursday, February 11, 2010, or when all Representatives shall have voted.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 10, 2010, 08:41:42 PM
FYI - our newest Representative, silent_spade07 is eligible to vote on the bill because he was appointed before the bill was put to a vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 10, 2010, 08:47:37 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on February 10, 2010, 10:20:49 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 10, 2010, 10:46:10 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 10, 2010, 10:50:01 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 10, 2010, 11:14:24 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on February 10, 2010, 11:37:46 PM
since I don't want to sound like a horse..... aye. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on February 11, 2010, 01:01:03 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 11, 2010, 01:02:31 AM

If you introduce just part two I will vote for it. THis bill is not my thing though as a package.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 11, 2010, 06:04:21 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: big bad fab on February 11, 2010, 07:46:00 AM
A regional Assembly is entitled to decide discounts on products ???
I'm for regional rights, but this... :D

And of course, flying companies won't up their prices in the North East when seeing this law !?

Well, Mideasterners won't fly any more to the North East...
Unless this law will apply to the entire Universe !

I'm sorry to intervene like this in your thread but it's so laughable...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 11, 2010, 02:14:10 PM
()

By a vote of 4-4, we have a tie that must be broken by the Lt. Governor.

Given that time is running out on this session and there is still legislation in the queue, I propose to move on to the next bill while waiting for the Lt. Governor's vote - unless there is an objection:

The People's Court Amendment

Article VI, Section ii of the Northeast Constitution shall be amended to read:

ii) The Chief Judicial Officer is to be elected by the voters of the Northeast region. He or she shall have a term of four months, with the option of re-election. Whenever the office of Chief Judicial Officer becomes vacant, then he or she must be replaced by special election within one month.

Sponsor: Rep. Libertas

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 2:15PM Eastern on Saturday, February 13, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative Libertas, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 11, 2010, 02:28:34 PM
Mr Speaker. I believe that each Representative has had 2 texts debated (except those who introduced less), and therefore you should perhaps start considering my bills, which were the first on the queue. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on February 11, 2010, 02:49:02 PM
A regional Assembly is entitled to decide discounts on products ???
I'm for regional rights, but this... :D

And of course, flying companies won't up their prices in the North East when seeing this law !?

Well, Mideasterners won't fly any more to the North East...
Unless this law will apply to the entire Universe !

I'm sorry to intervene like this in your thread but it's so laughable...

Would you like paying the price of two seats for one? No. So, with all due respect, STFU


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 11, 2010, 03:01:54 PM
Mr Speaker. I believe that each Representative has had 2 texts debated (except those who introduced less), and therefore you should perhaps start considering my bills, which were the first on the queue. ;)

The only currently sitting Representatives to have 2 pieces of legislation debated and voted upon are you and me.  Rep. Kalwejt has had 2 pieces on the floor and removed one - but since he doesn't have anything else in the queue, I don't have to rule on whether he is entitled to introduce another piece without being affected by the rule.

Reps. Dallasfan65, Doctor Cynic and cutie_15 each have had 1 piece considered and voted on on the floor.  Rep. Libertas has 1 piece currently on the floor.  Rep. silent_spade07 hasn't introduced anything.

That's the current state of affairs - any legislation proposed by you or me will not be considered until the other Reps have had 2 pieces considered, there's nothing left in the queue, OR a majority of the Assembly agrees to a motion to consider a specific piece of legislation proposed by one of us at the same time as whatever else is on the floor.

Many Representatives have complained about legislation proposed by others allegedly wasting this Assembly's time, but have not availed themselves of the motion to consider more than one thing at a time.  The remedy is there if you want it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 11, 2010, 03:25:28 PM
Actually I have recently proposed 2 bills, but I wouldn't mind them actually being considered as one since they both have similar aims.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 11, 2010, 03:34:26 PM
Actually I have recently proposed 2 bills, but I wouldn't mind them actually being considered as one since they both have similar aims.

We can't consider your two proposed amendments as one since they are on different topics and all legislation can only be on one topic.  You are free to move to consider the Northeast Senate Amendment right now, if you wish.  It would be put to a vote and needs a majority to be considered simultaneously with the proposed amendment currently on the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 11, 2010, 04:13:47 PM
A regional Assembly is entitled to decide discounts on products ???
I'm for regional rights, but this... :D

And of course, flying companies won't up their prices in the North East when seeing this law !?

Well, Mideasterners won't fly any more to the North East...
Unless this law will apply to the entire Universe !

I'm sorry to intervene like this in your thread but it's so laughable...

Would you like paying the price of two seats for one? No. So, with all due respect, STFU

With all due respect, that is only a small part of this destructive bill .

Don't waste our money because of one little provision you like.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 11, 2010, 04:14:41 PM
We don't have the money to pay for everyone' airport tickets just because they have a gym membership. C'mon that's ridiculous, you even said you have one and nevre go. THis bill accomplishes nothing as is.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 11, 2010, 11:12:17 PM
Actually I have recently proposed 2 bills, but I wouldn't mind them actually being considered as one since they both have similar aims.

We can't consider your two proposed amendments as one since they are on different topics and all legislation can only be on one topic.  You are free to move to consider the Northeast Senate Amendment right now, if you wish.  It would be put to a vote and needs a majority to be considered simultaneously with the proposed amendment currently on the floor.

Alright then, how much longer will we have to wait for this "Health Act"?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on February 11, 2010, 11:14:38 PM
Actually I have recently proposed 2 bills, but I wouldn't mind them actually being considered as one since they both have similar aims.

We can't consider your two proposed amendments as one since they are on different topics and all legislation can only be on one topic.  You are free to move to consider the Northeast Senate Amendment right now, if you wish.  It would be put to a vote and needs a majority to be considered simultaneously with the proposed amendment currently on the floor.

Alright then, how much longer will we have to wait for this "Health Act"?

Health Act is done for now, since the *current* Governor decided he likes to A. appoint people who can't write legislation and B. appoint people who are so inactive they can't break ties.

You can go ahead with this amendment and motion for the second to be considered simultaneously.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 11, 2010, 11:20:02 PM
I would like to motion to have the Northeast Senate Amendment considered simultaneously.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 12, 2010, 01:11:36 AM
Actually I have recently proposed 2 bills, but I wouldn't mind them actually being considered as one since they both have similar aims.

We can't consider your two proposed amendments as one since they are on different topics and all legislation can only be on one topic.  You are free to move to consider the Northeast Senate Amendment right now, if you wish.  It would be put to a vote and needs a majority to be considered simultaneously with the proposed amendment currently on the floor.

Alright then, how much longer will we have to wait for this "Health Act"?

The Health Act is waiting for Lt. Governor Smid to cast the deciding vote.  If he votes aye, it goes to the Governor for his signature.  If he votes nay, it fails.

The People's Court Amendment is on the floor - and I'd appreciate your statement on it.  I will have some amendments - largely to schedule the CJO vote during gubernatorial elections, which your proposal doesn't really do.

I will open the vote on whether to simultaneously consider the Northeast Senate Amendment now.  We will have 24 hours to vote on whether to consider it simultaneously.  If we vote aye, a debate period will follow.  I doubt we will end up voting on both bills at the same time since the Northeast Senate Amendment is very complex and I'm likely to call for a full 48-hour debate period regardless of any motion to shorten.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 12, 2010, 01:17:44 AM
()

By a vote of 4-4, we have a tie that must be broken by the Lt. Governor.

Given that time is running out on this session and there is still legislation in the queue, I propose to move on to the next bill while waiting for the Lt. Governor's vote - unless there is an objection:

The People's Court Amendment

Article VI, Section ii of the Northeast Constitution shall be amended to read:

ii) The Chief Judicial Officer is to be elected by the voters of the Northeast region. He or she shall have a term of four months, with the option of re-election. Whenever the office of Chief Judicial Officer becomes vacant, then he or she must be replaced by special election within one month.

Sponsor: Rep. Libertas

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 2:15PM Eastern on Saturday, February 13, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative Libertas, has the floor.

This amendment will make our region's judicial system more democratic, and more accountable to the people.

Our current system keeps the Chief Judicial Officer in power an entire year without any input from the people of the Northeast. The People's Court Amendment will require our Chief Judicial Officer to be active, and to be responsible with the duties assigned to him/her.

I urge my fellow Assemblymen and women to support this bill, to give the people more power over the justice system of this great region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 12, 2010, 01:19:44 AM
()

The question is whether to suspend section 2(b) of the SOAP and bring the Northeast Senate Amendment to the floor while we continue to debate the People's Court Amendment.

The text of the Northeast Senate Amendment is as follows:
Quote
"Amendment to Article IV"

i) The legislative branch of the Northeast Region shall consist of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region (lower house) and the Northeast Senate (upper house).
ii) Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region are called Representatives and members of the Northeast Senate are called Senators. Members of both houses shall be elected by all Northeast citizens legally registered to vote.
iii) Elections to the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall be held every February, April, June, August, October and December and elections to the Northeast Senate shall be held every January, April, July, and October.
iv) A polling booth shall be created by the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region. He or she will open the booth on the third Friday at 12:00:00am EST of every January, February, April, June, July, August, October and December and will close said both the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm EST. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote during this time. The Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region must accept any absentee ballot conducted one week prior to the opening of the polls.
v) Candidates for the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region and the Northeast Senate will be given until the second Friday of the month in which he or she wishes to run in an election thereof to announce his or her candidacy. This is to be done by officially declaring his or her candidacy in the Candidate Declaration Thread.
vi) When the polls close, the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region shall be given twenty-four (24) hours to count the votes and declare a winner. The newly elected Representatives and Senators shall officially assume office on the Tuesday following the election.
vii) The number of Representatives to be elected shall be six. The number of Northeast Senators to be elected shall be three.
viii) The method of election shall be PR-STV, as specified in Sections 4 to 17 of the Atlasian Proportional Representation Act (F.L. 21-2), unless the Assembly shall provide otherwise by Law.
ix) Vacancies in the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall be filled by Gubernatorial appointment, to be confirmed by Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region before seating. Vacancies in the Northeast Senate shall be filled by special election to be administered on the second Friday following the vacancy and ending 72 hours later.
x) The Legislative Assembly's sessions shall be conducted in public threads at all times of the year.
xi) All ordinary legislation shall first be considered in either the Assembly or the Northeast Senate. Legislation shall be considered by the Legislative Assembly upon petition of any Representative or the Governor, or by being passed in the Northeast Senate. Legislation shall be considered by the Northeast Senate upon petition of any Northeast Senator, or by being passed in the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.
xii) Any piece of legislation attaining a majority (50%+1) of actual votes from Representatives and Senators shall be considered as successful. This shall be the case for all pieces of legislation except constitutional amendments (see Article VIII subsections (i) and (ii)) and previously vetoed legislation (see Article IV subsection (xi)). Every piece of legislation shall relate to but one subject and that shall be expressed in its title. All pieces of legislation and votes of support and consent by the Legislative Assembly and Northeast Senate must go through this process in order to become law.
xiii) Any Representative or Senator that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly or Northeast Senate for more than one month shall be expelled.
xiv) The Lieutenant Governor of the Northeast acts as the President of the Northeast Senate. He or she officially opens and closes the sessions, organizes votes on legislation and notifies the Senators of the results of any official vote. He does not take part in any vote in the Northeast Senate unless a vote results in a perfect tie. In this case, he or she shall be allowed to vote to break said tie. The Legislative Assembly shall elect its own Speaker of the Northeast Assembly to serve as a presiding officer. He or she officially opens and closes the sessions, organizes votes on legislation and notifies the Representatives of the results of any official vote.
xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto. If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by more than a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.
xvi) In the event that legislation passed by either the Assembly or Northeast Senate is amended before passing the other house, that legislation must be reconsidered by the house it was initially passed in. Legislation can not be signed by the Governor until both houses come to agreement on a final bill.

All those in favor of debating this proposed amendment alongside the bill currently on the floor shall vote aye; those opposed, nay.  This is NOT a vote on the merits of the bill - just a vote on whether to expedite the consideration of the bill.   

This vote shall remain open until the earlier of 1:20AM on Saturday, February 13, 2010, or when all Representatives shall have voted.

Debate on the People's Court Amendment SHALL CONTINUE while the vote on this motion is held.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 12, 2010, 01:21:08 AM
Aye on the motion to suspend Section 2(b) of the SOAP and simultaneously consider the Northeast Senate Amendment


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 12, 2010, 01:22:22 AM
Aye on the motion to suspend Section 2(b) of the SOAP and simultaneously consider the Northeast Senate Amendment


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 12, 2010, 01:53:20 AM
My proposed amendment to the People's Court Amendment is below.  I've tried to mimic the language regarding Gubernatorial elections in this draft.  The vacancy election provisions follow the proposed Lieutenant Governor Amendment's.  

I've also tightened the restrictions on the CJO so that he or she cannot hold any other office - Northeastern or Federal (today, the CJO could hold any other office but Northeast Governor or Lt. Governor - that was written before we had an elected Assembly).  And I've deemed there to be a vacancy in the CJO's office immediately upon passage, which would trigger an election within 2 weeks:

1. Article VI, Section ii of the Northeast Constitution shall be amended to read:

ii)  The Chief Judicial Officer shall be elected by the voters of the Northeast region.   Elections for Chief Judicial Officer shall be held simultaneously with the gubernatorial election held every October, February and June.  

2. New Sections iii, iv and v shall be added to Article VI of the New Northeast Constitution:
iii)  Candidates for Chief Judicial Officer will be given until the second Friday of the month in which he or she wishes to run in an election thereof to announce his candidacy. This is to be done by publicly posting his or her intention to run in the Candidate Declaration Thread.

iv)  If the office of Chief Judicial Officer becomes vacant at any time more than two weeks before the next scheduled gubernatorial election, an election shall be held to fill the vacancy.  The Governor of the Northeast Region will open the booth for such election on the second Friday after such vacancy occurs at 12:00:00am Eastern Standard Time, and will close said both on the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm Eastern Standard Time. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote during this time.  Candidates for Chief Judicial Officer will be given until the second Wednesday after such vacancy occurs to announce his or her candidacy.

v) When the polls close, the Northeast official responsible for opening the voting booth shall be given twenty-four hours to count the votes and declare a winner. The candidate with the most votes for the office of Chief Judicial Officer shall be made Chief Judicial Officer.  The newly elected Chief Judicial Officer is to be officially sworn in on the Tuesday following the election and shall immediately assume office at that point.  In the case of a tie, all tied candidates are to run in a run-off election the following week to determine a winner.


3. Current Article VI, Sections iii and iv of the New Northeast Constitution shall be renumbered Sections vi and vii.  Current Article VI, Section iv of the New Northeast Constitution shall be amended to read:

vii) No person shall hold the positions of Chief Judicial Officer and any other elected or appointed Northeast or Atlasian federal office at the same time.

4.  The office of Chief Judicial Officer shall be deemed vacant immediately after certification of the passage of this Amendment.

-------------------------------
Please let me know if you have additional comments - or if you deem this friendly or unfriendly in the entirety.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 12, 2010, 02:20:04 AM
The amendments proposed are deemed friendly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 12, 2010, 02:26:42 AM
I will vote for the People's Court Amendment in the Assembly - but I'm undecided about whether I will vote for or against it on election day.  An elected CJO is far more likely to be subject to political pressure than an appointed one.   Justice should be blind.

I have no problem letting the people decide whether to elect the CJO.

There's one potential conflict - the sitting CJO may certify his own reelection under the Constitution as written.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on February 12, 2010, 06:51:31 AM
I am casting the deciding vote for the Health Act as a nay.

My predominant concern with the legislation lies with section 1. If this Bill were to pass, I believe that airlines would raise their prices by 5% to prevent a loss from occurring for the subsidised rate. Additionally, the cost of airline tickets should not be influenced by the presence of a gym membership as the two are unrelated. We might as well be legislating that all automated car washes provide discounts to people with gym memberships also. There are industries where subsidised rates for gym members make sense - for example, as active members of gyms are more likely to be healthy, they are less likely to require medical attention for complaints other than emergencies. As such, it would be logical that discounts should be offered to gym members on health insurance - however it should be market forces, not government legislation that mandates this. Additionally, a gym membership card does not a healthy person make. Discounts offered on other unrelated items for gym members may merely encourage a person to take out a gym membership for the purposes of the savings they accumulate, without ever leaving the comfort of their couch - if the cost of the gym membership is less than the amount they anticipate saving through discounts. Such a person is no healthier and is no less a burden on the healthcare system, it is just they now have an additional card in their wallet.

I applaud Representative DC_United's quest to improve the general level of health of Northeast citizens and encourage her to continue to seek ways to improve the standard of living of all Northeast residents. I strongly support section 2 of her Bill and would suggest that this should be incorporated into the legislation governing the Northeast Region's contract law, as a person paying for two tickets on an airline has effectively purchased two seats. Additionally, this will also provide an increased level of comfort to neighbouring passengers of an obese person charged for a second seat.

I would suggest to Representative DC_United that perhaps one way of tackling obesity is to start with childhood obesity. Perhaps the Northeast Legislature could consider legislating the types of foods that can be sold in public school canteens to ensure a healthier range of foods including fresh fruit and vegetables and perhaps specifically banning the sale of chips, lollies and other foods and drinks with a high fat or sugar content (after all, Coke's headquarters are in Georgia and not in the Northeast)? Something along the lines of the Healthy Food for Healthy Schools Act or something? I'm sure the Representative could put something together there.

I see I must also apologise for my level of inactivity. I check the Northeast Assembly thread on a daily basis to keep abreast of legislation that may or may not require a deciding vote to be cast. Unfortunately, as all bar one of you know, the world is round and when it is daytime in America it is generally night-time in Australia. The vote on the Health Act was not finalised until seven o'clock this morning, my time. As I was working away from my desk all day today, I was unable to log on between then and now. Most debates and votes commence sometime in the middle of the night for me and also end at about the same time. This is obviously more convenient for American posters and since Speaker Cinyc is performing a stellar role as Presiding Officer of the Assembly, I am content to observe at times suitable for me and only get involved when necessary.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 12, 2010, 10:32:49 AM
CJO office is politicized anyway, but I share Cinic concerns, so I'd probably abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 12, 2010, 01:57:20 PM
Thank you, Lt. Governor Smid.

()

With the Lt. Governor's vote, the Health Act fails.

The vote on whether to simultaneously take up the Northeast Senate Amendment is still open, as is debate on the People's Court Amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on February 12, 2010, 01:59:26 PM
Aye on the motion to simoultaneously consider the Senate amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on February 12, 2010, 02:26:33 PM
I support the Democratic elections of the CJO.

Aye on the amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 12, 2010, 02:51:41 PM
I support the Democratic elections of the CJO.

Aye on the amendment.

We're not voting on the CJO amendment. but on whether to simultaneously consider the Northeast Senate Amendment, in the interests of time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on February 12, 2010, 04:28:22 PM
Sorry, I've been busy and havent gotten a chance to really look into here. This was brought up around the time the Assembly was created, and I must ask again to keep the CJO position in the hands of the Governors appointment. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 12, 2010, 05:31:43 PM
I think its rather out of decorum for the executive to come in here and attempt to dictate how members of this Assembly vote on an issue related to his own power.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 12, 2010, 05:35:20 PM
Anyway, I vote aye on considering the Northeast Senate Amendment at this time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on February 12, 2010, 05:56:14 PM
I think its rather out of decorum for the executive to come in here and attempt to dictate how members of this Assembly vote on an issue related to his own power.

I am soooooooooo sorry! Since Libertas has said that, I will never make any suggestions, comments, requests, or hell, even speak to any member of the Assembly about anything ever again. Sorry for intruding!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on February 12, 2010, 06:24:15 PM
I think its rather out of decorum for the executive to come in here and attempt to dictate how members of this Assembly vote on an issue related to his own power.

I am soooooooooo sorry! Since Libertas has said that, I will never make any suggestions, comments, requests, or hell, even speak to any member of the Assembly about anything ever again. Sorry for intruding!

Why should anyone trust YOU to make an appointment?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on February 12, 2010, 06:35:27 PM
I think its rather out of decorum for the executive to come in here and attempt to dictate how members of this Assembly vote on an issue related to his own power.

I am soooooooooo sorry! Since Libertas has said that, I will never make any suggestions, comments, requests, or hell, even speak to any member of the Assembly about anything ever again. Sorry for intruding!

Why should anyone trust YOU to make an appointment?

Because I've made good decisions in my appointments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on February 12, 2010, 06:37:02 PM
I wouldn't say that nor should the left considering you appointed Hamilton.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on February 12, 2010, 06:56:49 PM
I wouldn't say that nor should the left considering you appointed Hamilton.

Why? Because you werent any of those appointments? I've appointed Indy, RPP, JCP, SDP, LNF, ARC, POP candidates. Oddly enough, I have not ONCE given an appointment to any to any DA members since the start of the Assembly. I have never made any appointments to the Assembly, or to the CJO office that would be any form of advantage to myself. I'm proud of the appointments and decisions I've made in this office, and I'll stand by them.

 Anyways, I'm going to end the conversation here, you are free to PM me if you wish to continue. I dont want to continue to clutter up the Assembly.

 Either way though, I did not demand that the Assembly do anything, I just asked if they could keep the CJO office as an apointed position. If they decide to make it an elected position, than I guess that is that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 12, 2010, 06:59:02 PM
Are you done using the floor of the Assembly for your campaigning?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on February 12, 2010, 07:04:50 PM
Are you done using the floor of the Assembly for your campaigning?

Ugh.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on February 12, 2010, 09:50:55 PM
Are you done using the floor of the Assembly for your campaigning?

Are you done being an obnoxious jerk?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 12, 2010, 09:53:25 PM
Are you done using the floor of the Assembly for your campaigning?

Are you done being an obnoxious jerk?

I assume you meant to address that to the governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 12, 2010, 10:10:50 PM
()

The personal attacks will cease and there will be order!

The vote on whether to simultaneously consider the Northeast Senate Amendment is still open, as is debate on the People's Court Amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 13, 2010, 01:44:55 AM
()

By a vote of 4-0, the motion to suspend Section 2(b) and simultaneously consider the Northeast Senate Amendment fails to receive the votes of a majority of all Northeast Representatives, and, therefore fails under Section 2(d) of the SOAP (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly#2._Movement_of_Legislation_to_the_Northeast_Assembly_Floor).

Debate on the People's Court Amendment continues until 2:15 PM Eastern time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 13, 2010, 01:48:12 AM
Speaker, may I motion again to consider them simultaneously?



The wonderful appointments our governor made apparently don't take the responsibility of even showing up to vote in the Assembly seriously.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 13, 2010, 01:59:01 AM
Speaker, may I motion again to consider them simultaneously?



The wonderful appointments our governor made apparently don't take the responsibility of even showing up to vote in the Assembly seriously.

You certainly can make the motion - but at this point, unless everyone votes quickly, we're not going to end up saving much time even if it passes.  Note that I can't guarantee I'll be around at 2AM tomorrow to promptly start the debate on the motion, even if it passes.

I will put up the motion post again next.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 13, 2010, 01:59:55 AM
The question again is whether to suspend section 2(b) of the SOAP and bring the Northeast Senate Amendment to the floor while we continue to debate the People's Court Amendment.

The text of the Northeast Senate Amendment is as follows:
Quote
"Amendment to Article IV"

i) The legislative branch of the Northeast Region shall consist of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region (lower house) and the Northeast Senate (upper house).
ii) Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region are called Representatives and members of the Northeast Senate are called Senators. Members of both houses shall be elected by all Northeast citizens legally registered to vote.
iii) Elections to the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall be held every February, April, June, August, October and December and elections to the Northeast Senate shall be held every January, April, July, and October.
iv) A polling booth shall be created by the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region. He or she will open the booth on the third Friday at 12:00:00am EST of every January, February, April, June, July, August, October and December and will close said both the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm EST. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote during this time. The Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region must accept any absentee ballot conducted one week prior to the opening of the polls.
v) Candidates for the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region and the Northeast Senate will be given until the second Friday of the month in which he or she wishes to run in an election thereof to announce his or her candidacy. This is to be done by officially declaring his or her candidacy in the Candidate Declaration Thread.
vi) When the polls close, the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region shall be given twenty-four (24) hours to count the votes and declare a winner. The newly elected Representatives and Senators shall officially assume office on the Tuesday following the election.
vii) The number of Representatives to be elected shall be six. The number of Northeast Senators to be elected shall be three.
viii) The method of election shall be PR-STV, as specified in Sections 4 to 17 of the Atlasian Proportional Representation Act (F.L. 21-2), unless the Assembly shall provide otherwise by Law.
ix) Vacancies in the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall be filled by Gubernatorial appointment, to be confirmed by Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region before seating. Vacancies in the Northeast Senate shall be filled by special election to be administered on the second Friday following the vacancy and ending 72 hours later.
x) The Legislative Assembly's sessions shall be conducted in public threads at all times of the year.
xi) All ordinary legislation shall first be considered in either the Assembly or the Northeast Senate. Legislation shall be considered by the Legislative Assembly upon petition of any Representative or the Governor, or by being passed in the Northeast Senate. Legislation shall be considered by the Northeast Senate upon petition of any Northeast Senator, or by being passed in the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.
xii) Any piece of legislation attaining a majority (50%+1) of actual votes from Representatives and Senators shall be considered as successful. This shall be the case for all pieces of legislation except constitutional amendments (see Article VIII subsections (i) and (ii)) and previously vetoed legislation (see Article IV subsection (xi)). Every piece of legislation shall relate to but one subject and that shall be expressed in its title. All pieces of legislation and votes of support and consent by the Legislative Assembly and Northeast Senate must go through this process in order to become law.
xiii) Any Representative or Senator that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly or Northeast Senate for more than one month shall be expelled.
xiv) The Lieutenant Governor of the Northeast acts as the President of the Northeast Senate. He or she officially opens and closes the sessions, organizes votes on legislation and notifies the Senators of the results of any official vote. He does not take part in any vote in the Northeast Senate unless a vote results in a perfect tie. In this case, he or she shall be allowed to vote to break said tie. The Legislative Assembly shall elect its own Speaker of the Northeast Assembly to serve as a presiding officer. He or she officially opens and closes the sessions, organizes votes on legislation and notifies the Representatives of the results of any official vote.
xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto. If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by more than a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.
xvi) In the event that legislation passed by either the Assembly or Northeast Senate is amended before passing the other house, that legislation must be reconsidered by the house it was initially passed in. Legislation can not be signed by the Governor until both houses come to agreement on a final bill.

All those in favor of debating this proposed amendment alongside the bill currently on the floor shall vote aye; those opposed, nay.  This is NOT a vote on the merits of the bill - just a vote on whether to expedite the consideration of the bill.   

This vote shall remain open until the earlier of 2:00AM on Sunday, February 14, 2010, or when all Representatives shall have voted.

Debate on the People's Court Amendment SHALL CONTINUE while the vote on this motion is held.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 13, 2010, 02:02:03 AM
Aye on the motion to suspend Section 2(b) of the SOAP and simultaneously consider the Northeast Senate Amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 13, 2010, 02:20:08 AM
Aye again. And be nice to AndrewCt


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 13, 2010, 02:23:30 AM
Aye on the motion


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on February 13, 2010, 06:25:06 AM
Are you done using the floor of the Assembly for your campaigning?

I assume this was directed at Segway?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 13, 2010, 11:18:58 AM
Are you done using the floor of the Assembly for your campaigning?

I assume this was directed at Segway?

You assumed wrong.

 If you showed up to do your job more often, perhaps you would have been able to follow what was going on.




Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on February 13, 2010, 11:23:08 AM
Aye, again.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 13, 2010, 02:14:20 PM
The debate period for the People's Court Amendment is over.  It is now time to vote on the merits of it.  Since it is a proposed constitutional amendment, passage requires a vote of at least 2/3rds of the voting members and a majority of all members:

Quote
The People's Court Amendment

1. Article VI, Section ii of the Northeast Constitution shall be amended to read:

ii)  The Chief Judicial Officer shall be elected by the voters of the Northeast region.   Elections for Chief Judicial Officer shall be held simultaneously with the gubernatorial election held every October, February and June.  

2. New Sections iii, iv and v shall be added to Article VI of the New Northeast Constitution:
iii)  Candidates for Chief Judicial Officer will be given until the second Friday of the month in which he or she wishes to run in an election thereof to announce his candidacy. This is to be done by publicly posting his or her intention to run in the Candidate Declaration Thread.

iv)  If the office of Chief Judicial Officer becomes vacant at any time more than two weeks before the next scheduled gubernatorial election, an election shall be held to fill the vacancy.  The Governor of the Northeast Region will open the booth for such election on the second Friday after such vacancy occurs at 12:00:00am Eastern Standard Time, and will close said both on the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm Eastern Standard Time. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote during this time.  Candidates for Chief Judicial Officer will be given until the second Wednesday after such vacancy occurs to announce his or her candidacy.

v) When the polls close, the Northeast official responsible for opening the voting booth shall be given twenty-four hours to count the votes and declare a winner. The candidate with the most votes for the office of Chief Judicial Officer shall be made Chief Judicial Officer.  The newly elected Chief Judicial Officer is to be officially sworn in on the Tuesday following the election and shall immediately assume office at that point.  In the case of a tie, all tied candidates are to run in a run-off election the following week to determine a winner.


3. Current Article VI, Sections iii and iv of the New Northeast Constitution shall be renumbered Sections vi and vii.  Current Article VI, Section iv of the New Northeast Constitution shall be amended to read:

vii) No person shall hold the positions of Chief Judicial Officer and any other elected or appointed Northeast or Atlasian federal office at the same time.

4.  The office of Chief Judicial Officer shall be deemed vacant immediately after certification of the passage of this Amendment.

This vote shall remain open until the earlier of 2:15PM on Sunday, February 14, 2010 or until all Representatives shall have voted.

Please note that because we're ALSO voting on the motion to expedite debate on the proposed Northeast Senate Amendment, Representatives who have not voted on that motion for the second time should specify what they are voting for by using the following form:

On The People's Court Amendment:
On expediting debate on the Northeast Senate Amendment:


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 13, 2010, 02:19:40 PM
On The People's Court Amendment: Present and abstaining

On expediting debate on the Northeast Senate Amendment: Aye   


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 13, 2010, 02:21:27 PM
On the People's Court Amendment: Aye

I've already voted aye on expediting debate of the Northeast Senate Amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 13, 2010, 04:40:24 PM
On the People's Court Amendment: Aye

Already voted aye on expediting debate of the Northeast Senate Amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 13, 2010, 05:24:24 PM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 14, 2010, 02:20:47 AM
By a vote of 5-0, with one express abstention and two absences, the Northeast Senate Amendment will now be put on the floor simultaneously with the ongoing vote.  

Northeast Senate Amendment

"Amendment to Article IV"

i) The legislative branch of the Northeast Region shall consist of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region (lower house) and the Northeast Senate (upper house).
ii) Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region are called Representatives and members of the Northeast Senate are called Senators. Members of both houses shall be elected by all Northeast citizens legally registered to vote.
iii) Elections to the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall be held every February, April, June, August, October and December and elections to the Northeast Senate shall be held every January, April, July, and October.
iv) A polling booth shall be created by the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region. He or she will open the booth on the third Friday at 12:00:00am EST of every January, February, April, June, July, August, October and December and will close said both the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm EST. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote during this time. The Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region must accept any absentee ballot conducted one week prior to the opening of the polls.
v) Candidates for the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region and the Northeast Senate will be given until the second Friday of the month in which he or she wishes to run in an election thereof to announce his or her candidacy. This is to be done by officially declaring his or her candidacy in the Candidate Declaration Thread.
vi) When the polls close, the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region shall be given twenty-four (24) hours to count the votes and declare a winner. The newly elected Representatives and Senators shall officially assume office on the Tuesday following the election.
vii) The number of Representatives to be elected shall be six. The number of Northeast Senators to be elected shall be three.
viii) The method of election shall be PR-STV, as specified in Sections 4 to 17 of the Atlasian Proportional Representation Act (F.L. 21-2), unless the Assembly shall provide otherwise by Law.
ix) Vacancies in the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall be filled by Gubernatorial appointment, to be confirmed by Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region before seating. Vacancies in the Northeast Senate shall be filled by special election to be administered on the second Friday following the vacancy and ending 72 hours later.
x) The Legislative Assembly's sessions shall be conducted in public threads at all times of the year.
xi) All ordinary legislation shall first be considered in either the Assembly or the Northeast Senate. Legislation shall be considered by the Legislative Assembly upon petition of any Representative or the Governor, or by being passed in the Northeast Senate. Legislation shall be considered by the Northeast Senate upon petition of any Northeast Senator, or by being passed in the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.
xii) Any piece of legislation attaining a majority (50%+1) of actual votes from Representatives and Senators shall be considered as successful. This shall be the case for all pieces of legislation except constitutional amendments (see Article VIII subsections (i) and (ii)) and previously vetoed legislation (see Article IV subsection (xi)). Every piece of legislation shall relate to but one subject and that shall be expressed in its title. All pieces of legislation and votes of support and consent by the Legislative Assembly and Northeast Senate must go through this process in order to become law.
xiii) Any Representative or Senator that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly or Northeast Senate for more than one month shall be expelled.
xiv) The Lieutenant Governor of the Northeast acts as the President of the Northeast Senate. He or she officially opens and closes the sessions, organizes votes on legislation and notifies the Senators of the results of any official vote. He does not take part in any vote in the Northeast Senate unless a vote results in a perfect tie. In this case, he or she shall be allowed to vote to break said tie. The Legislative Assembly shall elect its own Speaker of the Northeast Assembly to serve as a presiding officer. He or she officially opens and closes the sessions, organizes votes on legislation and notifies the Representatives of the results of any official vote.
xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto. If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by more than a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.
xvi) In the event that legislation passed by either the Assembly or Northeast Senate is amended before passing the other house, that legislation must be reconsidered by the house it was initially passed in. Legislation can not be signed by the Governor until both houses come to agreement on a final bill.

Sponsor: Rep. Libertas

Debate on this Amendment will continue until 2:20AM Eastern on Tuesday, February 16, 2010 unless the debate period is shortened or lengthened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponsor, Rep. Libertas, has the floor with respect to the Northeast Senate Amendment.  

Note that the vote on final passage The People's Court Amendment is still ongoing, and will remain open until 2:15 PM Eastern on February 14.  It is very important for Representatives to cast a vote or make their presence known on proposed amendments, as the standards for passage are higher than a regular bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 14, 2010, 03:19:18 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on February 14, 2010, 03:26:38 AM
Are you done using the floor of the Assembly for your campaigning?

I assume this was directed at Segway?

You assumed wrong.

 If you showed up to do your job more often, perhaps you would have been able to follow what was going on.




My other incorrect assumption was clearly that everyone but him actually understood that the earth is round because you also seem to think that when it is day in the US it is also day on the opposite side of the world as you likewise seem to have this idea. As I have explained, I keep track of what is happening here and allow the Speaker to do the excellent job he is doing. So far, I have seen only one person constantly interjecting in this thread, who does not have a role in the Northeast Government - and that person is Segway. If you weren't such a partisan hack, you might be able to acknowledge that.

Segway has criticised both me and the Governor here, even though he has no position in the Northeast Legislature. He is the only one here who has been campaigning in this thread. Therefore the only person to whom you could logically have been referring was Segway.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 14, 2010, 04:17:00 AM

Care to explain why you vote nay?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 14, 2010, 04:27:47 AM

Yes, it uselessly makes the Northeast institutions more complicated by adding a second house, which is totally ridiculous for a region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 14, 2010, 04:29:18 AM

Yes, it uselessly makes the Northeast institutions more complicated by adding a second house, which is totally ridiculous for a region.

It makes it more realistic for a simulation based upon U.S. states. You would probably be elected to it yourself.

It doesn't change much other than that three assembly seats would become senate seats.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 14, 2010, 04:39:22 AM

Yes, it uselessly makes the Northeast institutions more complicated by adding a second house, which is totally ridiculous for a region.

It makes it more realistic for a simulation based upon U.S. states. You would probably be elected to it yourself.

It doesn't change much other than that three assembly seats would become senate seats.

The smallest US. State is 8500 times more populated than Northeast. Having two houses in an Atlasian region is totally disproportionate. Plus, it would make the legislative process longer and more difficult.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 14, 2010, 04:41:12 AM

Yes, it uselessly makes the Northeast institutions more complicated by adding a second house, which is totally ridiculous for a region.

It makes it more realistic for a simulation based upon U.S. states. You would probably be elected to it yourself.

It doesn't change much other than that three assembly seats would become senate seats.

The smallest US. State is 8500 times more populated than Northeast. Having two houses in an Atlasian region is totally disproportionate. Plus, it would make the legislative process longer and more difficult.

And? The Senate would only be three members, while the Assembly would be 6. It is proportionate to real-world numbers.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 14, 2010, 05:45:45 AM
There is no need to have regional Senate. Adding useless beurecracy.

Ad wouldn't it be weird if federal government have unicameral legislature while region bicameral?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 14, 2010, 05:48:38 AM
There is no need to have regional Senate. Adding useless beurecracy.

Ad wouldn't it be weird if federal government have unicameral legislature while region bicameral?

No, it wouldn't be weird. Regions should have their own identities.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 14, 2010, 06:27:29 AM
There is no need to have regional Senate. Adding useless beurecracy.

Ad wouldn't it be weird if federal government have unicameral legislature while region bicameral?

No, it wouldn't be weird. Regions should have their own identities.

While it's perfectly legal for us to establish our institutions, I don't see much sense of having Senate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 14, 2010, 01:16:26 PM

Yes, it uselessly makes the Northeast institutions more complicated by adding a second house, which is totally ridiculous for a region.

We're NOT voting on the Northeast Senate Amendment yet.  We're voting on The People's Court Amendment for the next hour or so.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 14, 2010, 01:27:47 PM
Aye on both.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 14, 2010, 01:29:45 PM
As of People's Court amendment ftr: present and abstaining.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 14, 2010, 02:16:54 PM
()

By a vote of 3-0 with 2 express abstentions and 3 unexcused absences, the People's Court Amendment fails to receive the support of a majority of all 8 sitting Representatives and therefore fails.

Debate on the Northeast Senate Amendment shall continue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 14, 2010, 02:23:28 PM
I have concerns about the Northeast Senate Amendment.  Not about the concept of a Senate itself, but about the large number of elected officials it would require.  We can't maintain an Assembly of 8 for two months without the Governor having to make numerous appointments to fill vacancies.  It will be even more difficult to maintain a government of 9.  For that reason, I hope the Seat Number Amendment passes next week, and we set the number of representatives at 6.

I'd also have to do a check of the Constitution and all proposed Amendments to try to figure out if there are any conflicts that need to be addressed.  Plus, we'd have to figure out how to phase the Senate in.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on February 14, 2010, 03:16:55 PM
I have a few questions...

Why is a bicameral region necessary? What would it add to the Northeast? What does it add to Atlasia as a whole?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on February 14, 2010, 03:21:00 PM
wait, will this add offices?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 14, 2010, 05:29:59 PM

It would add 1 new position versus now.  We'd go from 8 Assemblymen to 6 Assemblymen and 3 Senators.

Note that the number of Representatives  isn't fixed right now.  It depends on the number of Northeast citizens.  If the Seat Number Amendment passes, we'd be down to a set 6 Representatives.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 16, 2010, 01:48:31 AM

No, we will have 9 Assemblyman next session anyways.

I support this and would likely run. I think having only three members empowers the minority more than the large Assembly does. I like what it adds to the legislative process by having to work through two houses. If it doesn't work then I will be the first advocate of repeal but since we are trying new things like the HAEV I don't see why we can't experiment with this. It also allows people to "move up" the ladder, if that makes sense. The Senate would have a bit more power since one Senate vote would be equal to two Assembly votes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on February 16, 2010, 02:09:08 AM
Just a GM-related point on the Senate amendment when it comes up: While I neither support nor oppose the amendment, please take into consideration the increased expenses of running another chamber. That should be reflected in some sort of budget adjustment.

If the cost of running a legislature is not already taken into consideration, it should be as well. Your offices don't furnish themselves ya know.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 16, 2010, 02:17:07 AM
Just a GM-related point on the Senate amendment when it comes up: While I neither support nor oppose the amendment, please take into consideration the increased expenses of running another chamber. That should be reflected in some sort of budget adjustment.

If the cost of running a legislature is not already taken into consideration, it should be as well. Your offices don't furnish themselves ya know.
The cost of a three-man legislature would be negligible. We could use the space freed up from limiting the size of the assembly if the budget is that tight.


But LOL at you pretending to be some impartial outsider commenting as a GM rather than a passive-aggressive partisan hack abusing your position in an attempt to undermine your political opposition.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 16, 2010, 02:21:20 AM
()

Seeing no proposed unfriendly amendments to the Northeast Senate Amendment, it is now time to vote on final passage.

Quote
Northeast Senate Amendment

"Amendment to Article IV"

i) The legislative branch of the Northeast Region shall consist of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region (lower house) and the Northeast Senate (upper house).
ii) Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region are called Representatives and members of the Northeast Senate are called Senators. Members of both houses shall be elected by all Northeast citizens legally registered to vote.
iii) Elections to the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall be held every February, April, June, August, October and December and elections to the Northeast Senate shall be held every January, April, July, and October.
iv) A polling booth shall be created by the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region. He or she will open the booth on the third Friday at 12:00:00am EST of every January, February, April, June, July, August, October and December and will close said both the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm EST. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote during this time. The Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region must accept any absentee ballot conducted one week prior to the opening of the polls.
v) Candidates for the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region and the Northeast Senate will be given until the second Friday of the month in which he or she wishes to run in an election thereof to announce his or her candidacy. This is to be done by officially declaring his or her candidacy in the Candidate Declaration Thread.
vi) When the polls close, the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region shall be given twenty-four (24) hours to count the votes and declare a winner. The newly elected Representatives and Senators shall officially assume office on the Tuesday following the election.
vii) The number of Representatives to be elected shall be six. The number of Northeast Senators to be elected shall be three.
viii) The method of election shall be PR-STV, as specified in Sections 4 to 17 of the Atlasian Proportional Representation Act (F.L. 21-2), unless the Assembly shall provide otherwise by Law.
ix) Vacancies in the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall be filled by Gubernatorial appointment, to be confirmed by Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region before seating. Vacancies in the Northeast Senate shall be filled by special election to be administered on the second Friday following the vacancy and ending 72 hours later.
x) The Legislative Assembly's sessions shall be conducted in public threads at all times of the year.
xi) All ordinary legislation shall first be considered in either the Assembly or the Northeast Senate. Legislation shall be considered by the Legislative Assembly upon petition of any Representative or the Governor, or by being passed in the Northeast Senate. Legislation shall be considered by the Northeast Senate upon petition of any Northeast Senator, or by being passed in the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.
xii) Any piece of legislation attaining a majority (50%+1) of actual votes from Representatives and Senators shall be considered as successful. This shall be the case for all pieces of legislation except constitutional amendments (see Article VIII subsections (i) and (ii)) and previously vetoed legislation (see Article IV subsection (xi)). Every piece of legislation shall relate to but one subject and that shall be expressed in its title. All pieces of legislation and votes of support and consent by the Legislative Assembly and Northeast Senate must go through this process in order to become law.
xiii) Any Representative or Senator that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly or Northeast Senate for more than one month shall be expelled.
xiv) The Lieutenant Governor of the Northeast acts as the President of the Northeast Senate. He or she officially opens and closes the sessions, organizes votes on legislation and notifies the Senators of the results of any official vote. He does not take part in any vote in the Northeast Senate unless a vote results in a perfect tie. In this case, he or she shall be allowed to vote to break said tie. The Legislative Assembly shall elect its own Speaker of the Northeast Assembly to serve as a presiding officer. He or she officially opens and closes the sessions, organizes votes on legislation and notifies the Representatives of the results of any official vote.
xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor's veto. If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by more than a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor's signature.
xvi) In the event that legislation passed by either the Assembly or Northeast Senate is amended before passing the other house, that legislation must be reconsidered by the house it was initially passed in. Legislation can not be signed by the Governor until both houses come to agreement on a final bill.

This vote will remain open until the earlier of 2:20AM Eastern on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 or when all Representatives shall have voted.  Because this is a proposed Constitutional Amendment, more than a mere majority is required for passage.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 16, 2010, 02:23:23 AM
AYE!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 16, 2010, 02:23:29 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 16, 2010, 02:27:45 AM
My concerns have not been addressed.

Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on February 16, 2010, 02:31:46 AM
Just a GM-related point on the Senate amendment when it comes up: While I neither support nor oppose the amendment, please take into consideration the increased expenses of running another chamber. That should be reflected in some sort of budget adjustment.

If the cost of running a legislature is not already taken into consideration, it should be as well. Your offices don't furnish themselves ya know.
The cost of a three-man legislature would be negligible. We could use the space freed up from limiting the size of the assembly if the budget is that tight.


But LOL at you pretending to be some impartial outsider commenting as a GM rather than a passive-aggressive partisan hack abusing your position in an attempt to undermine your political opposition.

Holding a non-partisan appointed position, I don't exactly have political opposition. Would you give it a rest? I'm not trying to be political every time I comment here. I have said similar things about government size to the Pacific as well, but since they are inactive nothing ever happens. I'm hoping this Assembly may be able to actually act.

Anyway, I haven't read the amendment, so I don't have an opinion on it. But I imagine that building a second chamber for the bicameral legislature, as well as staffing, supplies, security and other essentials will cost some amount of money. Something for the Assembly to consider since I will eventually be crunching the numbers for the regional budgets.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 16, 2010, 02:35:10 AM
My concerns have not been addressed.

Nay.

About the size? The Assembly will have 9 members next session, like I said. So it will be the same number either way. It is unlikely the Seats Number amendment passes, so I think we might as well give this a shot. I'm real excited to try this out and hope you change your vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 16, 2010, 02:41:46 AM
My concerns have not been addressed.

Nay.

About the size? The Assembly will have 9 members next session, like I said. So it will be the same number either way. It is unlikely the Seats Number amendment passes, so I think we might as well give this a shot. I'm real excited to try this out and hope you change your vote.

Partially about the size - there are too many Representatives as it is.  We have had a lot of turnover every session.  Half of this sitting Assembly was appointed by the Governor (in Rep. Doctor Cynic's case, reappointed).  I hope the Seat Number Amendment passes - even though it likely means I will be out of a job.  12 elected officials from the region is far too many. 

But also about the fact that no one has checked how this would work with the New Northeast Constitution and the proposed amendments that will go to the voters in the upcoming election.  I can't be the only one who does this every time an amendment is proposed.  I don't always have time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 16, 2010, 02:43:50 AM
cinyc, the number of Assemblymen is capped at 6 by this proposal. There would never exceed 9 legislators, which is what we will have anyways.

The amendments would have to pass both the House and Senate, like any other legislature. At least let the people vote on it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 16, 2010, 02:50:58 AM
cinyc, the number of Assemblymen is capped at 6 by this proposal. There would never exceed 9 legislators, which is what we will have anyways.

The amendments would have to pass both the House and Senate, like any other legislature. At least let the people vote on it.

If this passes, we will permanently have 12 elected regional officials - 6 Reps, 3 NE Senators, 1 Governor, 1 Lt. Governor and 1 Regional Atlasian Senator.  Add in the appointed CJO, and we're up to 13.  That's awfully high for a region that was fairly dormant just a few months ago.  In my judgment, it's too many - especially if one of the stronger parties in the Northeast wins the presidency and starts appointing Northeasterners to federal offices.

I also worry about things like what happens if both the Seat Number Amendment and the Northeast Senate Amendment pass.  What does the Constitution look like, then?  Those provisions are somewhat conflicting.    And there will be other proposed amendments on the ballot, like the proposal regarding vetoes.  Again, what happens if both pass?  I don't know.   I had time to vet that for the People's Court Amendment.  I didn't for this - and I don't think anyone else has thought it through, either.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 16, 2010, 03:18:01 AM
Well as the region grows, there need to be more offices for people to get involved. At one time the governor had trouble finding people to fill any positions. Now the region is quite active.

As new offices are created, more people are attracted to our region by the opportunity to move up the ladder.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 16, 2010, 06:35:48 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 16, 2010, 09:02:32 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on February 16, 2010, 03:32:40 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on February 16, 2010, 06:13:08 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 16, 2010, 09:05:44 PM
Edit: Premature


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 16, 2010, 09:07:03 PM
FYI - If we want this on the ballot, we're going to have to consider this much more quickly than 9:05PM on Thursday.  The vote would have to end some time on Thursday, not begin.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on February 16, 2010, 09:08:27 PM
You former President just stepping in for a moment:

I'd just like to say what a magnificent job Speaker Cinyc is doing.  You guys really are lucky to have him. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 16, 2010, 09:11:02 PM
Speaker, if I may, the previous legislation did state:

Quote
This vote will remain open until the earlier of 2:20AM Eastern on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 or when all Representatives shall have voted.  Because this is a proposed Constitutional Amendment, more than a mere majority is required for passage.

As Assemblyman Dallasfan65 has yet to vote, it should remain open until then, no?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 16, 2010, 09:15:29 PM
Speaker, if I may, the previous legislation did state:

Quote
This vote will remain open until the earlier of 2:20AM Eastern on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 or when all Representatives shall have voted.  Because this is a proposed Constitutional Amendment, more than a mere majority is required for passage.

As Assemblyman Dallasfan65 has yet to vote, it should remain open until then, no?


I'm almost 100% positive I saw Rep. Dallasfan65's vote last night.  I thought I voted after 3 aye votes had already been cast.  

But you are correct - if Rep. Dallasfan65 didn't actually vote, then the vote is still open.  As there is no evidence of his vote, the vote remains open.

If games are being played to stymie legislative progress, there will be repercussions.   Votes should not be deleted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 17, 2010, 02:27:48 AM
()

By a vote of 3-4 with one unexcused absence, the Northeast Senate Amendment fails.

Next bill:

Vacancy filling Act

In accordance to Article V, section ix) of the New Northeast Constitution, vacancies in the Legislative Assembly shall be filled in the following manner :

1. In the case when a vacancy in the Northeast Legislative Assembly is the result of the voluntary resignation of a Northeast Representative, said Representative shall appoint a Northeast Citizen to replace him in the Assembly.
2. In the case when a vacancy in the Northeast Legislative Assembly has another reason that what is mentioned in section 1, the Governor of the Northeast Region shall appoint a Northeast Citizen to fill said vacancy.
3. In the case mentioned in Section 1, if the resigning Northeast Representative doesn't appoint anybody to replace him within a week following his resignation, the Governor of the Northeast Region shall appoint a Northeast Citizen to fill said vacancy.

Sponsor: Rep. Antonio V

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 2:25AM Eastern on Friday, February 19, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

Note that because this bill is a proposed constitutional amendment, a mere majority vote will not be sufficient to pass.

The Sponsor, Representative Antonio V, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 17, 2010, 02:30:25 AM
It's going to be virtually impossible to pass this amendment in time to get on the ballot.  The vote would have to conclude before 11:00PM or so on Thursday - and the Governor would have to sign it before midnight Friday.

Antonio V - how we proceed is up to you.  Tabling this to move onto your next bill, which isn't a constitutional amendment, might be wise.   You could also move to limit debate to the shortest possible period.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 17, 2010, 08:51:45 AM
Yeah, I move to shorten the debate period to the legal minimum.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 17, 2010, 01:33:30 PM
Actually, I'm WRONG.  Article V, Section ix of the New Northeast Constitution states:

Quote
Vacancies in the Legislative Assembly shall be filled in a manner specified by Law, and until such determination is made, by Gubernatorial appointment.

So this is just a law, not a Constitutional amendment.  It will NOT go to the voters, and we do have time to handle it. 

Do you still want a minimum debate period?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on February 17, 2010, 02:57:15 PM
wait so the people cant vote to fill the space? It would increase elections and make it more exciting if we do it that way.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 17, 2010, 03:07:06 PM
I support this measure.

It's more about respecting wished of the people. If they elected a man from certain party and with certain wievs, it's appropriate retiring member would be replaced by someone politically close.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on February 17, 2010, 03:09:34 PM
I support this measure.

It's more about respecting wished of the people. If they elected a man from certain party and with certain wievs, it's appropriate retiring member would be replaced by someone politically close.
sure but what if the people never liked him? shouldn't they be able to choose who they want to replace him? we are suppose to help the people.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 17, 2010, 03:14:10 PM
I support this measure.

It's more about respecting wished of the people. If they elected a man from certain party and with certain wievs, it's appropriate retiring member would be replaced by someone politically close.
sure but what if the people never liked him? shouldn't they be able to choose who they want to replace him? we are suppose to help the people.

There is no proposed meassure to institute rapid special elections, so this project we're currently debating on is the best thing we can get now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on February 17, 2010, 03:25:56 PM
I may or not be able to make it to the vote depending on when you schedule it, I've got work tonight and almost all day tomorrow.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 17, 2010, 04:44:46 PM
I support this measure.

It's more about respecting wished of the people. If they elected a man from certain party and with certain wievs, it's appropriate retiring member would be replaced by someone politically close.
sure but what if the people never liked him? shouldn't they be able to choose who they want to replace him? we are suppose to help the people.

There is no proposed meassure to institute rapid special elections, so this project we're currently debating on is the best thing we can get now.

Well, Rep. cutie_15 can certainly offer an amendment calling for a special election if that's what she wants.  It would likely be deemed unfriendly and put to a vote on the Assembly floor - but that's up to Rep. Antonio V.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 17, 2010, 11:26:25 PM
I offer this amendment:

Vacancy filling Act

In accordance to Article V, section ix) of the New Northeast Constitution, vacancies in the Legislative Assembly shall be filled in the following manner :

1. In the case of a vacancy in the Northeast Legislative Assembly for any reason, a special election shall be held to elect a new Representative.
2. The special election must take place no less than 5 days following the vacancy and the booth shall open at 12:00 AM EST on the nearest Friday, provided that Friday is at least 5 days since the vacancy occurred and shall close on that Sunday at 11:59 PM EST, to be administered by the appropriate official.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 18, 2010, 12:13:58 AM
I offer this amendment:

Vacancy filling Act

In accordance to Article V, section ix) of the New Northeast Constitution, vacancies in the Legislative Assembly shall be filled in the following manner :

1. In the case when a vacancy in the Northeast Legislative Assembly is the result of the voluntary resignation of a Northeast Representative, a special election shall be held to elect a new Representative.
2. The special election must take place no less than 5 days following the vacancy and the booth shall open at 12:00 AM EST on the nearest Friday, provided that Friday is at least 5 days since the vacancy occurred and shall close on that Sunday at 11:59 PM EST.

A few questions: What happens if there is an involuntary resignation?  What's the deadline for declaring?  And who runs the election (usually, it's the CJO in the Northeast).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 18, 2010, 12:16:25 AM
I offer this amendment:

Vacancy filling Act

In accordance to Article V, section ix) of the New Northeast Constitution, vacancies in the Legislative Assembly shall be filled in the following manner :

1. In the case when a vacancy in the Northeast Legislative Assembly is the result of the voluntary resignation of a Northeast Representative, a special election shall be held to elect a new Representative.
2. The special election must take place no less than 5 days following the vacancy and the booth shall open at 12:00 AM EST on the nearest Friday, provided that Friday is at least 5 days since the vacancy occurred and shall close on that Sunday at 11:59 PM EST.

A few questions: What happens if there is an involuntary resignation?  What's the deadline for declaring?  And who runs the election (usually, it's the CJO in the Northeast).

thanks, made some changes. I accidentally left some parts of the old text that I shouldn't have.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 18, 2010, 07:17:41 AM
I have to disagree with my fellow Representative cutie, though I understand her concerns. I deem the Amendment unfriendly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 18, 2010, 12:39:40 PM
I have to disagree with my fellow Representative cutie, though I understand her concerns. I deem the Amendment unfriendly.

okay but I prefer we vote on it in that case.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 18, 2010, 02:12:18 PM
I have to disagree with my fellow Representative cutie, though I understand her concerns. I deem the Amendment unfriendly.

okay but I prefer we vote on it in that case.

Isn't that a procedure?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 18, 2010, 02:43:47 PM
I have to disagree with my fellow Representative cutie, though I understand her concerns. I deem the Amendment unfriendly.

okay but I prefer we vote on it in that case.

Isn't that a procedure?

Yes.  The proposed amendment to the bill will be put to a vote at the end of the debate period.

Rep. Silent_Spade - am I safe in assuming that your amendment replaces Re. Antonio V's bill in its entirety?

If so, I have amendments to the proposed amendment:

3.  The appropriate official shall place the names of all candidates who declare their intention to run in the special election on the Candidate Declaration Thread before 12:00 midnight Eastern time on the Thursday before the poll opens.  

4.  Any candidate who receives write-in votes must confirm that he or she is willing to assume the vacancy by publicly declaring a willingness to receive write-in votes before the polls close in the Candidate Declaration Thread or writing in his or her own name on the ballot to fill the vacancy.  Otherwise, those write-in votes shall be deemed void.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 18, 2010, 03:16:22 PM
I accept cinyc's changes to my offered amendment, and yes, it is intended to repalce the entire text of the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 18, 2010, 03:39:48 PM
I have an idea. What if we strick appointments al all and will fill vacancies with rapid special elections only?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 18, 2010, 03:51:07 PM
I have an idea. What if we strick appointments al all and will fill vacancies with rapid special elections only?

That's what my amendment does, so vote for it! ;D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 18, 2010, 09:17:03 PM
Any other ideas? :P

My reasons for not wanting the Representative to choose is I fear some people might do something crazy as a joke. What if someone picked Jasengle?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on February 18, 2010, 09:39:04 PM
As a member of the Executive, rather than the Legislature, I try not to involve myself in discussing Bills currently being debated on the floor of the Assembly, however I thought I might toss in some thoughts.

In Australia, we use STV to elect the Senate, the Lower House in Tasmania, the Upper Houses in most states and also to elect councillors for many local councils. I know that for the Senate and for the Upper House in Victoria, if a vacancy occurs for any reason, the party which had that position before selects the replacement for that position. It's not set out how the party chooses the replacement, but in Atlasia something not dissimilar to the current endorsement discussion threads would probably be the easiest way to do things.

Another option that you may wish to consider is the way vacancies on local councils are typically filled - since councils are frequently non-partisan here and therefore a party replacement is not appropriate. In these instances a count-back is used. Count-backs are simply re-running the votes at the previous election, and distributing preferences of anyone who voted for the person being replaced - basically it's like assuming that person never ran for a position and wasn't on the ballot paper. The last few elections haven't seen enough candidates for this to be viable, but an amendment such as this would encourage parties to run more candidates than they expect to win positions, thus making General Elections more heavily contested and therefore more exciting. For example, if the JCP expected to have two candidates elected, they might run three or four candidates (and encourage JCP members to allocate preferences according to a set order - thus ensuring that their most-preferred candidates would be most likely to be elected). Then, if a JCP member resigns or the seat becomes vacant for whatever reason, when that candidate is excluded from the count, it is likely that most votes going to that candidate will instead elect another JCP member. This removes the ambiguity of allowing a party to appoint a poster to a position that has become vacant, while also removing the need to quickly declare a special election for the position - and additionally, in a special election for a single position, the predominant party in the Region is likely to elect a person to fill the position, even if the member who has resigned comes from a smaller party - thus unbalancing the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 18, 2010, 09:42:34 PM
I'm concerned that might give political parties themselves too much power- I'd hope that we could vote for individuals and not parties. I don't want people to not vote for me because they are scared what would happen if I left a vacancy, and I'm sure that there are people who don't like that idea, but it's definitely better than the current system.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Smid on February 18, 2010, 10:02:07 PM
I'm concerned that might give political parties themselves too much power- I'd hope that we could vote for individuals and not parties. I don't want people to not vote for me because they are scared what would happen if I left a vacancy, and I'm sure that there are people who don't like that idea, but it's definitely better than the current system.

Under a count-back method, they'd be able to cast your vote for you, being well aware that if you resigned, their vote would flow on to the next candidate remaining in the race.

You raise a good point about parties vs individuals. A couple of the ways to hold PR elections include Party List and STV - in Party List, you simply vote for the party you want and their candidates are elected in order... under STV, people can vote for whichever candidate they wish - either following a particular party, or vote for individual candidates from different parties. That's one reason why Atlasian PR elections are held using STV rather than Party List. Nonetheless, in a countback, the next candidate would be elected - exactly the same as if the person who held the now-vacant seat had not run. Under normal special election rules, a smaller group who all voted for the candidate who resigned may have their voice completely removed because the largest group will win the special election - instead of it merely being a quota that needs to be filled, it would be 50% +1 to get elected, which obviously benefits the strongest party to the detriment of weaker parties - including one which may have just lost a seat due to a resignation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 19, 2010, 02:29:14 AM
()

We will now vote on the unfriendly amendment proposed by Rep. Silent Spade, which replaces the proposed bill in its entirety.  

Quote
In accordance to Article V, section ix) of the New Northeast Constitution, vacancies in the Legislative Assembly shall be filled in the following manner :

1. In the case of a vacancy in the Northeast Legislative Assembly for any reason, a special election shall be held to elect a new Representative.

2. The special election must take place no less than 5 days following the vacancy and the booth shall open at 12:00 AM EST on the nearest Friday, provided that Friday is at least 5 days since the vacancy occurred and shall close on that Sunday at 11:59 PM EST, to be administered by the appropriate official.

3.  The appropriate official shall place the names of all candidates who declare their intention to run in the special election on the Candidate Declaration Thread before 12:00 midnight Eastern time on the Thursday before the poll opens.

4.  Any candidate who receives write-in votes must confirm that he or she is willing to assume the vacancy by publicly declaring a willingness to receive write-in votes before the polls close in the Candidate Declaration Thread or writing in his or her own name on the ballot to fill the vacancy.  Otherwise, those write-in votes shall be deemed void.

This vote shall remain open until the earlier of 2:25 AM Eastern on Saturday, February 20, or when all Representatives shall have voted.

Note that this is not a vote on final passage, but whether to adopt the amendment instead of the initial language.  A vote on final passage of whatever version of the bill is adopted will commence after the vote on the amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 19, 2010, 03:52:53 AM
ayye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 19, 2010, 10:34:07 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on February 19, 2010, 11:57:30 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on February 19, 2010, 12:52:39 PM
aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 19, 2010, 12:54:42 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 19, 2010, 01:21:47 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 19, 2010, 03:01:50 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 20, 2010, 02:27:20 AM
()

By a vote of 6-1 with one excused absence, Rep. Silent Spade's amendment passes.  

We will now vote on final passage of the Vacancy filling Act, as amended:

Quote
In accordance to Article V, section ix) of the New Northeast Constitution, vacancies in the Legislative Assembly shall be filled in the following manner :

1. In the case of a vacancy in the Northeast Legislative Assembly for any reason, a special election shall be held to elect a new Representative.

2. The special election must take place no less than 5 days following the vacancy and the booth shall open at 12:00 AM EST on the nearest Friday, provided that Friday is at least 5 days since the vacancy occurred and shall close on that Sunday at 11:59 PM EST, to be administered by the appropriate official.

3.  The appropriate official shall place the names of all candidates who declare their intention to run in the special election on the Candidate Declaration Thread before 12:00 midnight Eastern time on the Thursday before the poll opens.

4.  Any candidate who receives write-in votes must confirm that he or she is willing to assume the vacancy by publicly declaring a willingness to receive write-in votes before the polls close in the Candidate Declaration Thread or writing in his or her own name on the ballot to fill the vacancy.  Otherwise, those write-in votes shall be deemed void.

This vote shall remain open until the earlier of 2:30 AM Eastern on Sunday, February 21, or when all Representatives shall have voted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 20, 2010, 03:54:23 AM
Nay. This would lead to one election per week.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 20, 2010, 04:01:23 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 20, 2010, 01:50:32 PM
Aye on final passage.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 20, 2010, 03:34:58 PM
Present and abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 20, 2010, 04:08:49 PM
Kalwejt, when did you become such a coward abstaining from all these votes like that?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 20, 2010, 04:26:40 PM
Kalwejt, when did you become such a coward abstaining from all these votes like that?

I'm divided. I like idea of making seats filled by elections only, but truth is, elections on weekly basis may paralyze us.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 20, 2010, 11:03:55 PM
Bump:

Reminder:  There is an open vote on the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 20, 2010, 11:13:43 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 21, 2010, 02:39:57 AM
()

By a vote of 3-1 with 1 express abstention, 1 excused absence and 2 unexcused absences, the Vacancy filling Act passes, and will be presented to the Governor for his signature or veto.

Next bill:

Northeast Anti-discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, gender identity, size, socioeconomic status, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, size, socioeconomic status, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, size, socioeconomic status, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.

Sponsor: Rep. Antonio V

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 2:40AM Eastern on Tuesday, February 23, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.  (Hint: If someone wants this bill to have a chance of being passed this session, there needs to be a motion to shorten - and even then, chances of passing it in time are slim).

The Sponsor, Representative Antonio V, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 21, 2010, 05:17:05 AM
This bill has already been debated at the beginning of the legislature, so I would move to shorten the debate to the legal maximum.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 21, 2010, 05:22:03 AM
I would like to propose an amended version:

Quote
Northeast Anti-discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic status, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, socioeconomic status, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, socioeconomic status, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 21, 2010, 05:24:59 AM
I would like to propose an amended version:

Quote
Northeast Anti-discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic status, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, socioeconomic status, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, socioeconomic status, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.


Thanks for reminding us that you hate fat people. Unfriendly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 21, 2010, 05:25:22 AM
I would like to propose an amended version:

Quote
Northeast Anti-discrimination Act

1. The Northeast Government pledges to uphold the rights of all citizens regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic status, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
2. The Northeast Government will hereby refuse government contracts to any company or organization which is found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, socioeconomic status, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.
3. The Northeast Government, in hiring, and in representation, shall not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, socioeconomic status, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and disability status.


Thanks for reminding us that you hate fat people. Unfriendly.

I don't hate fat people.

Fat people hate me unnecessarily.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 21, 2010, 02:43:40 PM
I would call for a vote this evening, but seeing that we have an unfriendly amendment on the floor, there's no way we'd get to a vote on final passage before the end of this Assembly.

Therefore, I suggest Reps. Antonio V and Libertas iron out their differences if they want any hope of passing a bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 21, 2010, 02:51:23 PM
The Assembly term will end 3 days after the end of elections. So we have the time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 21, 2010, 11:16:40 PM
The Assembly term will end 3 days after the end of elections. So we have the time.

Negative.  Under Article V, Section iv of the New Northeast Constitution, the new Assembly begins on Tuesday.  Even if I called a vote right now, the amendment vote would take 24 hours into this time tomorrow unless all Reps vote before then (doubtful).  The final passage vote wouldn't be over until late Tuesday - when the new Assembly is sworn in.

This bill is as good as dead for this session unless you and Rep. Libertas quickly come to an agreement on language.  Per tradition, it WILL be the first bill on the floor next session as long as someone re-sponsors it in the Northeast Proposed Legislation Thread before the Speaker vote ends.  So repost it in the thread on Tuesday if you want it to be voted on next session.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 22, 2010, 10:16:39 PM
()

The sponsor of the current bill on the floor has left the region, thereby automatically resigning his Assembly seat.  Thus, absent an objection, the bill on the floor is out of order and dismissed.  


Every other piece of legislation in the queue is by Former Rep. Antonio V.  Even though CJO RowanBrandon has stayed the election results and kept this Assembly in session for another 48 hours, we have no legislation on the floor to debate.  We will remain adjourned unless and until additional legislation is introduced in the queue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 23, 2010, 08:23:54 AM
I introduces a resolution which may be a good point for all of us to start be nice again.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on February 23, 2010, 08:28:52 AM
I introduces a resolution which may be a good point for all of us to start be nice again.
I second the resolution.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 23, 2010, 02:04:36 PM
()

We will now consider the following resolution:

Thanking Resolution

Northeast Assembly is hereby thanking Governor AndrewCT for his longtime and distinguished service for our region and the people.

Sponsor: Rep. Kalwejt

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 2:00PM Eastern on Thursday, February 25, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.  (Hint: If someone wants this bill to have a chance of being passed this session, there needs to be a motion to shorten to 12 hours).

The Sponsor, Representative Kalwejt, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 23, 2010, 03:20:36 PM
Mr. Speaker, fellow Representatives, I'll be brief.

Despite our very heaten recent elections and all political difference we're sharing, Governor Andrew served this region with distinction for a long time and it's safe to say he already left his footpring in our history.

Also, passing such purely symbolical resolution may help clear up recent unkind atmosphere :)

I'd also request shortening the period of the debate.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 23, 2010, 03:26:26 PM
()

The minimum I can shorten the debate period to is 12 hours.  So I'll open the vote at 2:00AM Eastern tonight IF this Assembly isn't dissolved by that time.  It may be, if the CJO certifies the election results tonight.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on February 23, 2010, 03:30:42 PM
While I didn't vote him, Andrew was Governor for almost a year.

I fully support this measure.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 23, 2010, 05:10:44 PM
I might support this. Can the sponsor offer reasons why his service was so much better than that of any other Governor?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 23, 2010, 05:22:05 PM
I might support this. Can the sponsor offer reasons why his service was so much better than that of any other Governor?

For example I can point his involvment and work in creation of the body where Representative can have his seat.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on February 23, 2010, 07:09:17 PM
I might support this. Can the sponsor offer reasons why his service was so much better than that of any other Governor?

For example I can point his involvment and work in creation of the body where Representative can have his seat.

Then why don't I get a resolution? :'( Just kidding! :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 23, 2010, 07:19:17 PM
I just intend to give a symbolic, farewell gift to longtime Governor, very important figure in our history. I don't want this to turn into a political s-hole.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 23, 2010, 07:24:49 PM
Governor AndrewCT presided over the region from its highs to its lows.  He helped form this Assembly.  We certainly should thank him for his lengthy and distinguished service to the citizens of the Northeast.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 24, 2010, 02:06:26 AM
()

It's time for a vote:

Quote
Thanking Resolution

Northeast Assembly is hereby thanking Governor AndrewCT for his longtime and distinguished service for our region and the people.

The vote on the resolution shall remain open until the earlier of 2:05AM on Thursday, February 25, or when all Representatives shall have voted.  

Note that there may not be time to complete this vote if the new Assembly is seated.  So please cast your vote quickly!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 24, 2010, 02:07:28 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 24, 2010, 07:22:20 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 24, 2010, 02:52:04 PM
Guess old assembly term just expired :/


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 24, 2010, 02:56:13 PM
Guess old assembly term just expired :/

Indeed.  I suppose we can take the resolution up as the first item of business in the next Assembly, as per tradition, if you re-propose it in the queue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on February 24, 2010, 10:08:22 PM
When is the Speaker vote?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 24, 2010, 10:09:55 PM

Immediately after the Lt. Governor Libertas gavels in the Assembly.  I don't have any power to do so - I'm just an Assemblyman like everyone else right now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 24, 2010, 10:12:45 PM
All new and former Northeast Representatives should swear in on the official swear-in thread to take their offices, even if they swore in for last session.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 24, 2010, 10:14:04 PM
()

The Third Assembly of the Northeast is now in session.

With the assembly called into session, we may proceed with the election of a speaker.

Nominations for this position may now be made.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 24, 2010, 10:53:10 PM
I will run for reelection as speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on February 24, 2010, 11:18:43 PM
I vote for cinyc to be speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 24, 2010, 11:20:26 PM

I don't think we're voting yet, just taking nominations and seconds.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 25, 2010, 02:27:51 AM

You have my support.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on February 25, 2010, 12:49:51 PM
well, I've been severely ill and bed ridden for most of the past 3 days, so consider my vote for you if i'm unable to make it during the official vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on February 25, 2010, 04:12:52 PM
I intend to back cinyc for speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 26, 2010, 03:16:37 PM
Mr. Lt. Governor, when are we going to hold the speaker vote?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 26, 2010, 03:20:24 PM
Well seeing as how you are the only nominee, I suppose we can declare you the Speaker by acclamation.

Unless you would prefer to hold a formal vote?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 26, 2010, 03:36:27 PM
Well seeing as how you are the only nominee, I suppose we can declare you the Speaker by acclamation.

Unless you would prefer to hold a formal vote?

We have to hold a vote.  Write-ins are permitted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 26, 2010, 03:41:03 PM
Ah, I didn't see any constitutional provision regarding how the speaker must be chosen, but you are the veteran at this.

()

Members of the Assembly, you shall have 24 hours to indicate your preference for Speaker of the Assembly. The vote may also be concluded when all Representatives have voted.

Official Ballot for Speaker of the Northeast Assembly:

[ ] cinyc
[ ] Write-in:______
[ ] NOTA


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 26, 2010, 03:44:57 PM
Official Ballot for Speaker of the Northeast Assembly:

[X] cinyc
[ ] Write-in:______
[ ] NOTA



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 26, 2010, 03:52:47 PM
Official Ballot for Speaker of the Northeast Assembly:

[X] cinyc
[ ] Write-in:______
[ ] NOTA


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on February 26, 2010, 04:04:13 PM
Official Ballot for Speaker of the Northeast Assembly:

[X] cinyc
[ ] Write-in:______
[ ] NOTA


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on February 26, 2010, 04:58:19 PM
Official Ballot for Speaker of the Northeast Assembly:

[X] cinyc
[ ] Write-in:______
[ ] NOTA


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 26, 2010, 05:00:47 PM
[X] cinyc
[ ] Write-in:______
[ ] NOTA


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 26, 2010, 06:16:09 PM

Official Ballot for Speaker of the Northeast Assembly:

  • cinyc
[ ] Write-in:______
[ ] NOTA


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 27, 2010, 04:45:39 PM
As it has been over 24 hours, cinyc has been elected Speaker by the six active members of the Assembly.

Congratulations to the returning Speaker of the Assembly, cinyc. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on February 27, 2010, 06:59:28 PM
Congratulations! I'm not expecting to be on tomorrow for the record. I guess the special election results will be a surprise.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 27, 2010, 07:05:36 PM
By the way, what about those Representatives who did not take an oath?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 27, 2010, 09:04:49 PM
By the way, what about those Representatives who did not take an oath?

They need to take it ASAP.

()

First order of business, which is carryover business from the last Assembly:

Thanking Resolution

Northeast Assembly is hereby thanking Governor AndrewCT for his longtime and distinguished service for our region and the people.

Sponsor: Rep. Kalwejt

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 9:05 PM Eastern on Monday, March 1, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative Kalwejt, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 27, 2010, 09:18:47 PM
Mr. Speaker, fellow Represetatives

As I stated presiously, despite all bitter political/partisian division, Governor Andrew presided over the region for a long time, for better, for worse, leaving enduring footprint in our history. Among his acheivments were a role he played in establishing this body.

Also, I'm sure such resolution would help to ease bitter atmosphere as well.

Thank you and I yell the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on February 27, 2010, 10:01:08 PM

Only crazy people yell at the floor...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on February 27, 2010, 10:04:49 PM
Amendments I offer:

#1

Thanking Resolution

Northeast Assembly is hereby thanking Governor FallenMorgan for saving the region from total destruction at the hands of his predecessor.

#2

Thanking Resolution

Northeast Assembly is hereby thanking Lt. Governor Libertas for working extra hard in two branches of government to represent what the people of the region have asked for rather than backing down to the loud and obnoxious opposition.

#3

Thanking Resolution

Northeast Assembly is hereby thanking Antonio V for getting the hell out of here.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 28, 2010, 08:00:07 AM
Unfriendly. Regardless of our opinions, this was suppoused to be an ocassion to ease tensions.

Also, FallenMorgan and Libertas just took offices and it's early to judge their policies in work. This should not be included in a farewell to longtime NE figure.

Please, more class.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Hash on February 28, 2010, 08:16:26 AM
I support Kalwejt's bill and obviously oppose these frivolous petty political amendments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on February 28, 2010, 08:20:29 AM
Isn't there more important legislation to be getting on with?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on February 28, 2010, 10:07:32 AM
I don't really think we need much of a debate on this. I'll vote Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 28, 2010, 01:51:51 PM
I don't really think we need much of a debate on this. I'll vote Aye.

The debate period is 48 hours unless someone moves to shorten it and the chair agrees. 

A vote on any unfriendly amendments will begin at the end of the debate period, and close 24 hours later unless every Representative votes sooner.  A vote on final passage of the resolution will follow the amendment vote and also remain open for 24 hours.

That's how the Assembly rules work.  We only have one thread for all official Assembly business, so we only debate one thing at a time unless someone moves to consider another thing simultaneously.  That motion is subject to a vote.  The few times we've done that, there's been nothing but confusion - again, because we only have one thread for all official Assembly business.

I support Rep. Kaljewt's resolution and am opposed to the proposed amendments.  Andrew CT was our governor for a year, through the highs and lows of the Northeast.   He should be given our thanks.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 28, 2010, 03:45:06 PM
I request shortening the period of debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on February 28, 2010, 03:49:56 PM
hey could one of you guys make an amendment that you must be polite in the assembly. And consequences if you aren't. It is just an idea.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 28, 2010, 03:50:56 PM
hey could one of you guys make an amendment that you must be polite in the assembly. And consequences if you aren't. It is just an idea.

We have the thing called "Joe Wilson Act". Rowan declared this unconstitutional.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on February 28, 2010, 03:51:30 PM
hey could one of you guys make an amendment that you must be polite in the assembly. And consequences if you aren't. It is just an idea.

We have the thing called "Joe Wilson Act". Rowan declared this unconstitutional.
why?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on February 28, 2010, 04:29:48 PM
hey could one of you guys make an amendment that you must be polite in the assembly. And consequences if you aren't. It is just an idea.

We have the thing called "Joe Wilson Act". Rowan declared this unconstitutional.
why?

Freedom of speech I guess.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 28, 2010, 04:48:44 PM
hey could one of you guys make an amendment that you must be polite in the assembly. And consequences if you aren't. It is just an idea.

We have the thing called "Joe Wilson Act". Rowan declared this unconstitutional.
why?

Freedom of speech and separation of powers.  The governor had a role in enforcing the Joe Wilson Act, which was one reason why it was struck down.

It's not clear that even Assembly standards on decorum would be constitutional.  CJO RowanBrandon's decision was fairly broad on the Freedom of Speech point.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on February 28, 2010, 06:53:07 PM
I request shortening the period of debate.

The Lt. Governor will have to rule on this and all motions unless he expressly declares his absence.  I put the bill up for debate out of convenience, but as long as Lt. Governor Libertas is present, the Lt. Governor has the chair and runs the Assembly.  Last session was a bit irregular.   Lt. Governor Smid allowed the Speaker to run the place because he was in a different time zone.  He was present only to break ties.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on February 28, 2010, 07:13:33 PM
hey could one of you guys make an amendment that you must be polite in the assembly. And consequences if you aren't. It is just an idea.

We have the thing called "Joe Wilson Act". Rowan declared this unconstitutional.
why?

Freedom of speech and separation of powers.  The governor had a role in enforcing the Joe Wilson Act, which was one reason why it was struck down.

It's not clear that even Assembly standards on decorum would be constitutional.  CJO RowanBrandon's decision was fairly broad on the Freedom of Speech point.

Intentionally I might add.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on February 28, 2010, 07:26:41 PM
As the sponsor has requested it, the debate period will be shortened by 12 hours. After that, the Assembly can vote on the proposed amendments.

Thanking Resolution

Northeast Assembly is hereby thanking Governor AndrewCT for his longtime and distinguished service for our region and the people.

Sponsor: Rep. Kalwejt

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 9:05 AM Eastern on Monday, March 1, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.




Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on February 28, 2010, 10:35:25 PM
Obviously oppose the amendments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 01, 2010, 09:05:29 AM
()

Alright, initial debate time is over. Now voting shall commence on the following amendments proposed by Rep. Segway:


#1

Thanking Resolution

Northeast Assembly is hereby thanking Governor FallenMorgan for saving the region from total destruction at the hands of his predecessor.

#2

Thanking Resolution

Northeast Assembly is hereby thanking Lt. Governor Libertas for working extra hard in two branches of government to represent what the people of the region have asked for rather than backing down to the loud and obnoxious opposition.

#3

Thanking Resolution

Northeast Assembly is hereby thanking Antonio V for getting the hell out of here.



Voting on this bill will remain open until at least 9:05 AM Eastern on Tuesday, March 2, 2010.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 01, 2010, 10:29:26 AM
Abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Hash on March 01, 2010, 11:39:42 AM
NAY


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 01, 2010, 12:09:11 PM
Aye for all


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 01, 2010, 02:47:23 PM
Amendment 1: Nay
Amendment 2: Nay
Amendment 3: Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 01, 2010, 02:49:02 PM
Nay to all.

It's farewell thing, not farewell bitching.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on March 01, 2010, 04:52:02 PM
1. Nay
2. Nay
3. Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 02, 2010, 09:31:01 AM
The Amendments have been defeated.

1. 1-4 Nay
2. 1-4 Nay
3. 1-3 Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 02, 2010, 09:35:01 AM
()

Voting shall now take place on the final resolution. The voting will be open for 36 hours, or until all Assemblypeople have voted.

Thanking Resolution

Northeast Assembly is hereby thanking Governor AndrewCT for his longtime and distinguished service for our region and the people.

Sponsor: Rep. Kalwejt


Voting on this bill will be until at least 9:30 PM Eastern on Wednesday, March 3, 2010, unless all Representatives shall have voted or expressly abstained before that time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Hash on March 02, 2010, 10:38:42 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 02, 2010, 11:50:30 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 02, 2010, 02:07:32 PM
Aye on final passage.

Why is this vote open for 36 hours instead of 24?



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 02, 2010, 04:52:07 PM
NAY!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 02, 2010, 06:39:51 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on March 03, 2010, 12:17:16 AM
Sorry to interrupt. I'm not sure whose responsibility this is, but your legislative Wiki hasn't been updated since the gas leasing legislation. Makes it harder for me to figure things out.

So I'll just ask, was anything ever done about the region's obesity rate?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 03, 2010, 12:33:25 AM
Sorry to interrupt. I'm not sure whose responsibility this is, but your legislative Wiki hasn't been updated since the gas leasing legislation. Makes it harder for me to figure things out.

So I'll just ask, was anything ever done about the region's obesity rate?

No.  Lt. Governor Smid voted against the Health Act, breaking a 4-4 tie.  Therefore, the bill failed under our rules.

It is the Lt. Governor's job to update the wiki.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on March 03, 2010, 12:38:11 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on March 03, 2010, 12:40:26 AM
Sorry to interrupt. I'm not sure whose responsibility this is, but your legislative Wiki hasn't been updated since the gas leasing legislation. Makes it harder for me to figure things out.

So I'll just ask, was anything ever done about the region's obesity rate?

No.  Lt. Governor Smid voted against the Health Act, breaking a 4-4 tie.  Therefore, the bill failed under our rules.

It is the Lt. Governor's job to update the wiki.

Thank you for that. I'll go back to my lair now. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 03, 2010, 06:53:27 AM
It is the Lt. Governor's job to update the wiki.

I really hope new Lt. Governor will do something about the wiki.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 03, 2010, 07:17:26 AM
It is the Lt. Governor's job to update the wiki.

I really hope new Lt. Governor will do something about the wiki.

I can't do anything until I am provided with an account so I can actually edit the Wiki, something that has not been provided despite numerous e-mails and PMs politely requesting this from Dave Leip.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 03, 2010, 07:46:18 AM
It is the Lt. Governor's job to update the wiki.

I really hope new Lt. Governor will do something about the wiki.

I can't do anything until I am provided with an account so I can actually edit the Wiki, something that has not been provided despite numerous e-mails and PMs politely requesting this from Dave Leip.

That's the problem. Sometimes you have to wait very long with such requests. Hell, I requested an accound thrice without an effect.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on March 03, 2010, 09:54:50 AM
I'm sorry for barging in, but is there anyone in the Northeast who is able to update the wiki for now, until Dave gives access to the Lt. Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on March 03, 2010, 03:17:46 PM
I'm sorry for barging in, but is there anyone in the Northeast who is able to update the wiki for now, until Dave gives access to the Lt. Governor.

I also have wiki access if you guys want me. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 03, 2010, 03:20:02 PM
I'm sorry for barging in, but is there anyone in the Northeast who is able to update the wiki for now, until Dave gives access to the Lt. Governor.

I also have wiki access if you guys want me. :)

Good, please do something with my article, it's out of date since a long time ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 04, 2010, 12:55:45 AM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 04, 2010, 12:58:01 AM
By a vote of 5-1, with 1 expressed abstention, this legislation passes.

()


Thanking Resolution

Northeast Assembly is hereby thanking Governor AndrewCT for his longtime and distinguished service for our region and the people.

Sponsor: Rep. Kalwejt



The next piece of legislation will be brought forth some time during the day to get this on a more workable schedule.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 04, 2010, 11:55:19 AM
()


Since my own status is tied up in the courts at present, I'm going to skip my bill for now so we can keep the Assembly moving.

Here is what is now up for consideration:


Lt. Governor Vacancy Amendment

1. Article IV, Section viii of the New Northeast Constitution shall be amended and replaced by the following:

If the office of Governor is to become vacant at some point while he or she is in office, then the Lieutenant Governor is to be immediately sworn in as Governor of the Northeast Region.  If the office of Lieutenant Governor is to become vacant at some point while he or she is in office , than the Governor may appoint a new one after the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region at any time more than two weeks before the next scheduled gubernatorial election, an election shall be held to replace the fill the vacancy.  The Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region will open the booth for such election on the second Friday after such vacancy occurs at 12:00:00am Eastern Standard Time, and will close said both on the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm Eastern Standard Time. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote during this time.  Candidates for Lieutenant Governor will be given until the second Wednesday after such vacancy occurs  to announce his or her candidacy.

2. Article IV, Section xiii of the New Northeast Constitution shall be amended and replaced by the following:

The Lieutenant Governor of the Northeast Region shall be charged with the responsibilities of the Legislative Assembly of the region. He or she shall ensure that the Legislative Assembly has the ability to propose legislation that they are able to be debated on, and voted on during appropriate periods. In the temporary absence of the Lieutenant Governor, than the Governor the Speaker of the Northeast Assembly may take up these responsibilities.

3. Article IV, Section xiv of the New Northeast Constitution shall be deleted and replaced as follows:

xiv)(a) The Governor may publicly declare his absence, thereby allowing the Lieutenant Governor to temporarily conduct the duties of the office, under the title of Acting Governor of Northeast.

b) If the Governor does not perform his or her official duties for a period longer then 7 days,  the Lieutenant Governor shall automatically temporarily conduct the duties of the Governor's office.  Official duties include signing or vetoing bills after being publicly notified of their passage in the Northeast Assembly.  

c) If Governor is inactive on the Atlas Forum for 21 days, the Lieutenant Governor shall automatically temporary conduct the duties of the Governor's office.

d) The Governor shall resume the powers and duties of the office by publicly declaring he is present and able to resume the powers and duties of his office.

e) The Speaker of the Northeast Assembly shall never be allowed to temporarily conduct the duties of the Governor if acting in the temporary absence of the Lieutenant Governor pursuant to Article IV, Section xiii) of this Constitution.


Sponsor: cinyc

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 12:00PM Eastern on Saturday, March 6, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

Note that because this bill is a proposed constitutional amendment, a mere majority vote will not be sufficient to pass.

The Sponsor, Representative cinyc, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 04, 2010, 02:23:59 PM
I ask to table this until the Supreme Court of Atlasia decides the Libertas case.  I'm concerned that if Libertas' vote puts the tally over 2/3rds of all Assemblymen voting or a majority of all  Assemblymen, the constitutionality of the amendment could be questioned.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 04, 2010, 02:30:38 PM
Very well, the Lt. Governor Vacancy Amendment will be tabled for the time being.

Moving on then:

()

Fair Voting Requirements Act

1. Voters removed by the HAEV will still be eligible to vote in regional elections.

2. Federal voting and office holding restrictions shall not apply at the regional level.

Sponsor: segwaystyle2012

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 2:30PM Eastern on Saturday, March 6, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.


The Sponsor, Representative segwaystyle2012, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 04, 2010, 09:46:36 PM
The Northeast has the power to run it's own elections. This is simply an exercise of this right protecting us from federal intrusion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 04, 2010, 10:35:24 PM
The Northeast has the power to run it's own elections. This is simply an exercise of this right protecting us from federal intrusion.

Who is going to maintain a Northeast voter list?  How?

I'm not sure Section 2 is constitutional.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 04, 2010, 11:48:09 PM
Maybe the CJO or Lt. Governor can maintain the list.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 05, 2010, 12:52:36 AM
Maybe the CJO or Lt. Governor can maintain the list.

You'll need to specify that in the legislation.

I really need to check if this is constitutional before deciding how to vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 06, 2010, 11:19:50 AM
I'm going to be in transit today, and I'm not sure when I'll be on later.

I would thus like to ask for a leave of absence for today and tomorrow, and to ask if the Speaker would be willing to perform my duties during this time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 06, 2010, 11:23:03 AM
I'm going to be in transit today, and I'm not sure when I'll be on later.

I would thus like to ask for a leave of absence for today and tomorrow, and to ask if the Speaker would be willing to perform my duties during this time.

Certainly.  I may not be available at exactly 2:30PM to open the vote, but will do so at some point later today.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 06, 2010, 02:38:23 PM
()

Seeing no proposed amendments, it is time to put the bill to a vote:
Quote
Fair Voting Requirements Act

1. Voters removed by the HAEV will still be eligible to vote in regional elections.

2. Federal voting and office holding restrictions shall not apply at the regional level.

This vote will remain open until the earlier of 2:40PM Eastern on Sunday, March 7, 2010, or when all Representatives shall have voted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 06, 2010, 02:39:57 PM
Nay.

While I oppose the HAEV, my concerns about list maintenance have not been addressed.  I also question whether this bill is constitutional.   Voters removed by the HAEV are no longer citizens of Atlasia.  How can they be citizens of the Northeast?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Hash on March 06, 2010, 02:57:50 PM
NAY


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 06, 2010, 03:00:15 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 06, 2010, 10:06:51 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 06, 2010, 10:47:36 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 07, 2010, 04:33:54 PM
()

By a vote of 2-3, with 2 unexcused absences and 1 excused absence, the Fair Voting Requirements Act fails.

Next bill:

Unnamed
The Northeast condemns the callous decision of the Pacific to close its border with the Southeast. To show solidarity with the Southeast, all goods entering or exiting the Northeast from the Pacific are illegal, and shall be confiscated if found. This act will be in effect until the Pacific either re-opens its borders with the Southeast, or accepts the "Suck it Pacific Act 2010."

Sponsor: Rep. Dallasfan65

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 4:30PM Eastern on Tuesday, March 9, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative DallasFan65, has the floor.

Rep DallasFan 65 - please provide a name for your bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 07, 2010, 08:46:05 PM
I don't know why we should penalize the Pacific.  The Southeast started this nonsense by busing its dangerous criminals into the Pacific.  If we should be penalizing anyone, it should be the Southeast.  But I'd prefer to remain neutral and let the Pacific and Southeast iron out their differences on their own.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 07, 2010, 08:59:46 PM
I want to say two things.

First of all, I agree with Mr. Speaker that there is not a reason at all to punish Pacific for something, Southeast committed.

Second of all, what would we do if other region would pass something like "Suck It Northeast Act"?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 07, 2010, 09:24:12 PM
I want to say two things.

First of all, I agree with Mr. Speaker that there is not a reason at all to punish Pacific for something, Southeast committed.

Second of all, what would we do if other region would pass something like "Suck It Northeast Act"?

Authorize the CJO or someone else to seek an Atlasian Supreme Court injunction on behalf of the Northeast against that region in question on the grounds suggested by CJO Sam Spade in his decision to grant cert.  Unfortunately, the person who brought the Pacific's lawsuit didn't have the time to see it through.  We'd make sure it was seen through.  If we lost, we'd retaliate, much like the Pacific did.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 07, 2010, 09:35:45 PM
I'd like the legislation withdrawn in light of current events, as it's pointless now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 07, 2010, 09:40:15 PM
I'd like the legislation withdrawn in light of current events, as it's pointless now.

It was pointless since very begining.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 07, 2010, 09:44:06 PM
I'd like the legislation withdrawn in light of current events, as it's pointless now.

It was pointless since very begining.
Well, in retrospect I will admit it was a mistake.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 07, 2010, 09:49:50 PM
I'd like the legislation withdrawn in light of current events, as it's pointless now.

It was pointless since very begining.
Well, in retrospect I will admit it was a mistake.

Ok, I'm glad we all can move on.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 07, 2010, 09:53:26 PM
()

The bill is tabled.

The queue is empty right now.  If anyone wants to propose legislation, please place it in the proposed legislation thread.  I will work on legislation implementing the GM's recommendations for the  FREE HIGHWAY ACCESS ACT OF 2009 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=90041.0) if I have time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 07, 2010, 10:06:29 PM
()

Next bill:

Northeast Free Highway Access Act of 2009 Implementation Bill

Pursuant to the Northeast Free Highway Access Act of 2009, the Northeast Assembly hereby adopts the final recommendation of the Free Highway Access Commission (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=101096.msg2192099#msg2192099) to phase out all highway tolls and replace lost revenue with an increase in the Northeast gasoline tax by 14.6 cents per gallon, phased in over five years as follows:

FY2010: 2.6 cents
FY2011: 5.6 cents
FY2012: 8.6 cents
FY2013: 11.6 cents
FY2014: 14.6 cents

Sponsor: Rep. cinyc

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 10:05PM Eastern on Tuesday, March 9, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative cinyc, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 07, 2010, 10:14:06 PM
The reason for my bill is simple.  Back in December 2008, the citizen legislature of the Northeast passed the FREE HIGHWAY ACCESS ACT OF 2009 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=90041.0).   Under that bill, all tolls in the Northeast are to be phased out - as of right now, over the next 4 years for regular roads and over the next 9 years for bridges.  A commission was set up to determine the amount by which the gas tax would have to increase to offset the loss of toll revenues.  Last year, Rep. Mr. Moderate asked the GM to act as the commission.  The commission determined the amounts by which the gasoline tax must be increased in order to fully offset lost toll revenues.  

The Free Highway Access act required that the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast approve the commission's recommendations.  So that's what this bill does.

I'm the sponsor, but am neutral on the bill.  We should debate whether to accept the recommendations, send it back to better fit the bill (for example, the legislation says bridge tolls should be phased out by 2019, yet this bill phases them out) by 2014, or repeal the Free Highway Access Act of 2009 altogether and keep our tolled roads tolled.  We should have the authority to do any of those three things.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 08, 2010, 01:35:43 PM
I'm all in favor repealing the Act.  Why must we burden every citizen of the Northeast with a gasoline tax, if the tolls paid only by the users now are doing the job of maintaining those roads in good condition.

Perhaps restructuring the toll system might be in order, and if so a study would need to be conducted to see what tolls need increased/decreased/stay the same.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 08, 2010, 02:48:37 PM
I'm all in favor repealing the Act.  Why must we burden every citizen of the Northeast with a gasoline tax, if the tolls paid only by the users now are doing the job of maintaining those roads in good condition.

Perhaps restructuring the toll system might be in order, and if so a study would need to be conducted to see what tolls need increased/decreased/stay the same.

I understand your points, but am a little reticent to overrule the legislative Assembly of the Northeast when it was the people.   Citizens of Connecticut, Vermont and most of Rhode Island (outside of Newport) are worse off with a gas tax, since they have no toll roads.  New Jersey probably benefits most by the repeal. 

I suppose we can vote on it though.  If you'd want to propose an amendment, to my bill, it probably should say something like:

Amendment to replace the Northeast Free Highway Access Act of 2009 Implementation Bill with the following:

"1.  The Free Highway Access Act of 2009 is repealed.   

2. The Northeast Region shall form a commission to study and revise the toll structure".

Let me know if that's okay or you want to suggest other language.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 08, 2010, 02:56:26 PM
I understand your points, but am a little reticent to overrule the legislative Assembly of the Northeast when it was the people

If you look at the link to the actual vote,  I think it was just a handful of citizens who voted on it........actually far less than the elected number in the assembly now.

Let me think about those amendments for a short bit.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 08, 2010, 03:41:11 PM
I checked again and the vote count on the Act was:  "Free Highway Access Act Of 2009: 3 AYES, 1 NAY"

There was very little support for it to begin with and the committee's hard work should be rightly noted, but I do propose the following:

Amendment to replace the Northeast Free Highway Access Act of 2009 Implementation Bill with the following:

"1.  The Free Highway Access Act of 2009 is repealed.   

2. The Northeast Region shall form a commission to study and revise the toll structure".

xGrumpy Gramps

And a thanks to Cinyc for suggesting the wording.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 08, 2010, 03:58:21 PM
Thanks.

I'm going to deem the amendment unfriendly so that it goes to a vote.  Whatever we do should be voted on as a clear choice, with all options on the table, IMHO. 

We'll vote on the amendment at the end of the debate period tomorrow.  As of right now, the amendment vote will be a referendum on keep tolls versus implement gas tax suggested by the commission. (Subject to any other proposed amendments)  A second vote will be held on Wednesday into Thursday on final passage of whatever wins the amendment vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 08, 2010, 07:19:30 PM
As I oppose toll roads and gasoline taxes, I will offer an amendment.

1.  The Free Highway Access Act of 2009 is repealed.   

2.  The Northeast Region shall eliminate all tolls from public roads by 31 August 2010.

3.  The Northeast Region shall tax all used vehicle sales at 3% to cover road maintenance costs.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 08, 2010, 09:30:42 PM
As I oppose toll roads and gasoline taxes, I will offer an amendment.

1.  The Free Highway Access Act of 2009 is repealed.   

2.  The Northeast Region shall eliminate all tolls from public roads by 31 August 2010.

3.  The Northeast Region shall tax all used vehicle sales at 3% to cover road maintenance costs.

I'll deem that unfriendly and put that to a vote, too.  I have no idea whether that tax will bring enough revenue to offset the elimination of tolls.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 08, 2010, 09:35:36 PM
As I oppose toll roads and gasoline taxes, I will offer an amendment.

1.  The Free Highway Access Act of 2009 is repealed.   

2.  The Northeast Region shall eliminate all tolls from public roads by 31 August 2010.

3.  The Northeast Region shall tax all used vehicle sales at 3% to cover road maintenance costs.

I'll deem that unfriendly and put that to a vote, too.  I have no idea whether that tax will bring enough revenue to offset the elimination of tolls.

Will we be voting on both Gramps' and Segway's amendments at once?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 08, 2010, 09:39:02 PM
As I oppose toll roads and gasoline taxes, I will offer an amendment.

1.  The Free Highway Access Act of 2009 is repealed.   

2.  The Northeast Region shall eliminate all tolls from public roads by 31 August 2010.

3.  The Northeast Region shall tax all used vehicle sales at 3% to cover road maintenance costs.

I'll deem that unfriendly and put that to a vote, too.  I have no idea whether that tax will bring enough revenue to offset the elimination of tolls.

Will we be voting on both Gramps' and Segway's amendments at once?

Yes.  I guess if both pass, we'd need a runoff or something (though the SOAP doesn't provide for one).  We can't pass both in one bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 08, 2010, 09:41:30 PM
As I oppose toll roads and gasoline taxes, I will offer an amendment.

1.  The Free Highway Access Act of 2009 is repealed.   

2.  The Northeast Region shall eliminate all tolls from public roads by 31 August 2010.

3.  The Northeast Region shall tax all used vehicle sales at 3% to cover road maintenance costs.

I'll deem that unfriendly and put that to a vote, too.  I have no idea whether that tax will bring enough revenue to offset the elimination of tolls.

Will we be voting on both Gramps' and Segway's amendments at once?

Yes.  I guess if both pass, we'd need a runoff or something (though the SOAP doesn't provide for one).  We can't pass both in one bill.
Agreed, unless Segway and Gramps could negotiate something together and offer a single set of amendments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 08, 2010, 09:44:01 PM
The run-off is a good idea. We need SOAP to allow for a procedure to reconcile with incompatible amendments. I might write up an amendment if I have time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on March 08, 2010, 10:01:48 PM
For reference, here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=101096.msg2192099#msg2192099) is my full report on the Free Highway Access Act of 2009. Not sure if it will be helpful, but good to have since it's all the way back on page 8 of the GM thread.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 08, 2010, 10:05:38 PM
For reference, here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=101096.msg2192099#msg2192099) is my full report on the Free Highway Access Act of 2009. Not sure if it will be helpful, but good to have since it's all the way back on page 8 of the GM thread.

Thanks, though we are going to have to replace much more revenue than I expected. Any ideas out there?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on March 09, 2010, 12:36:43 AM
Your region has a budget report out as well (and you are now the largest economy in Atlasia). It can be found here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=101096.msg2397909#msg2397909).

I know you all just passed a budget with numbers not reflected here, but this now takes into account the massive population growth in the region since the first budget report. It may be useful to have the new governor craft a budget based on these updated figures.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on March 09, 2010, 03:57:52 AM
Toll roads are no fun. If we need the funds, a gasoline tax is far preferable to toll roads and we get the extra benefit of cutting carbon emmissions! :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 09, 2010, 12:19:12 PM
A gas tax would cripple transportation and commerce.

I'm in favor of either Segway OR Gramps' amendments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 09, 2010, 12:24:53 PM
A gas tax also hurts the working poor and middle class more than tolls would.  Granted some need to take the toll roads to get to work, but there is no question all of them need gas to get to their jobs if they don't take public transportation.  Increased gas taxes will even affect those taking public transportation since public transit will pass the increase along to the consumers.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 09, 2010, 12:42:08 PM
FYI - A lot of the toll revenue in NYC and the big cities goes toward mass transit, not roads.  So we will have drivers outside of the cities subsidizing mass transit in the cities if the bill passes.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 09, 2010, 10:09:32 PM
()

We will now vote on the two proposed amendments:


Amendment 1: Amendment to replace the Northeast Free Highway Access Act of 2009 Implementation Bill with the following:

"1.  The Free Highway Access Act of 2009 is repealed.   

2. The Northeast Region shall form a commission to study and revise the toll structure".
------
Amendment 2:
1.  The Free Highway Access Act of 2009 is repealed.   

2.  The Northeast Region shall eliminate all tolls from public roads by 31 August 2010.

3.  The Northeast Region shall tax all used vehicle sales at 3% to cover road maintenance costs.
------
The vote on the amendments will be open until 10:10PM on Wednesday, March 10, 2010, unless all Representatives shall have voted sooner.  If both pass, we'll have to figure out what to do probably a run-off.

For clarity, please specify your votes by Amendment Number, i.e.

Amendment 1: aye/nay/abstain
Amendment 2: aye/nay/abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 10, 2010, 12:01:19 AM
1. Abstain
2. Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 10, 2010, 09:02:52 AM
Amendment 1 -  Aye

Amendment 2 -  Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 10, 2010, 10:16:16 AM
Amendment 2 - Aye

Amendment 1 - Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 10, 2010, 05:21:43 PM
Amendment 1: Nay
Amendment 2: Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 10, 2010, 05:54:16 PM
Amendment 1: Aye

Amendment 2: Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 10, 2010, 10:17:24 PM
()

By a vote of 3-1 with 1 abstention, 1 excused absence, and 4 unexcused absences, Amendment 1 passes.
By a vote of 2-3 with 1 excused absence, and 4 unexcused absence, Amendment 2 fails.
Since both amendments didn't pass, we will proceed to a vote on final passage of the bill, as amended by Rep. Grumpy Gramps' Amendment 1:

Quote
Northeast Free Highway Access Act of 2009 Implementation Bill
1.  The Free Highway Access Act of 2009 is repealed.  

2. The Northeast Region shall form a commission to study and revise the toll structure.

This vote will remain open until 10:15PM on Thursday, March 11, 2010, unless all Representatives shall have voted before then.  That's doubtful, given half the Assembly didn't bother to vote on the amendments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 10, 2010, 10:19:52 PM
Please note that the Atlasian Supreme Court has decided (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=111708.msg2400295#msg2400295) that Lt. Governor and Northeast Assemblyman Libertas cannot hold both positions.  He will be required to choose one or the other within 72 hours, or be deemed to vacate his Assembly seat.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 10, 2010, 10:35:45 PM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on March 10, 2010, 10:44:29 PM
Amendment 1:Aye

Amendment 2: Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 10, 2010, 10:46:42 PM

The amendment vote is closed.  We're now voting on final passage of the bill (which is Amendment 1, since it won a majority).  A simple aye or nay will do.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on March 10, 2010, 10:47:32 PM

The amendment vote is closed.  We're now voting on final passage of the bill (which is Amendment 1, since it won a majority).  A simple aye or nay will do.

Ooh, sorry.

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 10, 2010, 11:09:18 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 11, 2010, 12:44:58 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 11, 2010, 08:58:22 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 11, 2010, 10:15:17 PM
()

By a vote of 3-1 with 1 express abstention, 1 excused absence (or resignation) and 3 unexcused absences, the Northeast Free Highway Access Act of 2009 Implementation Bill passes and will be sent to the governor for his signature or veto.

Next bill:
Quote
Practical Labor Policy Act

The Northeast government shall release itself from all union contracts effective immediately.

The Northeast region shall not allow public employees to form unions, seeing these as a violation of the free market and a threat to sustainable fiscal policy in the region.

The Northeast region shall review existing public employee benefits and pensions and make the appropriate changes upon further consideration, to be completed no later than 31 August 2010.

Sponsor: Rep. segwaystyle 2012

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 10:15PM Eastern on Saturday, March 13, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative segwaystyle2012, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 11, 2010, 10:20:37 PM
My reasons for introducing this are many but the core issue here is that public employee unions strangle our government to the breaking point and there growing power is a threat to our budget and fiscal sustainability.

Public jobs aren't meant to be cushy $150k a year for correctional offices anywhere this side of California, yet alone massive pensions and health benefits. It's out of control. Government jobs are much more insulated from market tension than private employment. The trade-off is job security vs. higher pay. Public jobs are more secure and currently pay more, which is extremely backward.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 11, 2010, 10:28:34 PM
Rep. Doctor Cynic has now missed votes on the final passage of 3 consecutive pieces of legislation.  I will inform the governor. 

Rep. Silent Spade has missed the past 2 votes without posting a leave of absence; Rep. Kalwejt missed this vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 12, 2010, 06:46:20 AM
I feel really ashamed by that. First missed vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 12, 2010, 08:49:07 AM
I feel really ashamed by that. First missed vote.

Don't sweat it friend, no one questions your dedication.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 12, 2010, 11:07:37 AM
Back to debate on the bill....honestly, I'm speechless.  I'm not a union fan but this is over the top.

Not requiring members to belong to a union is one thing.......not allowing unions at all is quite another.

Even right to work states don't outlaw unions....

I'll be voting, Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 12, 2010, 11:10:33 AM
Back to debate on the bill....honestly, I'm speechless.  I'm not a union fan but this is over the top.

Not requiring members to belong to a union is one thing.......not allowing unions at all is quite another.

Even right to work states don't outlaw unions....

I'll be voting, Nay.
Why not offer an amendment to the bill to make it less extreme?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 12, 2010, 11:12:34 AM
Back to debate on the bill....honestly, I'm speechless.  I'm not a union fan but this is over the top.

Not requiring members to belong to a union is one thing.......not allowing unions at all is quite another.

Even right to work states don't outlaw unions....

I'll be voting, Nay.
Why not offer an amendment to the bill to make it less extreme?

Because I'm not sure I want to change the status quo.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 12, 2010, 01:32:50 PM
I'm no fan of unions, but I don't think we could totally ban them without violating our citizens' right of association.  We could make unionization more difficult by allowing workers to opt-out without paying dues and receiving the same fringe benefits.

Why are we treating public employee unions different that private sector employee unions here?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 12, 2010, 01:48:07 PM
This is not 18th Century and this bill is extreme even for not a fans of Union, what to say about me.

I'll vote nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on March 12, 2010, 04:05:30 PM
I don't think that it's right that we can ban unions completely--that sounds fishy. Because if we can ban unions it seems logical that we can violate people's right to associate, meaning that we can ban orchestras, ban newspapers, etc. Yes, I know what I just said a slippery slope argument, but we should not set a precedent for future generations to come. The right to free association is one of the most integral aspects in a free society, and we ought not diminish it.

That being said, I dislike unions. We should diminish their power, or at the very least, we should protect the rights of the employer so that the employer does not (legally) have to pander down to the unions.

With this bill, I will vote nay, but get rid of the outright ban on unions and it's likely I'll vote for it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 12, 2010, 04:12:57 PM
It's not an out right ban on unions (Han, Gramps). This bill only affects unionization of government employees. What purpose do these unions serve? Government is not a corporation out to make a profit, and I already listed the trade off of public jobs vs. private.

Kalwejt, you're absolutely right. This isn't the 1800s. That fact there makes unions relatively pointless. Working conditions are fine; wages are fair.

Speaker, I think we might need to extend the debate period on this bill, for a period I will leave up to your more experienced discretion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 12, 2010, 04:43:59 PM
I'm not opposed to Government employee unions as long as certian vital employees cannot strike.

The government employee unions do one good thing - they help ensure rank and file members don't get dismissed for something other than good cause, which can happen in a political environment.

In fact, government unions bother me less than private sector thugs like the teachers union and teamsters.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 12, 2010, 04:45:32 PM
I'm not opposed to Government employee unions as long as certian vital employees cannot strike.

The government employee unions do one good thing - they help ensure rank and file members don't get dismissed for something other than good cause, which can happen in a political environment.

In fact, government unions bother me less than private sector thugs like the teachers union and teamsters.

Teachers' unions are public employee unions, Gramps.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 12, 2010, 04:45:59 PM
I'm not opposed to Government employee unions as long as certian vital employees cannot strike.

The government employee unions do one good thing - they help ensure rank and file members don't get dismissed for something other than good cause, which can happen in a political environment.

In fact, government unions bother me less than private sector thugs like the teachers union and teamsters.

Good points.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 12, 2010, 04:49:35 PM
I wish Spade could teach me how to very cryptically say something without referring to it openly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 12, 2010, 05:25:32 PM
I will offer an amendment:

Quote
Practical Labor Policy Act

The Northeast government shall release itself from all union contracts effective immediately.


The Northeast region shall not allow public employees to form unions, seeing these as a violation of the free market and a threat to sustainable fiscal policy in the region.


The Northeast Government shall review and re-negotiate existing public employee contracts, benefits and pensions and work towards making more realistic and cost-effective contracts.

If a strike persists for one month, or if such a strike is detrimental to the business of the Northeast Government, the Northeast Government shall have the power to hire non-union replacements, either temporarily or permanently.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on March 12, 2010, 05:27:08 PM
I wish Spade could teach me how to very cryptically say something without referring to it openly.

We all do.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 12, 2010, 05:29:39 PM
I will accept Dallasfans amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on March 12, 2010, 06:12:43 PM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 13, 2010, 02:01:31 AM
How much longer of a debate period do you want?  The current vote is set for around 10PM Saturday.  Is Sunday afternoon sufficient?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 13, 2010, 03:20:07 AM
How much longer of a debate period do you want?  The current vote is set for around 10PM Saturday.  Is Sunday afternoon sufficient?

Yeah sure but I want to make certain that everyone's concerns are able to be addressed because this is really our only chance to pass labor reform.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 13, 2010, 07:53:24 AM
I'm not opposed to Government employee unions as long as certian vital employees cannot strike.

The government employee unions do one good thing - they help ensure rank and file members don't get dismissed for something other than good cause, which can happen in a political environment.

In fact, government unions bother me less than private sector thugs like the teachers union and teamsters.

Teachers' unions are public employee unions, Gramps.

Not really, but I concede your point on a technicality.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 13, 2010, 07:59:19 AM
I'm not opposed to Government employee unions as long as certian vital employees cannot strike.

The government employee unions do one good thing - they help ensure rank and file members don't get dismissed for something other than good cause, which can happen in a political environment.

In fact, government unions bother me less than private sector thugs like the teachers union and teamsters.

Teachers' unions are public employee unions, Gramps.

Not really, but I concede your point on a technicality.

Schools receive their funding from the government; they are not private and they are not operated for profit. I don't know what they would be considered if not public.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 13, 2010, 08:42:25 AM
I'm not opposed to Government employee unions as long as certian vital employees cannot strike.

The government employee unions do one good thing - they help ensure rank and file members don't get dismissed for something other than good cause, which can happen in a political environment.

In fact, government unions bother me less than private sector thugs like the teachers union and teamsters.

Teachers' unions are public employee unions, Gramps.

Not really, but I concede your point on a technicality.

Schools receive their funding from the government; they are not private and they are not operated for profit. I don't know what they would be considered if not public.

I really don't know anyone that regards them as a public union, but no matter, the teacher's unions negotiate locally with the school boards and the state's and certainly regions would not be involved in that.  I don't think a state/region could ban something which it doesn't control.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 13, 2010, 01:00:32 PM
()

Okay.  Debate will continue until 2:00PM on Sunday, March 14.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 13, 2010, 05:37:37 PM
Teachers' Unions Exposed

HERE (http://teachersunionexposed.com/state.cfm?state=ME)

And the other unions are just as bad, of course.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 13, 2010, 06:12:23 PM
Teachers' Unions Exposed

HERE (http://teachersunionexposed.com/state.cfm?state=ME)

And the other unions are just as bad, of course.

Do they use a black choopers too?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 13, 2010, 06:15:44 PM
Teachers' Unions Exposed

HERE (http://teachersunionexposed.com/state.cfm?state=ME)

And the other unions are just as bad, of course.

Do they use a black choopers too?

What the hell is a "black chooper"? ???


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 13, 2010, 06:34:04 PM
Uh, sorry, I mean copters (DA GOVERNMENT/EVUL UNIONZ CONSPIRACY!)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 13, 2010, 07:32:12 PM
Kalwejt, I must respectfully ask that you take your legislative duties more seriously.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 13, 2010, 07:59:40 PM
Kalwejt, I must respectfully ask that you take your legislative duties more seriously.

We both should.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 13, 2010, 08:01:04 PM
Kalwejt, I must respectfully ask that you take your legislative duties more seriously.

We both should.

I have not throw insults in this thread and I have not posted any thing unrelated to the subject of debate. I don't think I have to change anything myself.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 13, 2010, 08:05:44 PM
Kalwejt, I must respectfully ask that you take your legislative duties more seriously.

We both should.

I have not throw insults in this thread and I have not posted any thing unrelated to the subject of debate. I don't think I have to change anything myself.

Teachers' Unions Exposed

HERE (http://teachersunionexposed.com/state.cfm?state=ME)

And the other unions are just as bad, of course.

We, in Atlasia, don't know examples from a mytical country called America.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 13, 2010, 08:07:01 PM
I'm registered in a state called Maine, and that link provides info about something in Maine. Putting two and two together tells me you are wrong.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 13, 2010, 08:13:52 PM
Reading the Constitution is always a good idea, fwiw.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 13, 2010, 08:15:50 PM
Reading the Constitution is always a good idea, fwiw.

Can I get a link to the area of the Constitution relevant to this legislation, please?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 13, 2010, 08:20:38 PM
Reading the Constitution is always a good idea, fwiw.

Can I get a link to the area of the Constitution relevant to this legislation, please?

The Department of the Interior believes that literacy is important, so I'm afraid you'll have to find it for yourself, Motherwell. Though you might save yourself a few minutes if you look near the back.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 13, 2010, 08:25:09 PM
Reading the Constitution is always a good idea, fwiw.

Can I get a link to the area of the Constitution relevant to this legislation, please?

The Department of the Interior believes that literacy is important, so I'm afraid you'll have to find it for yourself, Motherwell. Though you might save yourself a few minutes if you look near the back.

If you are talking about this:

Quote
No agency of government shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We aren't saying they can't assemble, we are simply reserving our right to not enter contracts with the groups.

If you are talking about this:

Quote
Persons in employment shall have the right to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining, with such exceptions as the Senate may provide for by Law on the grounds of vital national interest.

I'm not sure if this clause relates to regions since the only grounds given for excepting is "vital national interest." And, if it does apply, I can say that our Assembly has the right do this due to a "vital regional interest" that can be implied.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 13, 2010, 08:43:18 PM
Hahahaha. Nice try, but not nearly good enough.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 13, 2010, 08:46:45 PM
Hahahaha. Nice try, but not nearly good enough.

That would be up to the Court, assuming this passes and gets challenged.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 13, 2010, 08:48:46 PM
Hahahaha. Nice try, but not nearly good enough.

That would be up to the Court, assuming this passes and gets challenged.

You know, I'm not entirely convinced that assuming functional illiteracy on the part of the Court is the best strategy in the World.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 13, 2010, 10:12:23 PM
Bear in mind that Segway's bill is now with my amendments (they were deemed friendly), so that should be taken into consideration.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on March 13, 2010, 11:47:02 PM
I rather like Dallasfan's amendment.  Originally I was a bit wary of the bill.  Although, I don't know about "or if such a strike is detrimental to the business of the Northeast Government."  That gives too much leeway for abuse, in my opinion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 13, 2010, 11:53:11 PM
Practical Labor Policy Act

The Northeast Government shall review and re-negotiate existing public employee contracts, benefits and pensions and work towards making more realistic and cost-effective contracts. The Northeast Government shall not enter into any contract that does not expire after a two-year period.

If a strike persists for one month, or if such a strike interferes with the ability of the Northeast Government to carry out its basic daily functions, the Northeast Government shall have the power to hire non-union replacements, either temporarily or permanently.


What do you guys think about this amendment?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on March 13, 2010, 11:54:27 PM
I like it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 13, 2010, 11:58:42 PM
I will support it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 13, 2010, 11:59:51 PM
Gramps? cinyc? Han? Lt. Governor?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on March 14, 2010, 12:02:45 AM
Practical Labor Policy Act

The Northeast Government shall review and re-negotiate existing public employee contracts, benefits and pensions and work towards making more realistic and cost-effective contracts. The Northeast Government shall not enter into any contract that does not expire after a two-year period.

If a strike persists for one month, or if such a strike interferes with the ability of the Northeast Government to carry out its basic daily functions, the Northeast Government shall have the power to hire non-union replacements, either temporarily or permanently.


What do you guys think about this amendment?

Quick question, and this may spur the need for regions (all of them) to actually write labor laws, but...

Can't any employer, public or private, always hire permanent non-union replacements in the event of a strike? It seems like this is hamstringing your government, not helping it. Of course, no one in Atlasia has any formal labor laws, so I'm basing that off the grandfathered US laws.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 14, 2010, 12:04:56 AM
^^^

If that is the case then I don't want to make us have to wait a whole month.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 14, 2010, 12:09:04 AM
^^^

If that is the case then I don't want to make us have to wait a whole month.

Yeah, I hadn't realized that. I figured it was just unlawful to do so. You may strike the latter provision and I'll still support it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on March 14, 2010, 12:09:16 AM
^^^

If that is the case then I don't want to make us have to wait a whole month.

I mean, it also matters whether it is a ULP (unfair labor practice) strike or an economic (hours, wages and other terms/conditions of employment) strike. These sorts of nuances really need a full-blown labor policy.

This Assembly has written some pretty hefty pieces of legislation on random things. This sort of thing seems one of those things that especially deserves an intricate and lengthy law.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 14, 2010, 12:10:25 AM
^^^

If that is the case then I don't want to make us have to wait a whole month.

I mean, it also matters whether it is a ULP (unfair labor practice) strike or an economic (hours, wages and other terms/conditions of employment) strike. These sorts of nuances really need a full-blown labor policy.

This Assembly has written some pretty hefty pieces of legislation on random things. This sort of thing seems one of those things that especially deserves an intricate and lengthy law.

Is there any data or suggestions you have for us regarding this? I mean, we might as well use this opportunity to get things done right the first time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 14, 2010, 12:22:47 AM
^^^

If that is the case then I don't want to make us have to wait a whole month.

I mean, it also matters whether it is a ULP (unfair labor practice) strike or an economic (hours, wages and other terms/conditions of employment) strike. These sorts of nuances really need a full-blown labor policy.

This Assembly has written some pretty hefty pieces of legislation on random things. This sort of thing seems one of those things that especially deserves an intricate and lengthy law.

Is there any data or suggestions you have for us regarding this? I mean, we might as well use this opportunity to get things done right the first time.

We should first vote on this bill, and then work to craft such legislation in private, as to not bog down the work of the Assembly. I'm in agreement, though, and would like to contribute if possible.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 14, 2010, 12:24:51 AM
^^^

If that is the case then I don't want to make us have to wait a whole month.

I mean, it also matters whether it is a ULP (unfair labor practice) strike or an economic (hours, wages and other terms/conditions of employment) strike. These sorts of nuances really need a full-blown labor policy.

This Assembly has written some pretty hefty pieces of legislation on random things. This sort of thing seems one of those things that especially deserves an intricate and lengthy law.

Is there any data or suggestions you have for us regarding this? I mean, we might as well use this opportunity to get things done right the first time.

We should first vote on this bill, and then work to craft such legislation in private, as to not bog down the work of the Assembly. I'm in agreement, though, and would like to contribute if possible.

Well there isn't much in the queue though anyways.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on March 14, 2010, 12:41:33 AM
I likely have very different ideas about labor than many of you, so I will refrain from recommendations as to what policies you should implement. I would recommend, however, that you skim the US policies on labor, specifically the National Labor Relations Act and the amending Taft-Hartlet Act.

Also, a review of the Employee Free Choice Act and the arguments for/against should give you a pretty good idea of where to go.

Here are things a law would consist of:
Definition of who may unionize and who may not
Definition of the rights of all workers and the rights of all employers
Definition of unfair labor practices (by both the employer and the union)
Definition of what the punishments for ULPs are
Outlining how to unionize
Defining what topics unions and employers may bargain on, how they may bargain, what happens if they cannot agree, etc.
Strikes

That should give you plenty to chew on. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lief 🗽 on March 14, 2010, 12:50:16 AM
I'm not sure if private citizens of the Northeast are allowed to post here, but I strongly urge the Assembly to defeat this bill. The government of the Northeast should be setting an example to private business entities, rewarding the hard-working men and women who run our region, who teach our children, who keep us safe, who ensure that everything in the background is churning along smoothly so that our lives can continue unharassed by inconvenience, with good wages, good benefits and good pensions. This bill is a direct and unprovoked attack on working Northeasterners, who are being punished for fighting for a decent, middle-class life. Don't be the session of the assembly that ensured that the wages and benefits of public servants were cut or that prolonged strikes and conflict shut down the government.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 14, 2010, 08:26:51 AM
For reference, Taft-Hartley is no more:

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

Of course part of that act has yet to be implemented (probably the NAO should be incorporated into the DoI), but the first sections are in force.

I should also point out that the DoI is likely to take a dim view of regionally-sponsored blacklegging.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 14, 2010, 08:33:17 AM
Here are things a law would consist of:
Definition of who may unionize and who may not
Definition of the rights of all workers and the rights of all employers
Definition of unfair labor practices (by both the employer and the union)
Definition of what the punishments for ULPs are
Outlining how to unionize
Defining what topics unions and employers may bargain on, how they may bargain, what happens if they cannot agree, etc.
Strikes

Laws covering these areas would also be blatantly unconstitutional. They can't to much more than introduce USC's (which don't exist in the Northeast in real life, and maybe not in fantasyland). They have as much a right to undermine Unions as the Pacific does to restrict gun ownership...

I gather that the guy when stuck a constitutional protection for collective bargaining into the Constitution used a picture of a miner as his avatar on the forum where the Constitution was drawn up. Not sure where is his these days.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on March 14, 2010, 11:11:24 AM
Here are things a law would consist of:
Definition of who may unionize and who may not
Definition of the rights of all workers and the rights of all employers
Definition of unfair labor practices (by both the employer and the union)
Definition of what the punishments for ULPs are
Outlining how to unionize
Defining what topics unions and employers may bargain on, how they may bargain, what happens if they cannot agree, etc.
Strikes

Laws covering these areas would also be blatantly unconstitutional. They can't to much more than introduce USC's (which don't exist in the Northeast in real life, and maybe not in fantasyland). They have as much a right to undermine Unions as the Pacific does to restrict gun ownership...

I gather that the guy when stuck a constitutional protection for collective bargaining into the Constitution used a picture of a miner as his avatar on the forum where the Constitution was drawn up. Not sure where is his these days.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, the Constitution is saying that anyone in Atlasia may join a union and bargain collectively. Public vs. private employment, assembly line vs. supervisor vs. management, etc. are all able to unionize?

Also, why can't a region define ULPs and how they are to be punished, the rights of workers, outlining a process to unionize?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on March 14, 2010, 12:30:29 PM
Realpolitik full well knows how close that vote was at the CC, and I know that almost didn't sign the Constitution as a result (along with the right to bear arms, which was corrected later, as I suspected it would be).  It wasn't "slipped in".  I abstained from approving at the Regional level precisely because of it.

That being said, the simple fact is that, in my view, that amendment basically sends most attempts to regulate unionization out the window.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 14, 2010, 01:53:49 PM
Seems like there's a lot gng on, so I will extend debate until 2:30PM tomorrow (Monday).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 14, 2010, 02:18:12 PM
Realpolitik full well knows how close that vote was at the CC, and I know that almost didn't sign the Constitution as a result (along with the right to bear arms, which was corrected later, as I suspected it would be).  It wasn't "slipped in".  I abstained from approving at the Regional level precisely because of it.

Litotes ;D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 14, 2010, 02:56:15 PM
Seems like there's a lot gng on, so I will extend debate until 2:30PM tomorrow (Monday).

Can you clip summarize all pending legislation and when the votes will take place?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 14, 2010, 04:34:26 PM
Seems like there's a lot gng on, so I will extend debate until 2:30PM tomorrow (Monday).

Can you clip summarize all pending legislation and when the votes will take place?

The current bill is the only thing we are currently working on, and voting will begin Monday.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on March 14, 2010, 08:31:41 PM
Realpolitik full well knows how close that vote was at the CC, and I know that almost didn't sign the Constitution as a result (along with the right to bear arms, which was corrected later, as I suspected it would be).  It wasn't "slipped in".  I abstained from approving at the Regional level precisely because of it.

That being said, the simple fact is that, in my view, that amendment basically sends most attempts to regulate unionization out the window.

The problem is that "unionization" is a pretty meaningless term without a law defining what it is and how it occurs. If it is impossible for anyone to define unionization, unfair labor practices, rights of employees and employers, and subjects of bargaining, isn't the result anarchy?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on March 14, 2010, 10:28:06 PM
Realpolitik full well knows how close that vote was at the CC, and I know that almost didn't sign the Constitution as a result (along with the right to bear arms, which was corrected later, as I suspected it would be).  It wasn't "slipped in".  I abstained from approving at the Regional level precisely because of it.

That being said, the simple fact is that, in my view, that amendment basically sends most attempts to regulate unionization out the window.

The problem is that "unionization" is a pretty meaningless term without a law defining what it is and how it occurs. If it is impossible for anyone to define unionization, unfair labor practices, rights of employees and employers, and subjects of bargaining, isn't the result anarchy?

No, it means that you know who holds the cards in all labor disputes within Atlasia.  Which should have been written into your GM scenario in the past, but has understandably been ignored (after all - who here really reads the Constitution). :)

Let me additionally point out that the previous statement that I made was rather glib and did not detail the whole situation, in my view.  While I would submit that any law which limited "the right to organize" would certainly be overturned, laws, for example, regulating the process of collective bargaining might be outside its scope so long as they don't infringe on the "right to organize", whatever that entails.

Of course, given who's on the Court right now, all I can suggest is "pass a law and see what happens."  And secondly, "good luck, you're going to need it"...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on March 14, 2010, 10:29:50 PM
Realpolitik full well knows how close that vote was at the CC, and I know that almost didn't sign the Constitution as a result (along with the right to bear arms, which was corrected later, as I suspected it would be).  It wasn't "slipped in".  I abstained from approving at the Regional level precisely because of it.

Litotes ;D

Didn't know you were using it in "that way".  Makes complete sense now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 14, 2010, 10:33:20 PM
The Constitution could be read easier if it were all on a single wiki page, I don't have much patience to go through a gazillion windows for something largely based on the US Constitution and maintaining little relevance to the position I'm actually serving. I hope someone with a wiki account could actually adress this concern too.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on March 14, 2010, 10:40:50 PM
The Constitution could be read easier if it were all on a single wiki page, I don't have much patience to go through a gazillion windows for something largely based on the US Constitution and maintaining little relevance to the position I'm actually serving. I hope someone with a wiki account could actually adress this concern too.

I've had this same issue.  It would be nice if it were on a single page.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on March 14, 2010, 10:42:41 PM
No disagreements here.  I think putting it on a single page would be smart.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 14, 2010, 11:03:13 PM
I'd probably vote for the proposed amendment as long as it might be constituional.  What section of the constitution are we talking about?  I do have some reservations with section 1.  While we might want to reopen existing contracts, they should be honored.  A contract is a contract.

Could we enact something like NY's Taylor Law, which fines public employees (most often, teachers, but recently, public transit workers, too) 2 days' pay for every day they're on strike?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 14, 2010, 11:09:54 PM
^^^^^

I would support that if you wrote up an amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 15, 2010, 04:45:48 AM
My proposed changes are in red below:

Practical Labor Policy Act

1. The Northeast Government shall review and re-negotiate existing public employee contracts, benefits and pensions and work towards making more realistic and cost-effective contracts. The Northeast Government shall not enter into any contract that does not expire after a two-year period, measured from the date the contract enters into effect.

2.  Any new contract shall specify a mechanism for negotiating renewals, and shall provide that Northeast employees receive the same salary and benefits as during the last period of any current expired contract while a new contract is being negotiated.  Pay raises and benefit levels in subsequent contracts may be applied retroactively, as negotiated.

3.  Any new contract shall contain a penalty provision requiring any Northeast public employee who strikes or engages in a major work stoppage against the Northeast Government to pay two days' salary for every one day of such strike or stoppage, unless permanently replaced.

4. If a strike persists for one month, or if such a strike interferes with the ability of the Northeast Government to carry out its basic daily functions, the Northeast Government shall have the power to hire non-union replacements, either temporarily or permanently.

5. All new contracts shall provide that any Northeast employee who does not wish to join the relevant public employee shall have the right not to, and shall not be required to pay any dues to the union.  Such contract shall provide that union must provide any union-provided negotiated fringe benefit to any employee who opts out at the same out-of-pocket cost to the opting-out employee as union members.

6.  All new contracts shall provide that no union dues withheld by the Northeast Government be set aside for political activity.  Such contracts shall provide that Northeast public employee unions may not penalize any Northeast employee who refuses to voluntarily contribute to any union political activity fund.

7.  Any provision of this law may be waived in a particular contract negotiation by a majority vote of this Assembly and actual or deemed consent of the Governor.  If the Governor vetoes any waiver passed by the Assembly, that veto may be overridden in accordance with the usual veto override process.

8. If any provision of this law is declared unconstitutional, all provisions of this law not expressly declared unconstitutional shall remain the law of the Northeast.
------------
I don't see how this is unconstitutional.  Our public employees have the right to collectively bargain, but the Northeast as employer, has the right to set our terms, too, as part of that bargaining process.  Given the constraints of the game, we can't do this on a contract -by-contract basis.  This puts our employees on notice about what those terms will be for future contracts.  


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 15, 2010, 04:27:50 PM
Rep. segwaystyle, do you deem Rep. cinyc's amendments friendly?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 15, 2010, 04:28:59 PM
Rep. segwaystyle, do you deem Rep. cinyc's amendments friendly?

With the exception of this "If a strike persists for one month, or if such a strike interferes with the ability of the Northeast Government to carry out its basic daily functions," yes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 15, 2010, 04:37:44 PM
()

Alright, we'll hold a vote now for this amendment, specifically on the red clause:

Quote
If a strike persists for one month, or if such a strike interferes with the ability of the Northeast Government to carry out its basic daily functions, the Northeast Government shall have the power to hire non-union replacements, either temporarily or permanently.

Voting shall be open until 5:30 on Tuesday, March 15, 2010 , or until all representatives have voted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 15, 2010, 04:38:37 PM
Nay

If this amendment fails I'd like the text to read:

Quote
In the event of a strike, the Northeast Government shall have the power to hire non-union replacements, either temporarily or permanently.

for clarity purposes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 15, 2010, 04:58:14 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 15, 2010, 06:59:10 PM
I took that language from the previous amendment (Dallasfan's?).  I'm not wedded to it, so nay.

Rep. Segway Style's alternative is acceptable.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on March 15, 2010, 10:49:35 PM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 15, 2010, 10:57:24 PM
Nay - at the time I drafted it, I didn't realize that our government had as much leeway as it did.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 16, 2010, 07:56:45 AM
Nay

(My good colleague cinyc, 1 hour to vote?  c'mon)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 16, 2010, 02:23:06 PM
Nay

(My good colleague cinyc, 1 hour to vote?  c'mon)

As Speaker, I almost always wait until someone else has voted before casting a vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on March 16, 2010, 02:40:27 PM
I like Segway's proposed text.

I'll stop bothering you guys.  Carry on.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 16, 2010, 04:38:35 PM
Alright, the Amendment fails unanimously with one abstention.

()

Now to vote on the final bill:

Quote
Practical Labor Policy Act

1. The Northeast Government shall review and re-negotiate existing public employee contracts, benefits and pensions and work towards making more realistic and cost-effective contracts. The Northeast Government shall not enter into any contract that does not expire after a two-year period, measured from the date the contract enters into effect.

2.  Any new contract shall specify a mechanism for negotiating renewals, and shall provide that Northeast employees receive the same salary and benefits as during the last period of any current expired contract while a new contract is being negotiated.  Pay raises and benefit levels in subsequent contracts may be applied retroactively, as negotiated.

3.  Any new contract shall contain a penalty provision requiring any Northeast public employee who strikes or engages in a major work stoppage against the Northeast Government to pay two days' salary for every one day of such strike or stoppage, unless permanently replaced.

4. In the event of a strike, the Northeast Government shall have the power to hire non-union replacements, either temporarily or permanently.

5. All new contracts shall provide that any Northeast employee who does not wish to join the relevant public employee shall have the right not to, and shall not be required to pay any dues to the union.  Such contract shall provide that union must provide any union-provided negotiated fringe benefit to any employee who opts out at the same out-of-pocket cost to the opting-out employee as union members.

6.  All new contracts shall provide that no union dues withheld by the Northeast Government be set aside for political activity.  Such contracts shall provide that Northeast public employee unions may not penalize any Northeast employee who refuses to voluntarily contribute to any union political activity fund.

7.  Any provision of this law may be waived in a particular contract negotiation by a majority vote of this Assembly and actual or deemed consent of the Governor.  If the Governor vetoes any waiver passed by the Assembly, that veto may be overridden in accordance with the usual veto override process.

8. If any provision of this law is declared unconstitutional, all provisions of this law not expressly declared unconstitutional shall remain the law of the Northeast.


Voting shall be open until 5:30 on Thursday, March 18, 2010, or until all representatives have voted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 16, 2010, 04:39:12 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 16, 2010, 04:42:41 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on March 16, 2010, 05:15:05 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 16, 2010, 06:16:27 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on March 17, 2010, 12:09:56 AM
Uhhh abstain. Sorry for the absence Midterms week.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on March 17, 2010, 01:01:24 AM
I want to change my vote to Aye after reading the GM report. The union is out of control.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on March 17, 2010, 01:15:32 AM
I don't consider myself anti-union. I don't want to vote in favor of this legislation. But if the unions think that now, in the midst of a budget crisis, is the right time to play petty political games with the government, at a time when everyone else is having to cut back and do more for less, at a time when we can't have things handed to us on a silver platter as they once were, that they can expect the same leniency they once had because our government entered an agreement without proper foresight of the critical times ahead, then they are wrong. I think what this threat is, is a demonstration that the unions are out of control, they are too powerful and they are unwilling to negotiate at the same table everyone else is sitting at. As for my table, there is less food on it. We all need to sacrifice at some point and grandstanding on an issue and causing further damage to the small improvements we've been able to make has made my decision for me. Sorry.

In these times of high unemployment people should be willing to do a job for any price they can get and unfortunately the money isn't there to go around like it once was. Those we appreciate their employment will not strike, those who are willing to give that up so easily deserve to be replaced.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 17, 2010, 08:58:45 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 17, 2010, 01:43:01 PM
Richard Stern from the UNEPSE neither understands the Practical Labor Policy Act nor the plight of ordinary hard-working private sector Atlasians who are having hard times making ends meet.

The bill calls for contract renegotiations.  It does not mandate them.   Current contracts will be honored until their terms expire.  Any strike would be a breach of current union contracts - and this Assembly will take whatever action is necessary to stop any illegal UNEPSE strike. 

Nor does the bill MANDATE any penalty for strikes.  Instead, the Northeast will be asking that future public employee union contracts PROVIDE FOR a penalty for strikes in upcoming contract negotiations.  That requirement is waiveable if the Assembly and governor agrees.

What this bill does is set minimum standards for the upcoming contract renegotiations.

Richard Stern doesn't get it.  There are millions of unemployed Northeasterners who would LOVE to have a government job right now.  There are millions of Northeasterners who are struggling to make ends meet.  The Northeast Government can no longer afford to lavish public employees with salaries and benefits that are far in excess of what's available to Northeasterners in the private sector. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on March 17, 2010, 11:04:46 PM
Richard Stern from the UNEPSE neither understands the Practical Labor Policy Act nor the plight of ordinary hard-working private sector Atlasians who are having hard times making ends meet.

The bill calls for contract renegotiations.  It does not mandate them.   Current contracts will be honored until their terms expire.  Any strike would be a breach of current union contracts - and this Assembly will take whatever action is necessary to stop any illegal UNEPSE strike. 

Nor does the bill MANDATE any penalty for strikes.  Instead, the Northeast will be asking that future public employee union contracts PROVIDE FOR a penalty for strikes in upcoming contract negotiations.  That requirement is waiveable if the Assembly and governor agrees.

What this bill does is set minimum standards for the upcoming contract renegotiations.

Richard Stern doesn't get it.  There are millions of unemployed Northeasterners who would LOVE to have a government job right now.  There are millions of Northeasterners who are struggling to make ends meet.  The Northeast Government can no longer afford to lavish public employees with salaries and benefits that are far in excess of what's available to Northeasterners in the private sector. 

Just for the record, "shall" implies mandating an action.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 18, 2010, 12:16:16 AM
Richard Stern from the UNEPSE neither understands the Practical Labor Policy Act nor the plight of ordinary hard-working private sector Atlasians who are having hard times making ends meet.

The bill calls for contract renegotiations.  It does not mandate them.   Current contracts will be honored until their terms expire.  Any strike would be a breach of current union contracts - and this Assembly will take whatever action is necessary to stop any illegal UNEPSE strike. 

Nor does the bill MANDATE any penalty for strikes.  Instead, the Northeast will be asking that future public employee union contracts PROVIDE FOR a penalty for strikes in upcoming contract negotiations.  That requirement is waiveable if the Assembly and governor agrees.

What this bill does is set minimum standards for the upcoming contract renegotiations.

Richard Stern doesn't get it.  There are millions of unemployed Northeasterners who would LOVE to have a government job right now.  There are millions of Northeasterners who are struggling to make ends meet.  The Northeast Government can no longer afford to lavish public employees with salaries and benefits that are far in excess of what's available to Northeasterners in the private sector. 

Just for the record, "shall" implies mandating an action.

Yeah - the Northeast is going to review and renegotiate public employee union contracts.   That's what the bill says.  But any renegotiated agreement needs support from both sides.  Nothing in the bill says that the Northeast would breach our obligations under existing contracts if the unions don't wish to renegotiate.   Nothing in the bill says the Northeast will unilaterally impose its demands on public employee unions.

What the bill really does is set forward this Assembly's clear guidelines on what we'd expect in new union contracts, whether renegotiated or negotiated because of expiration.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 18, 2010, 03:51:50 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 18, 2010, 06:01:52 PM
By a vote of 6-1, the bill PASSES.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 18, 2010, 06:08:59 PM
Next up:

()

Quote
Self Defense Act

1. The Northeast Region shall protect the right of any citizen to use lethal force to protect his life, liberty, or property.

Sponsor:
Rep. segwaystyle 2012

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 7:15PM Eastern on Saturday, March 20, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative segwaystyle2012, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Badger on March 18, 2010, 06:52:40 PM
My proposed changes are in red below:

Practical Labor Policy Act

1. The Northeast Government shall review and re-negotiate existing public employee contracts, benefits and pensions and work towards making more realistic and cost-effective contracts. The Northeast Government shall not enter into any contract that does not expire after a two-year period, measured from the date the contract enters into effect.

2.  Any new contract shall specify a mechanism for negotiating renewals, and shall provide that Northeast employees receive the same salary and benefits as during the last period of any current expired contract while a new contract is being negotiated.  Pay raises and benefit levels in subsequent contracts may be applied retroactively, as negotiated.

3.  Any new contract shall contain a penalty provision requiring any Northeast public employee who strikes or engages in a major work stoppage against the Northeast Government to pay two days' salary for every one day of such strike or stoppage, unless permanently replaced.

4. If a strike persists for one month, or if such a strike interferes with the ability of the Northeast Government to carry out its basic daily functions, the Northeast Government shall have the power to hire non-union replacements, either temporarily or permanently.

5. All new contracts shall provide that any Northeast employee who does not wish to join the relevant public employee shall have the right not to, and shall not be required to pay any dues to the union.  Such contract shall provide that union must provide any union-provided negotiated fringe benefit to any employee who opts out at the same out-of-pocket cost to the opting-out employee as union members.

6.  All new contracts shall provide that no union dues withheld by the Northeast Government be set aside for political activity.  Such contracts shall provide that Northeast public employee unions may not penalize any Northeast employee who refuses to voluntarily contribute to any union political activity fund.

7.  Any provision of this law may be waived in a particular contract negotiation by a majority vote of this Assembly and actual or deemed consent of the Governor.  If the Governor vetoes any waiver passed by the Assembly, that veto may be overridden in accordance with the usual veto override process.

8. If any provision of this law is declared unconstitutional, all provisions of this law not expressly declared unconstitutional shall remain the law of the Northeast.
------------
I don't see how this is unconstitutional.  Our public employees have the right to collectively bargain, but the Northeast as employer, has the right to set our terms, too, as part of that bargaining process.  Given the constraints of the game, we can't do this on a contract -by-contract basis.  This puts our employees on notice about what those terms will be for future contracts.  

Section 3 is patently unconstitutional. Assessing a day's wage's penalty  (as opposed to merely not paying a salary) is assessing a fine for constitutionally protected organizing and striking. regardless of whether one penalizes striking with life in prison or a $100 fine, that still makes conduct illegal. And the fact it's being done as a contract makes no difference whatsoever. Even private agencies are SEVERELY limited in allowing employees to validly contract away their constitutional and legal rights. For the government, as a state actor, to attempt doing so makes such provisions not worth the paper they're printed on.

My wild guess is that almost no one--maybe no one period--on this forum belongs to a union household, but that's another issue altogether.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 18, 2010, 07:20:44 PM
Section 3 is patently unconstitutional. Assessing a day's wage's penalty  (as opposed to merely not paying a salary) is assessing a fine for constitutionally protected organizing and striking. regardless of whether one penalizes striking with life in prison or a $100 fine, that still makes conduct illegal. And the fact it's being done as a contract makes no difference whatsoever. Even private agencies are SEVERELY limited in allowing employees to validly contract away their constitutional and legal rights. For the government, as a state actor, to attempt doing so makes such provisions not worth the paper they're printed on.

My wild guess is that almost no one--maybe no one period--on this forum belongs to a union household, but that's another issue altogether.

Really?  New York's Taylor Law does just that REGARDLESS of what it says in public employee contracts - and is perfectly constitutional.  It also takes away future dues withholding for public employee unions that strike.

Of course, the leftist, activist Atlasian Supreme Court may see things otherwise.  But in my view, the Northeast as employer can negotiate whatever we want into our union contracts.

Your assumption that nobody on this forum being in a union household is wrong, I'm sure.  In states that aren't right-to-work states (like many in the U.S. Northeast), people are FORCED to join unions or pay useless dues for no benefit against their will as a condition of employment.    Talk about the ultimate violation of freedom of association - the right not to associate with or pay tribute to union thugs with whom you vehemently disagree.  People in union households don't necessarily like unions.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on March 18, 2010, 07:43:31 PM
My mother is a teacher-- I'm in a union household.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on March 18, 2010, 10:47:16 PM
My wild guess is that almost no one--maybe no one period--on this forum belongs to a union household, but that's another issue altogether.

In the NYC area, that would generally require me to engage in a certain amount of criminal activities I'd prefer not to.  :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Badger on March 19, 2010, 11:40:21 AM
Section 3 is patently unconstitutional. Assessing a day's wage's penalty  (as opposed to merely not paying a salary) is assessing a fine for constitutionally protected organizing and striking. regardless of whether one penalizes striking with life in prison or a $100 fine, that still makes conduct illegal. And the fact it's being done as a contract makes no difference whatsoever. Even private agencies are SEVERELY limited in allowing employees to validly contract away their constitutional and legal rights. For the government, as a state actor, to attempt doing so makes such provisions not worth the paper they're printed on.

My wild guess is that almost no one--maybe no one period--on this forum belongs to a union household, but that's another issue altogether.

Really?  New York's Taylor Law does just that REGARDLESS of what it says in public employee contracts - and is perfectly constitutional.  It also takes away future dues withholding for public employee unions that strike.

Of course, the leftist, activist Atlasian Supreme Court may see things otherwise.  But in my view, the Northeast as employer can negotiate whatever we want into our union contracts.

Your assumption that nobody on this forum being in a union household is wrong, I'm sure.  In states that aren't right-to-work states (like many in the U.S. Northeast), people are FORCED to join unions or pay useless dues for no benefit against their will as a condition of employment.    Talk about the ultimate violation of freedom of association - the right not to associate with or pay tribute to union thugs with whom you vehemently disagree.  People in union households don't necessarily like unions.

But unlike the Taylor Law this act doesn't mandate mediation and (key here) binding arbitration as an alternative for resolving the strike, potentially in the strikers favor. Without such recourse legally binding the regional government to resolve a labor dispute, this simply (and, again, arguably unconstitutionally) criminalizes striking by public employees.

EDIT: Here's a thought. Why not amend the law to include any and all state government administrators with authority--including shared authority--to negotiate and/or resolve a particular labor dispute on the state's behalf, and fine them 2 days pay for every day a strike lasts? Hey, it takes two to tango.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 19, 2010, 01:53:27 PM
But unlike the Taylor Law this act doesn't mandate mediation and (key here) binding arbitration as an alternative for resolving the strike, potentially in the strikers favor. Without such recourse legally binding the regional government to resolve a labor dispute, this simply (and, again, arguably unconstitutionally) criminalizes striking by public employees.

EDIT: Here's a thought. Why not amend the law to include any and all state government administrators with authority--including shared authority--to negotiate and/or resolve a particular labor dispute on the state's behalf, and fine them 2 days pay for every day a strike lasts? Hey, it takes two to tango.


I disagree with your analysis.  Even if I agreed, we don't need to amend the bill.  Again, all most of the bill does (well, at least the provisions I drafted) is set minimum standards for future public employee union contracts.  Any binding arbitration or other provision can be built into future contracts in the negotiation process.  By the way, almost all minimum provisions are waiveable by another Assembly vote on a case-by-case basis.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 19, 2010, 01:54:07 PM
Does Rep. segwaystyle seek to speak on behalf of the bill on the floor?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 19, 2010, 01:54:25 PM
Hey Badger, you're a member of NE Assembly?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 19, 2010, 01:57:51 PM
Hey Badger, you're a member of NE Assembly?

Badger and all other citizens of the Northeast - and Atlasia in general - are welcome to provide feedback on this thread.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 19, 2010, 02:05:23 PM
Hey Badger, you're a member of NE Assembly?

Badger and all other citizens of the Northeast - and Atlasia in general - are welcome to provide feedback on this thread.

You, know cinyc, how can I harass my good friend and Pittsburgher of the diaspora, Badger, if you take this kind of attitude.  :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 19, 2010, 03:04:41 PM
Does Rep. segwaystyle seek to speak on behalf of the bill on the floor?

No.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 19, 2010, 03:27:55 PM
Other than to say I'm opposed to the bill,  I have no meaningful thing to add in debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 19, 2010, 03:29:47 PM
Other than to say I'm opposed to the bill,  I have no meaningful thing to add in debate.

Why


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 19, 2010, 03:37:48 PM
Other than to say I'm opposed to the bill,  I have no meaningful thing to add in debate.

Why

The right exists......what "protection" are you suggesting is needed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 19, 2010, 03:40:02 PM
Other than to say I'm opposed to the bill,  I have no meaningful thing to add in debate.

Why

The right exists......what "protection" are you suggesting is needed.

This legislation affirms our legal right to protect ourselves, our families, and our belongings. It ensures that the legal system will consider self-defense circumstances when relevant.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 19, 2010, 03:41:45 PM
Other than to say I'm opposed to the bill,  I have no meaningful thing to add in debate.

Why

The right exists......what "protection" are you suggesting is needed.

This legislation affirms our legal right to protect ourselves, our families, and our belongings. It ensures that the legal system will consider self-defense circumstances when relevant.

I don't think your bill says that at all, and as a general rule, in real life and in the game, I'm opposed to motions that {re}affirm something.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 19, 2010, 03:42:39 PM
Other than to say I'm opposed to the bill,  I have no meaningful thing to add in debate.

Why

The right exists......what "protection" are you suggesting is needed.

This legislation affirms our legal right to protect ourselves, our families, and our belongings. It ensures that the legal system will consider self-defense circumstances when relevant.

I don't think your bill says that at all, and as a general rule, in real life and in the game, I'm opposed to motions that {re}affirm something.

This isn't affirmed anywhere in NE law. If it is, excuse my ignorance. I've found nothing.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on March 19, 2010, 03:45:54 PM
Can I kill someone I catch stealing my paperclips here at work?

Or better, can my employer kill me if I try to sneak a few of those paperclips into my pocket tonight on the way home?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 19, 2010, 03:47:08 PM
Can I kill someone I catch stealing my paperclips here at work?

Or better, can my employer kill me if I try to sneak a few of those paperclips into my pocket tonight on the way home?

I'm not certain you grasp the intent of this proposal.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Badger on March 19, 2010, 04:03:47 PM
Hey Badger, you're a member of NE Assembly?

Badger and all other citizens of the Northeast - and Atlasia in general - are welcome to provide feedback on this thread.

You, know cinyc, how can I harass my good friend and Pittsburgher of the diaspora, Badger, if you take this kind of attitude.  :P

Yeah cinyc! How dare you stick up for me when Grumpy gives me s$%t? :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Badger on March 19, 2010, 04:10:35 PM
BTW: Since I'm on a role sticking my nose in to other region's assembly business:

IMHO this bill needs some common sense limitations regarding use of deadly force vs. ordinary force and protection of property vs., say, protection of one's home from intruders.

As self-defense stems largely from common law, it wouldn't surprise me there is no statute specifically codifying the right in the NE's laws, but that by no means is to say the right doesn't exist under NE law.

Codifiying self-defense of property may not be a bad idea, but as currently proposed it does leave open the kind of undesirable scenarios Mr. M noted.

My two cents.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on March 19, 2010, 04:34:40 PM
I agree that it might be sensible to mention something about justifiable use of deadly force, for defense of property.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 19, 2010, 04:35:55 PM
I agree that it might be sensible to mention something about justifiable use of deadly force, for defense of property.

Thank you for your input Governor. I will confer with other Representatives.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 19, 2010, 04:41:48 PM
I'm not against self-defense, which is something natural. All I want to put there, is very unclear language of the bill.

Thanks in advantage.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 19, 2010, 04:42:46 PM
I'm not against self-defense, which is something natural. All I want to put there, is very unclear language of the bill.

Thanks in advantage.

Do you have any suggestions? :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 20, 2010, 02:05:48 PM
Then why not just add "justifiable" somewhere in the bill such as:

The Northeast Region shall protect the right of any citizen to use lethal, justifiable force to protect his life, liberty, or property.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on March 20, 2010, 03:20:33 PM
Then why not just add "justifiable" somewhere in the bill such as:

The Northeast Region shall protect the right of any citizen to use lethal, justifiable force to protect his life, liberty, or property.


I'd support that amendment


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on March 20, 2010, 04:54:40 PM
Then why not just add "justifiable" somewhere in the bill such as:

The Northeast Region shall protect the right of any citizen to use lethal, justifiable force to protect his life, liberty, or property.


And whether or not force was "justifiable" is up for the courts to decide, on a case-by-case sort of basis.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 20, 2010, 05:05:26 PM
Accepted as friendly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 20, 2010, 06:04:18 PM
Then I'd support that. Of course use of unjustifiable force will be illegal?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 20, 2010, 06:23:51 PM
Alright, with the amendment deemed friendly, going to open up the amended bill for a vote now:

()

Quote
Self Defense Act

The Northeast Region shall protect the right of any citizen to use lethal, justifiable force to protect his life, liberty, or property.


Voting on this bill will continue until at least 7:30PM Eastern on Monday, March 22, 2010, or until all Representatives have voted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 20, 2010, 07:36:52 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on March 20, 2010, 07:49:26 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 20, 2010, 08:38:44 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 20, 2010, 08:45:37 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 20, 2010, 09:25:07 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on March 21, 2010, 01:53:18 AM
May I have everyone's attention?

I just received this bit of news:

Quote
Richard Stern, president of the Union for Northeast Public Service Employees, has approached to initiate negotiations on the region's labor policy.

As of now, the union is set to begin its region-wide strike of all public sector employees on Monday.

Analysts estimate that a successful strike would cost the region between $20-$30 million per day. The Union has a sizable strike fund and 6 million workers. It is believed that there is currently a 75% chance of a successful strike for at least a week.

The Union has made three requests:

1. An executive order clarifying that Section 1 of the Practical Labor Policy Act will allow all standing contracts with UNEPSE to come to term before re-negotiation.

2. An assurance that Section 3 of the PLPA will be removed in amending legislation with the support of the governor.

3. A law that promotes standard wage increases over profit-sharing, through economic incentives for businesses to use the former or to not use the latter.

What is your take on this?  I can certainly provide for the first request, but it's up to you for the last two.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on March 21, 2010, 01:57:06 AM
And just letting you all know, for full disclosure, I will be acting as the "voice" of the union.

I hope that's okay with you all. I will try to be as honest and unbiased as possible in the portrayal of the situation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 21, 2010, 02:06:16 AM
I'm so happy we have regional governments and all the good they provide.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 21, 2010, 02:07:43 AM
I'm so happy we have regional governments and all the good they provide.

We are in the middle of a vote here. Begone troll.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 21, 2010, 02:08:59 AM
I will oppose any attempts to amend the law and fully oppose any legislation supported by Stern and his cronies. I will be leading a coalition that will hope to persuade the governor to approve immediate contract renegotiation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 21, 2010, 08:54:07 AM
As I haven;t receive and reply and due to Lt. Governor quick vote to move I hadn't a time to discuss that one deeper

Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 21, 2010, 12:23:54 PM
Richard Stern can go pound sand.  I have no problem with 1, but will not be bullied by union thugs into amending laws. 

If his workers go on an illegal strike, we should just fire them all and replace them.   It's not like there aren't enough unemployed workers in the Northeast who would love to have a job right now.  They have a contract - and should live up to it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 21, 2010, 12:27:00 PM
Wait, what are we voting/discussing now? Union thing or self-defense thing?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 21, 2010, 12:42:25 PM
Wait, what are we voting/discussing now? Union thing or self-defense thing?

Voting on self-defense.  Discussing both.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on March 21, 2010, 12:58:41 PM
I will oppose any attempts to amend the law and fully oppose any legislation supported by Stern and his cronies. I will be leading a coalition that will hope to persuade the governor to approve immediate contract renegotiation.

I am up for contract renegotiation, if the legislature would prefer it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 21, 2010, 01:02:15 PM
I will oppose any attempts to amend the law and fully oppose any legislation supported by Stern and his cronies. I will be leading a coalition that will hope to persuade the governor to approve immediate contract renegotiation.

I am up for contract renegotiation, if the legislature would prefer it.

We can't renegotiate anything unless the other side agrees.  A contract is a contract.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 21, 2010, 01:03:25 PM
I will oppose any attempts to amend the law and fully oppose any legislation supported by Stern and his cronies. I will be leading a coalition that will hope to persuade the governor to approve immediate contract renegotiation.

I am up for contract renegotiation, if the legislature would prefer it.

We can't renegotiate anything unless the other side agrees.  A contract is a contract.

Until the Northeast Region, in all it's wisdom, decides they don't want it anymore. Shame the workers apparently don't have that cute luxury. Goddamn slimy union workers.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 21, 2010, 01:08:22 PM
I will oppose any attempts to amend the law and fully oppose any legislation supported by Stern and his cronies. I will be leading a coalition that will hope to persuade the governor to approve immediate contract renegotiation.

I am up for contract renegotiation, if the legislature would prefer it.

We can't renegotiate anything unless the other side agrees.  A contract is a contract.

Until the Northeast Region, in all it's wisdom, decides they don't want it anymore. Shame the workers apparently don't have that cute luxury. Goddamn slimy union workers.

I'm sorry if the Northeast isn't the socialist workers paradise you envision.    Pity we're taking a stand against public employee unions, whose lavish pay packages and benefits are out of line with the people who employ them - and bankrupting this region.

Nothing in the law says that the Northeast will break existing union contracts.  If the unions go on strike, they will be in breach, with all of the attendant consequences.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on March 21, 2010, 08:37:35 PM
Richard Stern can go pound sand.  I have no problem with 1, but will not be bullied by union thugs into amending laws. 

If his workers go on an illegal strike, we should just fire them all and replace them.   It's not like there aren't enough unemployed workers in the Northeast who would love to have a job right now.  They have a contract - and should live up to it.

I'm not sure if you really believe that the Northeast government can find enough replacement workers fast enough. *shrug*


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Badger on March 22, 2010, 11:48:19 AM
Then why not just add "justifiable" somewhere in the bill such as:

The Northeast Region shall protect the right of any citizen to use lethal, justifiable force to protect his life, liberty, or property.


And whether or not force was "justifiable" is up for the courts to decide, on a case-by-case sort of basis.

Since I was just offering my two cents on the SE Assembly's proposed castle law..... :)

The intent behind this bill as amended is well-meaning, but as written it isn't workable due to being far, far too vague.

The idea behind such castle laws is to let property owners know exactly what their legal rights and responsibilities are, plus letting cops and courts effectively and consistently apply the law. Under this language I wouldn't have a clue what the law means, whether I was a property owner, a cop investigating a crime scene, a prosecutor reviewing the police report, a judge hearing the case, or a private lawyer trying to advise a client what it does and doesn't allow.

Yes, laws can sometimes be written too specifically and not allow enough flexibility, but this measure would essentially give every trial judge in the region total carte blanche to interpret what "justifiable" means, inevitably leading to wildly disparate application in the law.

It's one thing to let the courts iron out the nuances in interpreting a law's language, but it's wholly another to simply let the courts create the law outright. And the latter is exactly what will be necessary here.

My two cents....


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 22, 2010, 12:14:37 PM

The intent behind this bill as amended is well-meaning, but as written it isn't workable due to being far, far too vague.


Which is why I voted, no.  I agree with the principle, duh.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on March 22, 2010, 02:41:22 PM
Nayayayay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 22, 2010, 06:31:38 PM

The intent behind this bill as amended is well-meaning, but as written it isn't workable due to being far, far too vague.


Which is why I voted, no.  I agree with the principle, duh.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 22, 2010, 11:09:44 PM
By a vote of 4-2, the Self Defense Act PASSES.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 23, 2010, 01:07:56 AM
I may not be on much these next few days. I apologize in advance for any inconvenience caused.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on March 23, 2010, 01:11:01 AM
Now please, see if you can irk out some kind of compromise on the Union demands.  I have provided for their first grievance, and now it's up to you for the rest, no matter what you decide to do.  I am up for anything that would make life less painful for everyone.  Marokai, even if we may disagree, I thank you for your input.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on March 23, 2010, 01:25:56 AM
Now please, see if you can irk out some kind of compromise on the Union demands.  I have provided for their first grievance, and now it's up to you for the rest, no matter what you decide to do.  I am up for anything that would make life less painful for everyone.  Marokai, even if we may disagree, I thank you for your input.

On this note, the union has agreed (the governor was informed late last night) that a strike will be unnecessary so long as negotiations make progress and are conducted in good faith by all sides.

As GM, I should make clear that this is a negotiation, not a list of demands. The point is to share ideas, talk and provide offers/counter-offers until a deal is struck. While rhetoric may be nice, it doesn't solve the issue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on March 23, 2010, 02:22:00 AM
As GM, I should make clear that this is a negotiation, not a list of demands. The point is to share ideas, talk and provide offers/counter-offers until a deal is struck. While rhetoric may be nice, it doesn't solve the issue.

I just have a scatterbrained grasp of the English language, is all.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 23, 2010, 08:02:34 AM
By a vote of 4-2, the Self Defense Act PASSES.

So what's next?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on March 23, 2010, 09:09:28 AM

I join this little party, thats what's next.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 23, 2010, 10:24:33 AM
()

I guess Lt. Gov. Libertas didn't post the next bill due to the lateness of the hour when he closed the vote last night. This bill is next:

Wiki Emergency Act

Given the fact that informations about Northeast Assembly, Northeast Laws and the Region in general on Atlasia wiki are in many cases missing or outdated, and rhe fact that the person responsible for updating, namely Lieutenant Governor, not always have an acess.
1. Governor shall name a Northeast citizen with active Atlasia wiki account to carry on these duties if the Region face situation described above, for a period of minimum two months
2. The nominee shall be confirmed by Northeast Assembly
   
Sponsor: Rep Kalwejt

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 11:25AM Eastern on Thursday, March 25, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative Kalwejt, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 23, 2010, 10:37:34 AM
Thank you Mr. Lieutenant Governor

The wiki is Atlasia chronicle and, as we can see, is in horrible condition, missing many informations, not being updates. And person resonsible for putting there updates on NE government work not always have account.

So it's logical that we need to entrust another person to carry out, when Lt. Governor cannot.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 23, 2010, 10:40:34 AM
If incomplete or missing information is a problem, then I support my distinguished colleague's bill fully.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on March 23, 2010, 10:43:49 AM
I agree with my colleague's statement. Our wiki needs to be updated, and we might never know when in the future if our Lt. Governor will or will not be able to make any updates. I fully support this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 23, 2010, 11:05:11 AM
The one concern I have is that by requiring a formal appointment process, we're turning fixing the wiki into an office.  If we do that, thanks to the Libertas case, we're limiting the pool of people that we can ask to fix the wiki, since most who have access are likely older users who have been elected or appointed somewhere else. 

Can't we just write a bill that allows the Lt. Governor to delegate the responsibility of updating the wiki to any Northeast citizen who has access to and agrees to do it?  We'd also clarify that it's not an office. 

When I have time, I will also check where we specified wiki updating responsibility.  I think it was the SOAP, but if we put it in the constitution, this might have to be an amendment.

FWIW, I've asked Dave for Wiki access, too, and haven't heard back from him.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 23, 2010, 03:14:26 PM
Well, we need a person on who we can count 100%, not just "well, I hate wiki access too so maybe I can update something in some time".

That's sad, but Atlasia wiki is a joke now.

For example, according to this (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/AndrewCT) article, Andrew is still NE Governor... well, I wish that would be truth, but he's not.

The whole article of Governor Morgan is, quote, "FallenMorgan is a member of the Popular Party and resident of the Northeast. He is running for Northeast Governor in February 2010."

According to article on mine, I'm still a prisoner of Alaska and I'm "no longer active", lol.

And, last but not least, the last piece of legislation passed by the Assembly mentioned here is Northeast Natural Gas Leasing Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on March 23, 2010, 03:41:37 PM
What if we were to changet his around a little bit. Perhaps make this something more of an Assembly decision, to just nominate someone who puts forward interest to help keep up with the wiki. It wouldnt be making them an office holder, or anything to that effect. But it would help us keep up with the wiki, and be able to use just about anyone who comes forward with interest, and wiki access.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 23, 2010, 04:43:06 PM
What if we were to changet his around a little bit. Perhaps make this something more of an Assembly decision, to just nominate someone who puts forward interest to help keep up with the wiki. It wouldnt be making them an office holder, or anything to that effect. But it would help us keep up with the wiki, and be able to use just about anyone who comes forward with interest, and wiki access.

I'm open for amendments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 23, 2010, 06:15:23 PM
Peter blocked the account that was updating everything so go thank him.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 24, 2010, 07:49:11 AM
What if we were to changet his around a little bit. Perhaps make this something more of an Assembly decision, to just nominate someone who puts forward interest to help keep up with the wiki. It wouldnt be making them an office holder, or anything to that effect. But it would help us keep up with the wiki, and be able to use just about anyone who comes forward with interest, and wiki access.

I'm open for amendments.

Still waiting if there are any amendments :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 24, 2010, 11:44:15 AM
Amendment offered


Peter Bell is forced to update the wiki on behalf of the Northeast Region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 24, 2010, 01:07:52 PM
Amendment offered


Peter Bell is forced to update the wiki on behalf of the Northeast Region.

Unfriendly. Please cease going into a personal attacks during real debates.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 24, 2010, 01:10:38 PM
However, I'd modity that to something like

Given the fact that informations about Northeast Assembly, Northeast Laws and the Region in general on Atlasia wiki are in many cases missing or outdated, and the fact that the person responsible for updating, namely Lieutenant Governor, not always have an acess.
1. Governor shall name a Northeast citizen with active Atlasia wiki account to carry on these duties if the Region face situation described above, for a period of minimum two months for an appropriate, temporary basis
2. The nominee shall be confirmed by Northeast Assembly
3. The hired person do not enjoy a status of the Regional officeholder


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 24, 2010, 01:32:47 PM
Ignore my amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 24, 2010, 01:35:27 PM
My proposal:

Section 4(c) of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure shall be deleted and replaced with the following:

(c) The Lt. Governor shall maintain a public list of Standing Orders, unsuccessful bills actually voted upon, and Acts in the Atlasia Wiki for the Northeast, with a link to the text of such legislation.   If the Lt. Governor does not have an account to edit the Atlasia Wiki, the Lt. Governor shall designate a Northeast citizen with active Atlasia Wiki account to temporarily carry on these duties on the Lt. Governor's behalf until the Lt. Governor receives access to edit the Atlasia Wiki.   Any designated Northeast citizen shall not be considered an officeholder of the Northeast or Atlasia.

--------------------------------------
I don't see why the Assembly needs to confirm this person.  It's the Lt. Governor's job, so he should be able to designate someone else if he doesn't have access.  If the Lt. Governor nominates someone who does a crappy job, we can always vote him out of office at the next election.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 24, 2010, 05:16:06 PM
My proposal:

Section 4(c) of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure shall be deleted and replaced with the following:

(c) The Lt. Governor shall maintain a public list of Standing Orders, unsuccessful bills actually voted upon, and Acts in the Atlasia Wiki for the Northeast, with a link to the text of such legislation.   If the Lt. Governor does not have an account to edit the Atlasia Wiki, the Lt. Governor shall designate a Northeast citizen with active Atlasia Wiki account to temporarily carry on these duties on the Lt. Governor's behalf until the Lt. Governor receives access to edit the Atlasia Wiki.   Any designated Northeast citizen shall not be considered an officeholder of the Northeast or Atlasia.

--------------------------------------
I don't see why the Assembly needs to confirm this person.  It's the Lt. Governor's job, so he should be able to designate someone else if he doesn't have access.  If the Lt. Governor nominates someone who does a crappy job, we can always vote him out of office at the next election.

I would accept that, but I'm affraid about Lt. Governor impartiality in this case. Suggestions?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 24, 2010, 06:01:41 PM
My proposal:

Section 4(c) of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure shall be deleted and replaced with the following:

(c) The Lt. Governor shall maintain a public list of Standing Orders, unsuccessful bills actually voted upon, and Acts in the Atlasia Wiki for the Northeast, with a link to the text of such legislation.   If the Lt. Governor does not have an account to edit the Atlasia Wiki, the Lt. Governor shall designate a Northeast citizen with active Atlasia Wiki account to temporarily carry on these duties on the Lt. Governor's behalf until the Lt. Governor receives access to edit the Atlasia Wiki.   Any designated Northeast citizen shall not be considered an officeholder of the Northeast or Atlasia.

--------------------------------------
I don't see why the Assembly needs to confirm this person.  It's the Lt. Governor's job, so he should be able to designate someone else if he doesn't have access.  If the Lt. Governor nominates someone who does a crappy job, we can always vote him out of office at the next election.

I would accept that, but I'm affraid about Lt. Governor impartiality in this case. Suggestions?

We elected the Lt. Governor knowing it is his job to update the Wiki.  If we trusted him to update the Wiki himself, we shouldn't worry about who he nams to temporarily update it in his stead.  We can always vote the Lt. Governor out in the next election if his guy screws things up.

I suppose you could have the Assembly confirm the appointment, if you'd wish.  I'd prefer to put that to a vote, though, as in my opinion, doing so makes the position look more like an office instead of someone just volunteering to help out.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 24, 2010, 06:52:43 PM
Hm, it's more like the board approving the temporary hired man do help in certian job.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 24, 2010, 07:44:54 PM
I would gladly update the Wiki myself if Dave Leip would ever get back to me...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 24, 2010, 07:50:38 PM
I would gladly update the Wiki myself if Dave Leip would ever get back to me...

I requested for an account myself for like 4 occassions. Never get an answer.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on March 24, 2010, 09:30:44 PM
I would gladly update the Wiki myself if Dave Leip would ever get back to me...

I requested for an account myself for like 4 occassions. Never get an answer.

I never asked Dave. I wonder if at some point I should do that. Is there anyone in the Northeast (other than Barnes) who has access to the wiki?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on March 24, 2010, 09:32:57 PM
I would gladly update the Wiki myself if Dave Leip would ever get back to me...

I requested for an account myself for like 4 occassions. Never get an answer.

I never asked Dave. I wonder if at some point I should do that. Is there anyone in the Northeast (other than Barnes) who has access to the wiki?

Well, Antonio has Wiki access, and he has a lot of work for the Regions Wiki, but you guys might have some reservations since he's in the Pacific now. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on March 24, 2010, 09:44:56 PM
I would gladly update the Wiki myself if Dave Leip would ever get back to me...

I requested for an account myself for like 4 occassions. Never get an answer.

I never asked Dave. I wonder if at some point I should do that. Is there anyone in the Northeast (other than Barnes) who has access to the wiki?

Well, Antonio has Wiki access, and he has a lot of work for the Regions Wiki, but you guys might have some reservations since he's in the Pacific now. ;)

I wouldnt have minded in the least bit if he were still in the region. But ovbiously, we need to find someone in the region who can do this, or hopefully Dave could get our Lt. Gov the ability to do it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 25, 2010, 01:44:01 AM
Rep.  Kalwejt-

How do you want the vote to proceed?  By amending my proposal to add a sentence requiring Assembly confirmation, then voting first on a motion to strike that sentence, or was my entire proposal friendly?  If you want to require Assembly confirmation, I'd suggest the following language in red:

Section 4(c) of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure shall be deleted and replaced with the following:

(c) The Lt. Governor shall maintain a public list of Standing Orders, unsuccessful bills actually voted upon, and Acts in the Atlasia Wiki for the Northeast, with a link to the text of such legislation.   If the Lt. Governor does not have an account to edit the Atlasia Wiki, the Lt. Governor shall designate a Northeast citizen with active Atlasia Wiki account to temporarily carry on these duties on the Lt. Governor's behalf until the Lt. Governor receives access to edit the Atlasia Wiki.   The Northeast Assembly shall confirm the designated Northeast citizen by a majority vote of all voting Representatives.  Any designated Northeast citizen shall not be considered an officeholder of the Northeast or Atlasia.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 25, 2010, 02:34:48 AM
Rep.  Kalwejt-

How do you want the vote to proceed?  By amending my proposal to add a sentence requiring Assembly confirmation, then voting first on a motion to strike that sentence, or was my entire proposal friendly?  If you want to require Assembly confirmation, I'd suggest the following language in red:

Section 4(c) of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure shall be deleted and replaced with the following:

(c) The Lt. Governor shall maintain a public list of Standing Orders, unsuccessful bills actually voted upon, and Acts in the Atlasia Wiki for the Northeast, with a link to the text of such legislation.   If the Lt. Governor does not have an account to edit the Atlasia Wiki, the Lt. Governor shall designate a Northeast citizen with active Atlasia Wiki account to temporarily carry on these duties on the Lt. Governor's behalf until the Lt. Governor receives access to edit the Atlasia Wiki.   The Northeast Assembly shall confirm the designated Northeast citizen by a majority vote of all voting Representatives.  Any designated Northeast citizen shall not be considered an officeholder of the Northeast or Atlasia.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 25, 2010, 08:25:07 AM
Another reason why cinyc is the best among  us......nice job.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 25, 2010, 10:21:56 AM
()

There will be two votes.  This vote will be on the amendment to strike the Assembly confirmation requirement.  In other words, we're voting on whether to make the bill read as follows:

Quote
Section 4(c) of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure shall be deleted and replaced with the following:

(c) The Lt. Governor shall maintain a public list of Standing Orders, unsuccessful bills actually voted upon, and Acts in the Atlasia Wiki for the Northeast, with a link to the text of such legislation.   If the Lt. Governor does not have an account to edit the Atlasia Wiki, the Lt. Governor shall designate a Northeast citizen with active Atlasia Wiki account to temporarily carry on these duties on the Lt. Governor's behalf until the Lt. Governor receives access to edit the Atlasia Wiki.   The Northeast Assembly shall confirm the designated Northeast citizen by a majority vote of all voting Representatives.  Any designated Northeast citizen shall not be considered an officeholder of the Northeast or Atlasia.

This vote shall remain open until 11:25 AM on Friday, March 26, unless all Representatives shall have voted sooner.  A vote on final passage of the bill (with or without the amendment) will commence thereafter.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on March 25, 2010, 12:00:48 PM
6 million public employees are now on strike. The lights in the Assembly chamber have been turned off.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 25, 2010, 12:36:30 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 25, 2010, 12:37:36 PM
6 million public employees are now on strike. The lights in the Assembly chamber have been turned off.

I think I know how to flip a switch and turn lights on.  We'll have to decide what to do about this illegal strike.  Probably sue for an injunction to get the union back to work.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 25, 2010, 12:49:29 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 25, 2010, 12:50:18 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on March 25, 2010, 02:21:52 PM
6 million public employees are now on strike. The lights in the Assembly chamber have been turned off.

I think I know how to flip a switch and turn lights on.  We'll have to decide what to do about this illegal strike.  Probably sue for an injunction to get the union back to work.

;)

Whatever works for you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on March 25, 2010, 06:58:22 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 25, 2010, 09:13:56 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 26, 2010, 11:01:01 AM
By a vote of 5-0, with 5 absences, the amendment passes.

We will now vote on final passage of the bill, as amended:

Quote
Wiki Emergency Act

Section 4(c) of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure shall be deleted and replaced with the following:

(c) The Lt. Governor shall maintain a public list of Standing Orders, unsuccessful bills actually voted upon, and Acts in the Atlasia Wiki for the Northeast, with a link to the text of such legislation.   If the Lt. Governor does not have an account to edit the Atlasia Wiki, the Lt. Governor shall designate a Northeast citizen with active Atlasia Wiki account to temporarily carry on these duties on the Lt. Governor's behalf until the Lt. Governor receives access to edit the Atlasia Wiki.   Any designated Northeast citizen shall not be considered an officeholder of the Northeast or Atlasia.

This vote shall remain open until 12:01 PM on Saturday, March 27, unless all Representatives shall have voted sooner.  Since this is an amendment to the SOAP, it does NOT need approval from the Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on March 26, 2010, 11:02:14 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 26, 2010, 11:02:23 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 26, 2010, 11:02:44 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 26, 2010, 12:37:27 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 26, 2010, 02:31:03 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on March 26, 2010, 03:23:21 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 26, 2010, 06:43:03 PM
As my posting is currently subject to the hit-or-miss nature of moderator review, I would like to make my leave of absence here official so that Speaker cinyc can continue to do the great job that he's been doing in keeping the Assembly moving forward and in order, until further notice.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 27, 2010, 01:34:23 PM
()

By  vote of 5-1 with 4 unexcused absences, the Wiki Emergency Act passes.

Next bill:

[Needs a name]
Article IV of the Northeast Constitution is hereby amended as follows:

The office of Governor of the Northeast Region shall be oficially renamed to the office of Chief Executive of the Northeast Region. The office of Lieutenant Governor of the Northeast Region shall be oficially renamed to the office of Deputy Chief Executive of the Northeast Region.

Sponsor: Rep. Kalwejt

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 2:35PM Eastern on Monday, March 29, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative Kalwejt, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on March 27, 2010, 02:12:15 PM
Apologize for the absence Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 27, 2010, 03:38:39 PM
Mr. Speaker, I realize, of course, that this project have a low significance, other than purely formal. I have decided to propose that for two reasons.

1. If Midwest can have ican'tunderstandwhyitwasformerlyknownasverinandwhatthehellisverin and ican'tbelieveitwasn'tformerlyknownasverin, we can make some name changes as well :)

2. I believe that "Chief Executive" title is sounds much more democratic, much more egalitarian than imperial-lite "Governor". After all, we're living in a fantasy world :)

And as of name needed, I'd add "Officeholders Titles Amendment".

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on March 27, 2010, 05:12:00 PM
I approve of this change to my title.  :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on March 27, 2010, 05:58:30 PM
Haha what?

Motion to table and proceed to next legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on March 27, 2010, 06:09:58 PM
I apologize for my absence Speaker. The unnamed amendment concerning Article IV of the Northeast Constitution is an excellent idea. Chief Executive is a much less status related title for the head of the region and should be considered.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on March 27, 2010, 06:18:53 PM
I oppose this, and I urge we move quickly on this so we can move on to other more important areas in the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 27, 2010, 07:48:30 PM

Chief Executive Morgan Brykein sound good? :)

I support shortening the period of debate too.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 27, 2010, 09:36:36 PM
Opposed, and would like to shorten debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on March 27, 2010, 10:51:48 PM
I apologize for my absence, speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on March 27, 2010, 10:55:40 PM
And I oppose the proposed name change.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 28, 2010, 12:39:52 AM
Opposed, and would like to shorten debate.
I'd shorten the debate, but I can only do so for up to 12 hours under Lt. Govenor's correct interpretation of the SOAP.   I don't want to open a vote at 2:30 AM.  I suppose I can shorten debate until about 8AM on Monday, if I have time to open up the vote.  Often times,  I don't have time in the mornings, though.  I'll try.

I am opposed to this amendment as well.   I see no reason to change the name of the Governor and don't want to waste money changing over highway signs and stationery.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 28, 2010, 12:40:25 AM
By the way, what should we be doing about the strike?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on March 28, 2010, 01:43:31 AM
By the way, what should we be doing about the strike?

Just a note:

I will be on a bus for the most part of tomorrow and will be away for a holiday from Monday night to Wednesday night. As such, I'm going to just declare those worker "holidays" where there is no strike, but no work either.

Basically, an eventual tally of impact will not include the days that I could not further the story line. Just want to make sure that my absence does not negatively affect your region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on March 28, 2010, 05:49:54 PM
I may be absent during debate on this issue depending on whether or not it is shortened or lengthened due to school, but I will try and be present during the voting process.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on March 28, 2010, 05:54:23 PM
I have introduced a bill that would give Governor Morgan authority to put a volunteer police force into the streets for the moment with the police on strike. I urge the assembly bring it up to the floor as quickly as possible.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 28, 2010, 06:05:44 PM
I have introduced a bill that would give Governor Morgan authority to put a volunteer police force into the streets for the moment with the police on strike. I urge the assembly bring it up to the floor as quickly as possible.

Is that a motion to immediately bring the bill to the floor simultaneously with this bill or after the current bill is off the floor?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on March 28, 2010, 06:14:42 PM
This is the Attorney General keeping you guys updated. The Northeast Emergency Militia Act may be in conflict with Article I, Section 7, Clause 7 of the Constitution:

Quote
7. No Region shall, without the Consent of the Senate, maintain Armed Forces in time of Peace.

Of course, I'm sure the Senate would be willing to give its consent. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 28, 2010, 06:33:31 PM
I have introduced a bill that would give Governor Morgan authority to put a volunteer police force into the streets for the moment with the police on strike. I urge the assembly bring it up to the floor as quickly as possible.

"Volunteer police force"? This may be a game but that still doesn't mean you can just conjure things up like that. We're talking about an entire region's law enforcement here. Further, even assuming for the sake of argument you could make a police force for an entire region appear out of thin air, I would have serious concerns about their training and behavior on the job..


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 29, 2010, 07:40:51 AM
()

The vote on the following proposed constitutional amendment is now open:

Quote
Officeholders Titles Amendment
Article IV of the Northeast Constitution is hereby amended as follows:

The office of Governor of the Northeast Region shall be officially renamed to the office of Chief Executive of the Northeast Region. The office of Lieutenant Governor of the Northeast Region shall be officially renamed to the office of Deputy Chief Executive of the Northeast Region.

This vote shall remain open until the earlier of 8:40 AM Eastern on Tuesday, March 30, 2010, or when all Representatives shall have voted.  Note that because this is a proposed Amendment, a higher vote requirement applies for passage.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on March 29, 2010, 07:56:34 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 29, 2010, 08:23:22 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 29, 2010, 10:25:04 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 29, 2010, 12:32:55 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on March 29, 2010, 06:28:47 PM
To the Lt. Governor and Speaker:


Hey Guys, Andrew sent me a Facebook message today saying that he is unable to log into the Forum and isn't missing votes intentionally. As you might be aware, other people (including me!) are having the same problem. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 29, 2010, 06:37:51 PM
To the Lt. Governor and Speaker:


Hey Guys, Andrew sent me a Facebook message today saying that he is unable to log into the Forum and isn't missing votes intentionally. As you might be aware, other people (including me!) are having the same problem. :)


As am I, except from my cell phone.

We might have to hold this vote open a bit until things are fixed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on March 29, 2010, 07:09:08 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on March 29, 2010, 08:31:35 PM
Apologize for the absence, I was having issues with my account. Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 29, 2010, 08:47:16 PM
Nay.

I was also unable to log on.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on March 29, 2010, 08:52:24 PM
Can't believe I didn't think about trying to post from my blackberry. Let's hope it works.

Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on March 29, 2010, 09:34:45 PM
;_;


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 29, 2010, 09:39:46 PM
()

Because of the login difficulties, I'm going to give the remaining Northeast Representatives until 8:00 PM tomorrow, March 30, 2010 to cast their vote.    Obviously, we'll wrap things up sooner if they both vote sooner.

Dave Leip says the issue should be resolved - I can post regularly again, too.
 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on March 30, 2010, 01:36:31 AM
NAy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on March 30, 2010, 07:59:23 AM
Looks like I'm able to post again.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Badger on March 30, 2010, 08:57:44 AM
I have introduced a bill that would give Governor Morgan authority to put a volunteer police force into the streets for the moment with the police on strike. I urge the assembly bring it up to the floor as quickly as possible.

"Volunteer police force"? This may be a game but that still doesn't mean you can just conjure things up like that. We're talking about an entire region's law enforcement here. Further, even assuming for the sake of argument you could make a police force for an entire region appear out of thin air, I would have serious concerns about their training and behavior on the job..

Seriously. Every cowboy wannabe who wants to play cop volunteering for a civilian posse? I think I'd prefer anarchy.

As a self-described libertarian, Gio, doesn't this thought frighten you a tad? The threats of life and limb of hundreds of poorly or untrained volunteer cops--both to the public and themselves--is staggering. Not to mention I shudder to think of trying to prosecute some of the arrests these guys make:


Defense Attorney: "Patrolman Newbie, what training, education and experience did you have in the detection and apprehension of impaired drivers prior to the night you arrested my client?"

Patrolman Newbie: "Well, I never miss an episode of 'Cops'!"

Me: "Recess, your honor? I need to confer with counsel and offer a plea to a reduced charge of jaywalking".


Since it's just the NE equivalent of the state patrol off the streets, why not just make deals with local departments and county sheriffs for them to put extra officers on the street temporarily? A tad more expensive in the short run, but infinitely more workable.

Now, again, regarding those Regional corrections officers staffing the prisons.....


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 30, 2010, 11:14:57 AM
I have introduced a bill that would give Governor Morgan authority to put a volunteer police force into the streets for the moment with the police on strike. I urge the assembly bring it up to the floor as quickly as possible.

"Volunteer police force"? This may be a game but that still doesn't mean you can just conjure things up like that. We're talking about an entire region's law enforcement here. Further, even assuming for the sake of argument you could make a police force for an entire region appear out of thin air, I would have serious concerns about their training and behavior on the job..

Seriously. Every cowboy wannabe who wants to play cop volunteering for a civilian posse? I think I'd prefer anarchy.

As a self-described libertarian, Gio, doesn't this thought frighten you a tad? The threats of life and limb of hundreds of poorly or untrained volunteer cops--both to the public and themselves--is staggering. Not to mention I shudder to think of trying to prosecute some of the arrests these guys make:


Defense Attorney: "Patrolman Newbie, what training, education and experience did you have in the detection and apprehension of impaired drivers prior to the night you arrested my client?"

Patrolman Newbie: "Well, I never miss an episode of 'Cops'!"

Me: "Recess, your honor? I need to confer with counsel and offer a plea to a reduced charge of jaywalking".


Since it's just the NE equivalent of the state patrol off the streets, why not just make deals with local departments and county sheriffs for them to put extra officers on the street temporarily? A tad more expensive in the short run, but infinitely more workable.

Now, again, regarding those Regional corrections officers staffing the prisons.....

The Northeast has a National Guard, which can be called up by the Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 30, 2010, 11:52:16 AM
The Northeast has a National Guard, which can be called up by the Governor.

Why hasn't it been is the question.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 30, 2010, 12:37:55 PM
The Northeast has a National Guard, which can be called up by the Governor.

Why hasn't it been is the question.

Constitutional concerns about its role, based on a one-sided interpretation of the Atlasian Constitution, which isn't quite as one-sided as the feds think when read in context.  We might not be able to call up the Guard to act as an armed force, but we can call it up for everything else.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on March 30, 2010, 12:42:38 PM
The Northeast has a National Guard, which can be called up by the Governor.

Why hasn't it been is the question.

Constitutional concerns about its role, based on a one-sided interpretation of the Atlasian Constitution, which isn't quite as one-sided as the feds think when read in context.  We might not be able to call up the Guard to act as an armed force, but we can call it up for everything else.

Let the Feds sue us........IMO


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 30, 2010, 01:14:42 PM
The Northeast has a National Guard, which can be called up by the Governor.

Why hasn't it been is the question.

Constitutional concerns about its role, based on a one-sided interpretation of the Atlasian Constitution, which isn't quite as one-sided as the feds think when read in context.  We might not be able to call up the Guard to act as an armed force, but we can call it up for everything else.

Let the Feds sue us........IMO

Yeah, this is going to end up in federal court anyway, and given its leftist makeup, won't end well for the Northeast.  We already have one left-wing Associate Justice publicly commenting on the situation - and we all know he won't recuse himself when a case gets to that court. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 30, 2010, 09:14:41 PM
()

By a vote of 2-7 with 1 absence, the Officeholders Titles Amendment fails.

Next bill:
Freedom To Drive Act

1. The Northeast shall have a moratorium on the Regional Gas Tax.

2. Remaining funds from the RFER (Regional Fund for Economic Recovery) shall be diverted to maintain and repair existing roads.

3. The moratorium will be in effect until funds from the RFER are depleted.

Sponsor: Rep. Dallasfan65

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 10:15PM Eastern on Thursday, April 1, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative Dallasfan65, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 30, 2010, 09:15:34 PM
You all are joykillers :(


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 30, 2010, 09:33:32 PM
Transportation is crucial to an economy, and we should not be trying to stymie the purchase of gasoline, as it is essential towards travel, especially in such economic tumult.

As many of us know, we have a rather large budget deficit, so I would like for us to use existing funds, from the RFER, towards a different purpose, as to not increase the deficit.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on March 30, 2010, 09:51:48 PM
Transportation is crucial to an economy, and we should not be trying to stymie the purchase of gasoline, as it is essential towards travel, especially in such economic tumult.

As many of us know, we have a rather large budget deficit, so I would like for us to use existing funds, from the RFER, towards a different purpose, as to not increase the deficit.

How much do we have left from the RFER?  I thought we spent most, if not all of it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on March 30, 2010, 10:39:28 PM
I endorse this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on March 30, 2010, 10:42:35 PM
In this dire global economic condition we face, such legislation that is on the Northeast Assembly's agenda presently would contribute to a positive boost to jump starting our region's business and industry. The Freedom to Drive Act seems like a reasonable and effective proposal in my opinion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 31, 2010, 12:12:43 AM
The Northeast has a National Guard, which can be called up by the Governor.

Why hasn't it been is the question.

Constitutional concerns about its role, based on a one-sided interpretation of the Atlasian Constitution, which isn't quite as one-sided as the feds think when read in context.  We might not be able to call up the Guard to act as an armed force, but we can call it up for everything else.

Let the Feds sue us........IMO

Yeah, this is going to end up in federal court anyway, and given its leftist makeup, won't end well for the Northeast.  We already have one left-wing Associate Justice publicly commenting on the situation - and we all know he won't recuse himself when a case gets to that court. 

The left-leaning of the court in terms of it's rulings has been grossly exaggerated. And is currently grossly exaggerated, given the debate behind the scenes on the current cases..

Feel free to continue, though.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on March 31, 2010, 08:47:03 AM
Transportation is crucial to an economy, and we should not be trying to stymie the purchase of gasoline, as it is essential towards travel, especially in such economic tumult.

As many of us know, we have a rather large budget deficit, so I would like for us to use existing funds, from the RFER, towards a different purpose, as to not increase the deficit.

How much do we have left from the RFER?  I thought we spent most, if not all of it.

To the best of my knowledge, I think just about all of it was spent, since we had a deficit before our official numbers came out.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 31, 2010, 10:27:35 AM
Transportation is crucial to an economy, and we should not be trying to stymie the purchase of gasoline, as it is essential towards travel, especially in such economic tumult.

As many of us know, we have a rather large budget deficit, so I would like for us to use existing funds, from the RFER, towards a different purpose, as to not increase the deficit.

How much do we have left from the RFER?  I thought we spent most, if not all of it.

To the best of my knowledge, I think just about all of it was spent, since we had a deficit before our official numbers came out.

Quote
5. The RFER shall be established February 1st, 2010, and shall be dismissed at December 31st, 2014, unless the Northeast Legislative Assembly provides otherwise by a majority vote.

If this program is projected to last until 2014, I imagine there'd be a considerable amount of money left.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on March 31, 2010, 02:19:47 PM
Keep the gas tax.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on April 01, 2010, 12:59:46 AM
I just want to thank the Northeast government for taking GM reports seriously and fully engaging in the content matter. The ongoing situation has and will proceed to involve a broad swathe of the game, from the entire regional government to a national conversation and possibly a case before the Supreme Court.

This should be a model for how other regions handle such situations in the future and I appreciate how well you all have responded.

~PS

P.S. Feel free to PM me for negotiations. I have not yet received any counter-offers to the initial offer of the union. I know it's all wrapped up with Rowan at the moment, but moving on parallel tracks simultaneously may be a good idea.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on April 01, 2010, 02:46:06 AM
cinyc, we should discuss some about this union situation, if not in public then by PM. I'm ready to resolve this properly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 01, 2010, 07:52:41 AM
cinyc, we should discuss some about this union situation, if not in public then by PM. I'm ready to resolve this properly.

Yes, we should.  Perhaps the best way to do that is for someone to make a motion to simultaneously consider the Northeastern Emergency Militia Act, which can serve as a vehicle to do whatever we want to do to solve the strike.

The lawsuit is currently under consideration by CJO RowanBrandon. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on April 01, 2010, 11:26:50 AM
I'm motioning to consider both bills at once.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 01, 2010, 02:49:29 PM
()

There's a motion to simultaneously consider the Northeastern Emergency Militia Act with the current bill on the floor.  All those in favor shall vote aye, those opposed nay.

This vote shall remain open until the earlier of 3:50PM on Friday, April 2, 2010, or when all Representatives shall have voted.

Debate on the Freedom To Drive Act shall continue during this vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 01, 2010, 02:50:13 PM
Aye.

We need to discuss how to resolve the public employee strike.  This bill can serve as a vehicle to do so.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on April 01, 2010, 02:53:19 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on April 01, 2010, 02:58:23 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on April 01, 2010, 03:02:11 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on April 01, 2010, 03:13:15 PM
Amendment:

Freedom to Drive Act

1.  The Northeast Speed Limit Standardization Act is hereby repealed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on April 01, 2010, 03:17:55 PM
And again, as I said, I will stand in opposition to any attempts to repeal the gas tax. I will not exist in this Assembly as a oil company tool.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on April 01, 2010, 03:33:42 PM
 
()

There's a motion to simultaneously consider the Northeastern Emergency Militia Act with the current bill on the floor.  All those in favor shall vote aye, those opposed nay.

This vote shall remain open until the earlier of 3:50PM on Friday, April 2, 2010, or when all Representatives shall have voted.

Debate on the Freedom To Drive Act shall continue during this vote.

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on April 01, 2010, 03:33:53 PM
Dear Mr. Speaker,

I hereby resigns as the Northeast Representative.

Sincerely,
Kalwejt


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on April 01, 2010, 03:46:49 PM
Update from the AG

I've been watching the recent situation in the Northeast very closely.  And because of the recent developments, there has been talk of a legal prosecution against the NE if they pass the Northeastern Emergency Militia Act. 

However, seeing as the region is in a bit of a crisis at the moment, both politically and financially ;), I will not be bringing charges against the region at this time.

However, if the region continues the use of their "volunteer militia" after the crisis, and they have not received clear permission form the Senate, I will shoot to kill. ;D

-Barnes





Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 01, 2010, 06:18:33 PM
Amendment:

Freedom to Drive Act

1.  The Northeast Speed Limit Standardization Act is hereby repealed.

So this would replace the whole bill as it stands?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 01, 2010, 06:19:36 PM
Dear Mr. Speaker,

I hereby resigns as the Northeast Representative.

Sincerely,
Kalwejt

I'm sorry to hear that.  Thank you for your service!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on April 01, 2010, 08:59:41 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 01, 2010, 09:19:59 PM
Amendment:

Freedom to Drive Act

1.  The Northeast Speed Limit Standardization Act is hereby repealed.

So this would replace the whole bill as it stands?

Rep. Dallasfan65 - is this friendly?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 01, 2010, 09:22:49 PM
Amendment:

Freedom to Drive Act

1.  The Northeast Speed Limit Standardization Act is hereby repealed.

So this would replace the whole bill as it stands?

Rep. Dallasfan65 - is this friendly?
No.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 01, 2010, 11:01:06 PM
Okay, then. 

()
We will vote on whether to adopt Rep. Silent Spade's proposed amendment to the Freedom to Drive Act, which replaces the proposed bill in its entirety with the following:

Quote
1.  The Northeast Speed Limit Standardization Act is hereby repealed.

This vote will remain open until 11:59PM on Friday, April 2, 2010, unless all Representatives have voted sooner.

If you haven't voted on the motion to simultaneously consider the Militia bill, please specify that the vote is for the Amendment to the Freedom to Drive Act.  The vote on the motion to consider the Militia bill is still open:

Ballot:
Freedom to Drive Act:
Motion to simultaneously consider:


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on April 02, 2010, 08:47:47 AM
Militia Bill: Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on April 02, 2010, 08:48:28 AM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 02, 2010, 10:35:17 AM
Amendment on the Freedom to Drive Act: Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on April 02, 2010, 10:37:51 AM
Amendment on the Freedom to Drive Act: Nay.

I think I may have already voted to consider my militia bill, but just in case:



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on April 02, 2010, 10:51:55 AM
Amendment on the Freedom to Drive Act: Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on April 02, 2010, 11:59:14 AM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on April 02, 2010, 12:19:55 PM
Freedom to Drive Act: Nay

Militia Bill: Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 02, 2010, 02:49:49 PM
Amendment on the Freedom to Drive Act: Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on April 02, 2010, 03:09:02 PM
Aye on both


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 02, 2010, 03:48:48 PM
()

By a vote of 9-1, the bill is placed on the floor:

Northeastern Emergency Militia Act

Section I
1). In times of emergency, the Northeastern Governor has the right to create and use a volunteer force of militiamen to enforce the laws and regulations of the Northeast governments. The Northeastern Governor is the sole person with this sort of power except in the special circumstance specified in Section II.

2). The Northeastern Assembly can order the militia to stand down if three quarters of the Northeastern Assembly votes to do so.

Section II
1). If the Northeastern Governorship is vacant, the Lieutenant Governor shall be able to command to create and use the volunteer force upon his ascendency to the Governorship.

Section III
1). After the Governor deems the situation appropriate, or the Northeastern Assembly votes to do so with a three-fourths majority, the militia is to stand down and disperse.

2). Failure to comply with dispersing upon orders by the Assembly or the Governor will be met with judicial action taken by the Northeastern Government against the violators.

3). The Militia may not be maintained unless a state of emergency has been declared by the Northeastern Governor.

Section IV
1). All Northeasterners who serve in the Volunteer Militia will be compensated for their service to the Northeast Region with an amount which will be set by the Governor.

2). Only Northeastern Citizens are eligible for service in the deputized volunteer militia.

Sponsor: Rep. Giovanni

The Sponsor, Representative Giovanni, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on April 02, 2010, 05:22:00 PM
I will be more specific an be nay on the Amendment on the Freedom to Drive Act, but Aye for the Act. Aye on the Northeast Emergency Militia Act though.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on April 02, 2010, 06:21:56 PM
Fellow Reps,

Due to the ongoing strike, our streets are engulfed in lawless anarchy. Although no major outbreaks of violence have occurred fortunately, we cannot stand by and hold our fingers for good luck while Northeast citizens remain unprotected.

The Governor is incapable of calling out the Guard do to Federal law. This bill will give Governor Morgan the authority to put a volunteer police force into action that will keep peace on the streets until the police come back into service.

AG Barnes has graciously informed us that the Atlasian Government will not take legal action as long as the militia is disbanded after the crisis. Due to several restrictions I have placed in the bill, the Atlasian Government need not be worried about that. I have absolutely no worries that Governor Morgan, who supports this bill, will act responsibly, and that this power will only be used responsibly.

Due to the ongoing crisis, I encourage the Assembly to quickly pass this bill so the Governor can sign it, and keep the Northeastern Citizens safe.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 03, 2010, 12:01:51 AM
()

By a vote of 1-7, the proposed amendment to the Freedom to Drive Act fails.

We will now vote on final passage of the bill without the proposed amendment:

Quote
Freedom To Drive Act

1. The Northeast shall have a moratorium on the Regional Gas Tax.

2. Remaining funds from the RFER (Regional Fund for Economic Recovery) shall be diverted to maintain and repair existing roads.

3. The moratorium will be in effect until funds from the RFER are depleted.

This vote shall remain open until 1:00AM Eastern on Monday, April 5, 2010, unless all representatives shall have voted sooner.

Debate on the Northeast Emergency Militia Act shall continue during the vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 03, 2010, 12:05:22 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on April 03, 2010, 04:46:16 AM
Aye, and I will not be here the rest of the day, and about half of tomorrow.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on April 03, 2010, 07:38:06 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on April 03, 2010, 10:05:45 AM
Nice to see "libertarians" voting for authoritarian provision ::)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on April 03, 2010, 10:28:44 AM
Nice to see "libertarians" voting for authoritarian provision ::)

You resigned.....go away :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 03, 2010, 11:51:24 AM
Present and abstaining. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on April 03, 2010, 11:52:49 AM
Nice to see "libertarians" voting for authoritarian provision ::)

You resigned.....go away :P

What? I'm watching you from balcony :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on April 03, 2010, 12:20:38 PM
What a completely senseless bill. Repealing or suspending gas taxes doesn't give any meaningful relief and it's a completely temporary measure that only depletes funds you could've used elsewhere, while at the same time encouraging gas consumption which is not something you guys should be doing. What in heaven's name justifies this atrocity?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 03, 2010, 12:49:20 PM
What a completely senseless bill. Repealing or suspending gas taxes doesn't give any meaningful relief and it's a completely temporary measure that only depletes funds you could've used elsewhere, while at the same time encouraging gas consumption which is not something you guys should be doing. What in heaven's name justifies this atrocity?

The increasing price of gasoline is putting a burden on our citizens.  And this legislature isn't chock full of "progressives" who think driving is a bad thing.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on April 03, 2010, 12:56:20 PM
What a completely senseless bill. Repealing or suspending gas taxes doesn't give any meaningful relief and it's a completely temporary measure that only depletes funds you could've used elsewhere, while at the same time encouraging gas consumption which is not something you guys should be doing. What in heaven's name justifies this atrocity?

The increasing price of gasoline is putting a burden on our citizens.  And this legislature isn't chock full of "progressives" who think driving is a bad thing.

It doesn't take a progressive to say encouraging gasoline consumption is a silly idea. It's objectively harmful to the environment and encourages unnecessary use of fuel. Gas taxes are higher in Atlasia than the United States, but this region can't do anything to the federal gas tax, you're stuck tinkering with your own. Which is even less effective and a waste of time. What are you doing, tinkering with a few cents here or there? This is a gimmick that doesn't save anyone any serious amount of money and subtly encourages gasoline usage.

You're depleting resources that could be used for alot of other things to instead waste it on a gimmicky tax suspension that doesn't save anyone serious amounts of money and only encourages unnecessary harm to the environment.

This legislature is certainly full of something.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 03, 2010, 01:05:50 PM
What a completely senseless bill. Repealing or suspending gas taxes doesn't give any meaningful relief and it's a completely temporary measure that only depletes funds you could've used elsewhere, while at the same time encouraging gas consumption which is not something you guys should be doing. What in heaven's name justifies this atrocity?

The increasing price of gasoline is putting a burden on our citizens.  And this legislature isn't chock full of "progressives" who think driving is a bad thing.

It doesn't take a progressive to say encouraging gasoline consumption is a silly idea. It's objectively harmful to the environment and encourages unnecessary use of fuel. Gas taxes are higher in Atlasia than the United States, but this region can't do anything to the federal gas tax, you're stuck tinkering with your own. Which is even less effective and a waste of time. What are you doing, tinkering with a few cents here or there? This is a gimmick that doesn't save anyone any serious amount of money and subtly encourages gasoline usage.

You're depleting resources that could be used for alot of other things to instead waste it on a gimmicky tax suspension that doesn't save anyone serious amounts of money and only encourages unnecessary harm to the environment.

This legislature is certainly full of something.

Pennies add up.  And it is the Atlasian government that is distorting the free market by imposing punitive gasoline taxes, not the other way around.   There's nothing "progressive" about taxing gasoline to death - it's an extremely regressive tax.  The market price of gasoline should determine the amount of gasoline usage, not the (supposedly) all-knowing Atlasian government.

Giving the citizens of the Northeast their money back is better than wasting it on yet another wasteful, "progressive" government program.  We work for the citizens of the Northeast, not the other way around.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on April 03, 2010, 04:31:11 PM
Aye (for the Freedom To Drive Act)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 04, 2010, 12:08:16 AM
()

By a vote of 4-0 with 1 express abstention and four unexcused absences, the Freedom To Drive Act passes.

Debate will continue on the Northeast Emergency Militia Act until 4:45 PM on Sunday, unless there's a motion to extend debate given recent developments **hint**.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 04, 2010, 12:10:27 AM
On the Northeast Emergency Militia Act:

As you may be aware, the union has ceased striking after CJO RowanBrandon's ruling rewarding damages for breach of contract to the Northeast.

Where do we want to go from here?  Do we really need the NEMA, or should we try to open negotiations from the union, perhaps asking for concessions in lieu of waiving part of the penalty?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on April 04, 2010, 03:26:28 AM
We should get as much out of them as possible.

Sorry for my absence. It was out of my jurisdiction.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on April 04, 2010, 05:38:25 PM
On the Northeast Emergency Militia Act:

As you may be aware, the union has ceased striking after CJO RowanBrandon's ruling rewarding damages for breach of contract to the Northeast.

Where do we want to go from here?  Do we really need the NEMA, or should we try to open negotiations from the union, perhaps asking for concessions in lieu of waiving part of the penalty?

Personally, I would still consider passing it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on April 04, 2010, 05:41:19 PM
I think we should table the measure. I would support an amendment that allowed for training new officers so we can just fire all these strikers.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 04, 2010, 06:13:05 PM
I'm unilaterally extending the debate period until 4:45PM tomorrow.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Badger on April 05, 2010, 08:17:54 AM
I think we should table the measure. I would support an amendment that allowed for training new officers so we can just fire all these strikers.

VASTLY expensive proposition, and you can't "train" years or decades of experience on the streets into rookies.

Wouldn't it be better to simply seek a tough settlement with the officer's organizations go on an anti-union ideological bent?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on April 05, 2010, 12:30:23 PM
We should get as much out of them as possible.

Sorry for my absence. It was out of my jurisdiction.

Mod-review again?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on April 05, 2010, 02:47:32 PM
I think we should table the measure. I would support an amendment that allowed for training new officers so we can just fire all these strikers.

VASTLY expensive proposition, and you can't "train" years or decades of experience on the streets into rookies.

And since when do people like you care about how expensive something is? Okay then.

Quote
Wouldn't it be better to simply seek a tough settlement with the officer's organizations go on an anti-union ideological bent?

No because the union has proved it is out of control and unwilling to compromise for the sake of the public. They need strangled.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 05, 2010, 07:14:03 PM
()

Okay.  This debate has gone nowhere.  Time to put the bill to a vote:

Quote
Northeastern Emergency Militia Act

Section I
1). In times of emergency, the Northeastern Governor has the right to create and use a volunteer force of militiamen to enforce the laws and regulations of the Northeast governments. The Northeastern Governor is the sole person with this sort of power except in the special circumstance specified in Section II.

2). The Northeastern Assembly can order the militia to stand down if three quarters of the Northeastern Assembly votes to do so.

Section II
1). If the Northeastern Governorship is vacant, the Lieutenant Governor shall be able to command to create and use the volunteer force upon his ascendency to the Governorship.

Section III
1). After the Governor deems the situation appropriate, or the Northeastern Assembly votes to do so with a three-fourths majority, the militia is to stand down and disperse.

2). Failure to comply with dispersing upon orders by the Assembly or the Governor will be met with judicial action taken by the Northeastern Government against the violators.

3). The Militia may not be maintained unless a state of emergency has been declared by the Northeastern Governor.

Section IV
1). All Northeasterners who serve in the Volunteer Militia will be compensated for their service to the Northeast Region with an amount which will be set by the Governor.

2). Only Northeastern Citizens are eligible for service in the deputized volunteer militia.

This vote shall remain open until the earlier of 8:15 PM on Tuesday, April 6, 2010, or when all representatives shall have voted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on April 05, 2010, 07:31:59 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on April 05, 2010, 07:48:38 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 05, 2010, 08:47:36 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on April 05, 2010, 09:17:15 PM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on April 05, 2010, 09:37:43 PM
I'm going to motion to debate the CJO amendment and Seats number amendment simultaneously.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 06, 2010, 12:15:29 PM
I'm going to motion to debate the CJO amendment and Seats number amendment simultaneously.

I'm going to hold off on this until after the current vote to avoid confusion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 06, 2010, 12:16:17 PM
Nay.

We already have a national guard unit.  I'm not sure what this adds.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on April 06, 2010, 12:18:14 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on April 06, 2010, 03:28:49 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on April 06, 2010, 09:03:01 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 06, 2010, 09:43:42 PM
()

By a vote of 4-2 with 1 express absention. one late aye vote after the voting period had ended but before I closed the vote, and one absence, the Northeastern Emergency Militia Act passes, and shall be sent to the Governor for his signature or veto.

Next bill:

CJO Term Amendment

Article VI of the Northeast Consitution is amended to read:
 
i) The judicial branch of the Government of the Northeast Region shall be vested in the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region.

ii) The Chief Judicial Officer is to be appointed by the Governor with the confirmation of the Legislative Assembly. He or she shall have a term of four months, with the option of renewal. Whenever the office of Chief Judicial Officer becomes vacant, then he or she must be replaced within one month.

 iii) The Chief Judicial Officer is to be charged with the duties of interpreting the laws of the Northeast Region and is charged to hold trials for the convicted. If someone submits a case to him or her, then the Chief Judicial Officer must make a ruling on it, giving ample time to hear arguments from any side of the issue. The Chief Judicial Officer’s rulings are to be considered precedent for all future cases.iv) No persons shall hold the positions of Governor and Chief Judicial Officer at the same time, and whereas no persons shall hold the positions of Lieutenant Governor and Chief Judicial Officer at the same time. No persons shall serve as Chief Judicial Officer and Northeast Representative at the same time.

Sponsor:Rep. hantheguitarman

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 10:45PM Eastern on Thursday, April 8, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative hantheguitarman, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 06, 2010, 09:45:10 PM
There's a motion on the floor to simultaneously consider the Seats Number Amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=103122.msg2435537#msg2435537) with the bill on the floor.

All those in favor shall vote aye, those opposed, nay. 

Debate on the CJO Term Amendment shall continue while this vote is taken.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 06, 2010, 09:47:56 PM
Aye on the motion to simultaneously consider.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on April 07, 2010, 09:10:28 AM
Aye on the motion to simultaneously consider.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on April 07, 2010, 09:11:20 AM
What's the substantive difference between the current wording for the CJO and the new proposed wording?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on April 07, 2010, 09:12:48 AM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 07, 2010, 10:18:42 AM
What's the substantive difference between the current wording for the CJO and the new proposed wording?
Closes a loophole about dual-office holding, and requires them to be assembly approved.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on April 07, 2010, 10:23:48 AM
What's the substantive difference between the current wording for the CJO and the new proposed wording?
Closes a loophole about dual-office holding, and requires them to be assembly approved.

Thanks, my good colleague.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 07, 2010, 10:59:35 AM
What's the substantive difference between the current wording for the CJO and the new proposed wording?
Closes a loophole about dual-office holding, and requires them to be assembly approved.

Thanks, my good colleague.

Changes the term from 1 year to 4 months, if I'm not mistaken.  That shouldn't apply retroactively, in my opinion.  I'll have an amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on April 07, 2010, 11:06:31 AM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on April 07, 2010, 12:55:11 PM
Aye on the motion


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on April 07, 2010, 03:21:35 PM
Ooh, sorry I didn't see this already. Anyway, my proposed CJO Term Amendment will make the CJO more accountable to the legislature, and the people.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 07, 2010, 04:09:33 PM
Ooh, sorry I didn't see this already. Anyway, my proposed CJO Term Amendment will make the CJO more accountable to the legislature, and the people.

Is it supposed to apply retroactively to the current CJO, who has a number of months left on his term?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on April 07, 2010, 06:33:46 PM
How about an amendment to make me CJO for life? :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 07, 2010, 10:15:31 PM
By a vote of 5-0, the motion to simultaneously consider the Seats Number Amendment passes and is placed on the floor:

Seats number Amendment to the Northeast Constitution

1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following:

2. Six Representatives shall be elected, unless the Assembly shall provide otherwise by Law.

Sponsor: Rep. Silent Spade

I don't want to hold votes in the middle of the debate on the other amendment on the floor - it's too confusing.  Therefore, debate on both proposed amendments will continue until 11:15PM on Friday, April 9, 2010, unless a motion to extend or shorten the debate period is made and accepted by the chair in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative Silent Spade, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on April 08, 2010, 10:07:40 AM
As a small government advocate I'm certainly in favor of reducing the size of government so I'm in favor of Silent Spade's proposal.

Also, IIRC the Northeast has fewer and fewer to represent........no census data to back me up. 



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on April 08, 2010, 05:30:13 PM
How about an amendment to make me CJO for life? :)

I wouldn't mind. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on April 08, 2010, 08:55:56 PM
Ooh, sorry I didn't see this already. Anyway, my proposed CJO Term Amendment will make the CJO more accountable to the legislature, and the people.

Is it supposed to apply retroactively to the current CJO, who has a number of months left on his term?

I admit that the amendment is vague, so I will accept a friendly amendment to mine that grandfathers the current CJO from this proposed legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on April 09, 2010, 02:40:31 AM
As said before, pretty much anybody who runs would get elected to the Assembly.  Reducing the size of the legislature would certainly fix this problem.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 09, 2010, 12:21:58 PM
Proposed Amendment:

1. Article VI of the Northeast Consitution is amended to read:
 
i) The judicial branch of the Government of the Northeast Region shall be vested in the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region.

ii) The Chief Judicial Officer is to be appointed by the Governor with the confirmation of the Legislative Assembly. He or she shall have a term of four months, with the option of renewal. Whenever the office of Chief Judicial Officer becomes vacant, then he or she must be replaced within one month.

iii) The Chief Judicial Officer is to be charged with the duties of interpreting the laws of the Northeast Region and is charged to hold trials for the convicted. If someone submits a case to him or her, then the Chief Judicial Officer must make a ruling on it, giving ample time to hear arguments from any side of the issue. The Chief Judicial Officer’s rulings are to be considered precedent for all future cases.

iv) No persons shall hold the positions of Governor and Chief Judicial Officer at the same time, and whereas no persons shall hold the positions of Lieutenant Governor and Chief Judicial Officer at the same time. No persons shall serve as Chief Judicial Officer and Northeast Representative at the same time.

2.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 1, the current Chief Judicial Officer shall remain in office for the remainder of his term.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on April 09, 2010, 12:23:07 PM
I oppose the amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on April 09, 2010, 12:24:53 PM
Who proposed this and why?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 09, 2010, 12:27:12 PM

I did.  Because laws and constitutional amendments shouldn't apply retroactively.  The CJO's term is the CJO's term.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on April 09, 2010, 12:34:30 PM

I did.  Because laws and constitutional amendments shouldn't apply retroactively.  The CJO's term is the CJO's term.

Whoa now......as someone who re-writes bylaws for organizations all the time, changes in the officer's terms are always effective immediately (which is not retroactively),  unless a proviso is adopted otherwise.  But it's quite normal for one not to be adopted.......so I don't see your strong objection from my vantage point.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 09, 2010, 02:37:21 PM

I did.  Because laws and constitutional amendments shouldn't apply retroactively.  The CJO's term is the CJO's term.

Whoa now......as someone who re-writes bylaws for organizations all the time, changes in the officer's terms are always effective immediately (which is not retroactively),  unless a proviso is adopted otherwise.  But it's quite normal for one not to be adopted.......so I don't see your strong objection from my vantage point.

It's certainly possible to do so, but I don't like laws that apply retroactively.  It's fundamentally unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on April 09, 2010, 02:40:12 PM

I did.  Because laws and constitutional amendments shouldn't apply retroactively.  The CJO's term is the CJO's term.

Whoa now......as someone who re-writes bylaws for organizations all the time, changes in the officer's terms are always effective immediately (which is not retroactively),  unless a proviso is adopted otherwise.  But it's quite normal for one not to be adopted.......so I don't see your strong objection from my vantage point.

It's certainly possible to do so, but I don't like laws that apply retroactively.  It's fundamentally unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game.

Well I disagree with you perception of this.....and will be voting, no.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 09, 2010, 04:13:52 PM

I did.  Because laws and constitutional amendments shouldn't apply retroactively.  The CJO's term is the CJO's term.

Whoa now......as someone who re-writes bylaws for organizations all the time, changes in the officer's terms are always effective immediately (which is not retroactively),  unless a proviso is adopted otherwise.  But it's quite normal for one not to be adopted.......so I don't see your strong objection from my vantage point.

It's certainly possible to do so, but I don't like laws that apply retroactively.  It's fundamentally unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game.

Well I disagree with you perception of this.....and will be voting, no.

Well, that depends on whether the sponsor deems my amendment friendly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on April 10, 2010, 03:34:42 PM
I deem the amendment friendly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on April 10, 2010, 03:38:34 PM
Well, this is easy to get around. I offer an amendment to remove cinyc's amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 11, 2010, 12:57:40 PM
()

Sorry for the delay.  I've been busy.

We will now vote on Rep. Silent Spade's amendment to the CJO Amendment, as amended:

Quote
1. Article VI of the Northeast Constitution is amended to read:
 
i) The judicial branch of the Government of the Northeast Region shall be vested in the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region.

ii) The Chief Judicial Officer is to be appointed by the Governor with the confirmation of the Legislative Assembly. He or she shall have a term of four months, with the option of renewal. Whenever the office of Chief Judicial Officer becomes vacant, then he or she must be replaced within one month.

iii) The Chief Judicial Officer is to be charged with the duties of interpreting the laws of the Northeast Region and is charged to hold trials for the convicted. If someone submits a case to him or her, then the Chief Judicial Officer must make a ruling on it, giving ample time to hear arguments from any side of the issue. The Chief Judicial Officer’s rulings are to be considered precedent for all future cases.

iv) No persons shall hold the positions of Governor and Chief Judicial Officer at the same time, and whereas no persons shall hold the positions of Lieutenant Governor and Chief Judicial Officer at the same time. No persons shall serve as Chief Judicial Officer and Northeast Representative at the same time.

2.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 1, the current Chief Judicial Officer shall remain in office for the remainder of his term.

This vote shall remain open until 2:00PM on Monday, April 12, 2010, unless all Representatives shall have voted sooner.  It shall be followed by a vote on final passage of the CJO and Seats Number Amendments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 11, 2010, 12:58:38 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on April 11, 2010, 04:47:35 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on April 11, 2010, 08:42:59 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 11, 2010, 08:58:01 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on April 11, 2010, 09:23:40 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on April 12, 2010, 07:34:23 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on April 12, 2010, 08:59:46 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on April 12, 2010, 09:15:50 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 12, 2010, 01:04:40 PM
()

With a vote of 4-4, we have a tie to be broken by the Lt. Governor.  Lt. Governor Libertas has been notified.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on April 12, 2010, 04:35:32 PM
Aye for the record.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on April 12, 2010, 08:18:26 PM
As Lt. Governor, I shall be casting an Aye vote in favor of passage of the proposed amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 12, 2010, 09:39:29 PM
()
The amendment to the CJO Amendment passes.

We will now vote on both proposed amendments:

Quote
CJO Term Amendment
Article VI of the Northeast Constitution is amended to read:
 
i) The judicial branch of the Government of the Northeast Region shall be vested in the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region.

ii) The Chief Judicial Officer is to be appointed by the Governor with the confirmation of the Legislative Assembly. He or she shall have a term of four months, with the option of renewal. Whenever the office of Chief Judicial Officer becomes vacant, then he or she must be replaced within one month.

iii) The Chief Judicial Officer is to be charged with the duties of interpreting the laws of the Northeast Region and is charged to hold trials for the convicted. If someone submits a case to him or her, then the Chief Judicial Officer must make a ruling on it, giving ample time to hear arguments from any side of the issue. The Chief Judicial Officer’s rulings are to be considered precedent for all future cases.

iv) No persons shall hold the positions of Governor and Chief Judicial Officer at the same time, and whereas no persons shall hold the positions of Lieutenant Governor and Chief Judicial Officer at the same time. No persons shall serve as Chief Judicial Officer and Northeast Representative at the same time.


Quote
Seats number Amendment to the Northeast Constitution

1. Article V Section vii) of the New Northeast Constitution is hereby repealed. Its content shall be replaced by the following:

2. Six Representatives shall be elected, unless the Assembly shall provide otherwise by Law.


This vote will remain open until 10:40PM on April 13, 2010, unless all Representatives shall have voted sooner.  Please note that because these are amendments to the Constitution, a mere majority vote will not suffice for passage.  Voting is more important than for a regular bill due to the quorum requirement.

Please specify your vote as follows:

CJO Term Amendment:
Seats number Amendment:


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 12, 2010, 09:48:45 PM
CJO Term Amendment: Aye
Seats Number Amendment: Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on April 12, 2010, 09:54:25 PM
CJO Term Amendment: Aye
Seats number Amendment: Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on April 12, 2010, 11:44:31 PM
Aye on both


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 12, 2010, 11:49:35 PM
CJO Term Amendment:          Nay
Seats number Amendment:   Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on April 13, 2010, 12:43:20 AM
Aye for both.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on April 13, 2010, 08:17:05 AM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 13, 2010, 01:40:46 PM
Bump for those Representatives who haven't voted.  Please remember Constitutional amendments require a supermajority for passage and your vote is more important than usual, even if it just adds another aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on April 13, 2010, 02:27:32 PM
Aye and Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on April 13, 2010, 03:57:16 PM
Aye to both.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on April 13, 2010, 08:22:02 PM
Eh.. Aye to both.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 14, 2010, 12:12:37 AM
()

By a vote of 8-1, the CJO Term Amendment passes.
By a vote of 9-0, the Seats number Amendment passes.

Both will be sent to the Governor for his signature or veto.

Next bill:

Northeastern Insurance Company Regulation Act

Section I
1). No Health Insurance Company may deny a Northeastern citizen with the ability to pay Health care coverage due to a preexisting condition on the basis of a medical ailment.

2). A Health Insurance Company may not manipulate prices for specific treatments because of a discovery of a medical ailment, or a change in the customer's occupation or marital situation. A Health Insurance Company also cannot manipulate premium prices due to a customer's race, sex, country of origin, or occupation.

3). A Health Insurance Company may not drop a Northeastern Citizen's coverage due to any reason related to their current or past medical status.

Section II
1). A Insurance Company caught violating any clause in Section I of the Insurance Company Regulation Act will be subject to a fine of no less than $500,000, and no more than $2,000,000.

Sponsor: Rep. Giovanni

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least 1:15AM Eastern on Friday, April 16, 2010, unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Representative Giovanni, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on April 14, 2010, 01:09:19 AM
Amendment offered:


Section I

1). Health insurance providers may not manipulate, or otherwise alter to the detriment of the client, prices for specific treatments because of a discovery of a medical ailment, or a change in the customer's occupation or marital situation. A Health Insurance Company also cannot manipulate, or otherwise alter to the detriment of the client, premium prices due to a customer's race, sex, sexual orientation, country of origin, or occupation.

2). Health insurance providers may not drop a client's coverage due to any reason related to their current or past medical status, provided the client has sustained coverage.

Section II
1). Health insurance providers found violating any clause in Section I of the Insurance Company Regulation Act will be subject to a fine of no less than $500,000, and no more than $2,000,000.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on April 14, 2010, 03:56:08 PM
This Bill basically offers basic protections for Northeastern Atlasians who want to buy Healthcare Insurance, these are simple, effective, and needed reforms that I believe will make buying Healthcare a much less stressful process for the Northeast as a whole. I urge the Assembly to pass this bill for the good of the Northeast's people.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on April 14, 2010, 05:08:12 PM
A not entirely insane proposal in the Northeast Assembly? What the hell is going on here!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 14, 2010, 06:37:00 PM
A not entirely insane proposal in the Northeast Assembly? What the hell is going on here!

Of course you'd be in favor of a law that already does what Section 1(f) of the unconstitutional Atlasian National Healthcare Act says plus adds a discriminatory provision raising health insurance prices for young single males by forcing them to pay for services they don't need.

I oppose this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on April 15, 2010, 12:57:19 AM
A not entirely insane proposal in the Northeast Assembly? What the hell is going on here!

Of course you'd be in favor of a law that already does what Section 1(f) of the unconstitutional Atlasian National Healthcare Act says plus adds a discriminatory provision raising health insurance prices for young single males by forcing them to pay for services they don't need.

I oppose this bill.

Feel free to challenge it in court (again).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on April 15, 2010, 04:45:49 PM
A not entirely insane proposal in the Northeast Assembly? What the hell is going on here!

Of course you'd be in favor of a law that already does what Section 1(f) of the unconstitutional Atlasian National Healthcare Act says plus adds a discriminatory provision raising health insurance prices for young single males by forcing them to pay for services they don't need.

I oppose this bill.

Do you support my amendment?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 16, 2010, 01:14:14 AM
A not entirely insane proposal in the Northeast Assembly? What the hell is going on here!

Of course you'd be in favor of a law that already does what Section 1(f) of the unconstitutional Atlasian National Healthcare Act says plus adds a discriminatory provision raising health insurance prices for young single males by forcing them to pay for services they don't need.

I oppose this bill.

Do you support my amendment?

Giovanni - please answer this question.  Should you not do so before noon tomorrow, I will assume the amendment is unfriendly and proceed with a vote on it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on April 16, 2010, 01:21:32 AM
Implementing ObamaCare in the Northeast Region? What happened to you Giovanni? :(


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on April 16, 2010, 04:24:59 AM
Implementing ObamaCare in the Northeast Region? What happened to you Giovanni? :(

Preventing insurance companies from throwing people off their coverage whenever they get sick or preventing discriminating on the basis of gender/sexual orientation/race/occupation is somehow a radical proposal?

What on earth is wrong with you people?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on April 16, 2010, 05:25:20 AM
A not entirely insane proposal in the Northeast Assembly? What the hell is going on here!

Of course you'd be in favor of a law that already does what Section 1(f) of the unconstitutional Atlasian National Healthcare Act says plus adds a discriminatory provision raising health insurance prices for young single males by forcing them to pay for services they don't need.

I oppose this bill.

Do you support my amendment?

Giovanni - please answer this question.  Should you not do so before noon tomorrow, I will assume the amendment is unfriendly and proceed with a vote on it.

Sorry, I thought the question was aimed at you. I can't support the amendment without something about preexisting conditions in there. So, unfriendly, unless I'm missing something.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on April 16, 2010, 05:28:52 AM
Implementing ObamaCare in the Northeast Region? What happened to you Giovanni? :(

Preventing insurance companies from throwing people off their coverage whenever they get sick or preventing discriminating on the basis of gender/sexual orientation/race/occupation is somehow a radical proposal?

What on earth is wrong with you people?

This are basic reforms that even the MIDWEST has implemented already. I was dumbfounded that we didn't already have some other basic protections from Insurance Companies already.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 16, 2010, 07:36:39 AM
Implementing ObamaCare in the Northeast Region? What happened to you Giovanni? :(

Preventing insurance companies from throwing people off their coverage whenever they get sick or preventing discriminating on the basis of gender/sexual orientation/race/occupation is somehow a radical proposal?

What on earth is wrong with you people?

So car insurers charging young single males more for car insurance is okay because they're more likely to get into an accident, but health insurers charging coal miners more because they're more likely to have health issues isn't?  Insurance is supposed to insure against RISK.  Gender, sexual orientation, race and occupation matter, some categories more than others - especially occupation.  Why should I cross-subsidize someone who chooses to take a risky job?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 16, 2010, 07:38:42 AM
()

Okay.  First, we will vote on Rep. Silent Spade's proposed amendment to the bill:

Quote
Section I

1). Health insurance providers may not manipulate, or otherwise alter to the detriment of the client, prices for specific treatments because of a discovery of a medical ailment, or a change in the customer's occupation or marital situation. A Health Insurance Company also cannot manipulate, or otherwise alter to the detriment of the client, premium prices due to a customer's race, sex, sexual orientation, country of origin, or occupation.

2). Health insurance providers may not drop a client's coverage due to any reason related to their current or past medical status, provided the client has sustained coverage.

Section II
1). Health insurance providers found violating any clause in Section I of the Insurance Company Regulation Act will be subject to a fine of no less than $500,000, and no more than $2,000,000.

This vote shall remain open until 8:40AM on Saturday, April 17, unless all Representatives shall have voted sooner.  A vote on final passage shall follow.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 16, 2010, 07:40:56 AM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on April 16, 2010, 07:52:15 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 16, 2010, 11:45:28 AM
Abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on April 16, 2010, 11:46:45 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on April 16, 2010, 12:03:56 PM
aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on April 16, 2010, 03:10:50 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on April 16, 2010, 08:09:37 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on April 16, 2010, 10:37:21 PM
aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 17, 2010, 01:11:31 PM
()

By a vote of 3-4 with one abstention and one absence, the proposed amendment fails.

We shall now vote on final passage of the unamended bill:

Quote
Northeastern Insurance Company Regulation Act

Section I
1). No Health Insurance Company may deny a Northeastern citizen with the ability to pay Health care coverage due to a preexisting condition on the basis of a medical ailment.

2). A Health Insurance Company may not manipulate prices for specific treatments because of a discovery of a medical ailment, or a change in the customer's occupation or marital situation. A Health Insurance Company also cannot manipulate premium prices due to a customer's race, sex, country of origin, or occupation.

3). A Health Insurance Company may not drop a Northeastern Citizen's coverage due to any reason related to their current or past medical status.

Section II
1). A Insurance Company caught violating any clause in Section I of the Insurance Company Regulation Act will be subject to a fine of no less than $500,000, and no more than $2,000,000.

This vote shall remain open until 2:15 PM on Sunday April 18, unless all Representatives shall have voted sooner.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 17, 2010, 01:12:01 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on April 17, 2010, 03:21:05 PM
NAY!!!!!!!!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on April 17, 2010, 05:19:46 PM
AYE!!!!!!!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 17, 2010, 10:32:35 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on April 18, 2010, 10:55:06 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on April 18, 2010, 11:01:22 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 18, 2010, 01:16:46 PM
()

By a vote of 2-4 with 3 unexcused absences, the Northeastern Insurance Company Regulation Act fails.

As the legislative session will come to an end within 36 hours, there is not enough time to place additional legislation on the floor.  Floor action shall remain suspended until Tuesday, w hen the new Assembly is sworn in.  The first action on Tuesday shall be to elect a new speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: segwaystyle2012 on April 18, 2010, 08:42:04 PM
Good work this session, guys.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 18, 2010, 09:05:13 PM
FYI -

I now have access to the Wiki (but no authority to change the Assembly pages).  But if you want me to update or create your personal pages, please PM me with what you want me to put there.  I've updated the Governor and Lt. Governor's pages, as well as the main page.  Eventually, I'll get to the Constitution and (hopefully) Assembly page, if given the Lt. Governor's permission.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on April 19, 2010, 01:37:45 PM
It has been a pleasure my colleagues........and cinyc.......outstanding job.

When I have more time I'll rejoin fantasy land and actually sponsor some legislation........so watch out.  :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Age Wave on April 19, 2010, 02:11:12 PM
It has been a pleasure my colleagues........and cinyc.......outstanding job.

When I have more time I'll rejoin fantasy land and actually sponsor some legislation........so watch out.  :P

:D :D :D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on April 19, 2010, 09:26:19 PM
I must echo some of the comments made by my fellow Representatives. It has truely been an honor to serve in the Northeast Assembly. Although it was a short time, it really was a pleasure. Now, I only have to serve as Northeast Lt. Governor to have served in all roles of this regions government!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on April 19, 2010, 09:39:37 PM
Also, I would like to thank Cinyc for the great work he did on the wiki. It has been really outdated, and I thank you again for the work you did on it!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on April 19, 2010, 11:04:21 PM
Northeast government group-hug, anyone?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on April 19, 2010, 11:07:21 PM
Speaker cinyc,

I would like to appoint you to update the Wiki, which has been in dire need of revision.

(Also if you could give me some tips on how you managed to get your own Wiki account, that'd be great too ;) )

Lt. Governor Libertas


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 19, 2010, 11:12:24 PM

Sure.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 20, 2010, 01:01:10 AM
Speaker cinyc,

I would like to appoint you to update the Wiki, which has been in dire need of revision.

(Also if you could give me some tips on how you managed to get your own Wiki account, that'd be great too ;) )

Lt. Governor Libertas
I complained about it on the SoFA thread when someone there complained about the state of the Wiki.  Peter realized he had the ability to add wiki accounts - and gave me one.  The new instructions on the Wiki page say to PM him for an account.

I have only begun to edit the Wiki.  I'll do some more tomorrow, if I have time.  The Constitution and Assembly pages are in a dire need of upgrading.  I'm also going to try to find the laws passed during the missing period.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on April 20, 2010, 01:33:16 AM
Well, I, for one, think this session has been garbage. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on April 20, 2010, 09:12:31 AM
Well, I, for one, think this session has been garbage. ;)

Cause of ME???  :D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 20, 2010, 11:31:12 PM
FYI -

The Atlasian Supreme Court has overruled the CJO's decision to award damages for the strike.  The exact import of the opinion is unclear because the first opinion wasn't good enough - probably not sufficiently pro-union to the leftists who wrote the majority opinion, one of which commented on the law as it was written and ought have recused himself.

Basically, according to the court, unions are special and can breach their contracts without any remedy or recourse.   The right to collectively bargain includes the right for union workers not to live up to their contractual obligations.

So union contracts are basically not worth the paper they are printed on - well, the current opinion claims the contract has been unilaterally invalidated, but I'm sure that will be "clarified" to mean the union gets to do whatever they want and we can do nothing.  Why should we bother even negotiating?

I'm sure the court's new and improved revised opinion won't let us do this, but I'd suggest the next Assembly take up a bill to fire the strikers and hire replacement workers at 75% of current pay, require contributions to pay for health care premiums and no more gilded pension obligations.  


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: bullmoose88 on April 20, 2010, 11:52:37 PM
The Atlasian Supreme Court has overruled the CJO's decision to award damages for the strike.  The exact import of the opinion is unclear because the first opinion wasn't good enough - probably not sufficiently pro-union to the leftists who wrote the majority opinion, one of which commented on the law as it was written and ought have recused himself.

I'm sorry for butting in here and I'm not going to speak about the decision itself.

However, if you think the court is dominated by the leftists, isn't it unwise to push forward in such a manner that would set forth what you'd probably find to be some very bad caselaw?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on April 21, 2010, 12:00:38 AM
The main problem is not that the court is dominated by leftists, but rather that the court is dominated by vindictive clowns and joke posters, like Marokai and opebo.

That is the official opinion of the Lt. Governor.

Proceed. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 21, 2010, 12:06:36 AM
The Atlasian Supreme Court has overruled the CJO's decision to award damages for the strike.  The exact import of the opinion is unclear because the first opinion wasn't good enough - probably not sufficiently pro-union to the leftists who wrote the majority opinion, one of which commented on the law as it was written and ought have recused himself.

I'm sorry for butting in here and I'm not going to speak about the decision itself.

However, if you think the court is dominated by the leftists, isn't it unwise to push forward in such a manner that would set forth what you'd probably find to be some very bad caselaw?

No.  Public employee unions have gotten out of hand.  They live in a fantasy world where there's no recession and they deserve raises and perqs that people who work in the real world aren't getting.  Their actions have been completely unreasonable and out of proportion to a law that merely set a framework for future negotiations.

Besides, so far, the actual law wasn't struck down, just the CJO's decision to award damages for breach of contract - an opinion I find puzzling and would have never expected at all.  Live up to your damn contractual obligations.  Don't strike in the middle of it.  Otherwise, you should be sued for breach and be required to pay damages.  Period.  But for reasons the majority opinion doesn't explain, unions are extra special and don't have to live up to their contractual obligations like the rest of us.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on April 21, 2010, 09:26:13 AM
FYI -

The Atlasian Supreme Court has overruled the CJO's decision to award damages for the strike.  The exact import of the opinion is unclear because the first opinion wasn't good enough - probably not sufficiently pro-union to the leftists who wrote the majority opinion, one of which commented on the law as it was written and ought have recused himself.

Stop acting paranoid.  If you want a justice to recuse himself, please tell us before the decision is made.  There is no set procedure for such an action, so bringing it up may actually cause us to make some rules.  Otherwise, nothing will ever happen.  We can't read minds.

Furthermore, I have tried to restrain the justice you mention from making such comments, but if you really find this problematic, you need to take the initiative.  I can only say "don't do this, or don't say that because something will happen."  I can't do anything else.  If nothing is done from outside the Court, nothing will ever happen.  Otherwise, stop whining (in addition to acting paranoid)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on April 21, 2010, 09:27:52 AM
The Atlasian Supreme Court has overruled the CJO's decision to award damages for the strike.  The exact import of the opinion is unclear because the first opinion wasn't good enough - probably not sufficiently pro-union to the leftists who wrote the majority opinion, one of which commented on the law as it was written and ought have recused himself.

I'm sorry for butting in here and I'm not going to speak about the decision itself.

However, if you think the court is dominated by the leftists, isn't it unwise to push forward in such a manner that would set forth what you'd probably find to be some very bad caselaw?

I doubt any decision will change because of what cinyc does or doesn't do.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Badger on April 21, 2010, 11:47:34 AM

Public employee unions Wall Street executives and insurance companies have gotten out of hand.  They live in a fantasy world where there's no recession and they deserve raises and perqs that people who work in the real world aren't getting.  Their actions have been completely unreasonable


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 21, 2010, 12:14:06 PM
The Atlasian Supreme Court has overruled the CJO's decision to award damages for the strike.  The exact import of the opinion is unclear because the first opinion wasn't good enough - probably not sufficiently pro-union to the leftists who wrote the majority opinion, one of which commented on the law as it was written and ought have recused himself.

I'm sorry for butting in here and I'm not going to speak about the decision itself.

However, if you think the court is dominated by the leftists, isn't it unwise to push forward in such a manner that would set forth what you'd probably find to be some very bad caselaw?

I doubt any decision will change because of what cinyc does or doesn't do.

That wasn't Bullmoose's point.  Bullmoose's point is that the Northeast shouldn't be passing conservative laws because this leftist court will just strike them down, creating bad precedent.

But whatever.  I'm out of office once the new Assembly is sworn back in and intend to slink back to the shadows where I belong.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on April 21, 2010, 12:22:26 PM
I am incredibly tired of your attitude, cinyc. Almost all of our decisions in the past I have made in concert with Spade himself (let's no beat around the bush here gentlemen and act like you're not talking about me) and I've taken the time to very carefully consider everything at hand.

I don't dick around on the court and just make decisions without thinking about them nor do I try and just find ways for Opebo and I to agree on something so we can tick off Spade. I really like Spade, and I've made alot of effort in the past to find areas of agreement with him whenever possible. (The HAEV case, for instance, was unified because Spade and I wanted to be absolutely sure all three of us were standing together, so I made a considerable effort in coming to the middle to meet Spade when I absolutely did not have to.)

You have no idea the amount of time and energy I put in to considering every case before me.

And this "dominated by lefists" thing is so absurdly paranoid and just designed to try and get people to oppose my efforts on the court. In the Libertas decision, Spade and I were in agreement on the conclusion. In the SPC decision on the smoking ban, Spade and I were in agreement on the conclusion. In the HAEV decision, Spade and I were in agreement on the conclusion. In the Jbrase decision, Spade and I were in agreement on the conclusion. Even in this union case, though in the new opinion still to-be published there are many things Spade doesn't like, I've still heard some level of agreement from him on at least on part of it. (And I sought out his opinion trying to find areas of agreement before I took up the task.)

This idea that Opebo and I are ruling the court in some sort of tyrannical left-wing way is absurd and objectively wrong and it's about time you drop it.

At every possible turn you've tried to stir up trouble against me, and I'm getting tired of it right quick. People are allowed to express their opinions, and I've been remarkably more restrained since I took the position precisely because of attitudes like yours. This is a game, there's only a handful of extremely active individuals, and we all have opinions.

In short, you're getting pissed off because I express my carefully thought out opinions on fictional legal matters. Something I really put alot of my energy into trying to very precisely express myself. You have absolutely no right to act like a complete jerk to me because you just don't like my opinion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 21, 2010, 06:31:55 PM
I am incredibly tired of your attitude, cinyc. Almost all of our decisions in the past I have made in concert with Spade himself (let's no beat around the bush here gentlemen and act like you're not talking about me) and I've taken the time to very carefully consider everything at hand.

I don't dick around on the court and just make decisions without thinking about them nor do I try and just find ways for Opebo and I to agree on something so we can tick off Spade. I really like Spade, and I've made alot of effort in the past to find areas of agreement with him whenever possible. (The HAEV case, for instance, was unified because Spade and I wanted to be absolutely sure all three of us were standing together, so I made a considerable effort in coming to the middle to meet Spade when I absolutely did not have to.)

You have no idea the amount of time and energy I put in to considering every case before me.

And this "dominated by lefists" thing is so absurdly paranoid and just designed to try and get people to oppose my efforts on the court. In the Libertas decision, Spade and I were in agreement on the conclusion. In the SPC decision on the smoking ban, Spade and I were in agreement on the conclusion. In the HAEV decision, Spade and I were in agreement on the conclusion. In the Jbrase decision, Spade and I were in agreement on the conclusion. Even in this union case, though in the new opinion still to-be published there are many things Spade doesn't like, I've still heard some level of agreement from him on at least on part of it. (And I sought out his opinion trying to find areas of agreement before I took up the task.)

This idea that Opebo and I are ruling the court in some sort of tyrannical left-wing way is absurd and objectively wrong and it's about time you drop it.

At every possible turn you've tried to stir up trouble against me, and I'm getting tired of it right quick. People are allowed to express their opinions, and I've been remarkably more restrained since I took the position precisely because of attitudes like yours. This is a game, there's only a handful of extremely active individuals, and we all have opinions.

In short, you're getting pissed off because I express my carefully thought out opinions on fictional legal matters. Something I really put alot of my energy into trying to very precisely express myself. You have absolutely no right to act like a complete jerk to me because you just don't like my opinion.

I haven't tried to stir up trouble against anyone.  I've accurately predicted that the Atlasian Supreme Court would side with the unions no matter what.  Your comments on this thread about the bill when we were passing it made that a foregone conclusion.   And I have an absolute right to criticize court decisions and the out-of-court behavior of the Justices - you can characterize it as whining or paranoia or whatever - but I do.  The court made it clear when the question of recusal was raised in a prior case that it there is no procedure for it and therefore, raising it would be futile.

At the end of the day, it no longer matters.  I did not run for reelection to the Assembly and don't expect to be running for anything else in the future.  I'm going back to the shadows, where I belong.  You win.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 21, 2010, 06:36:57 PM
With the new Assembly in session, I pass the gavel to the Lt. Governor to commence the speaker election. 
The gavel is here: http://i48.tinypic.com/10gfeoi.jpg

Please note that the GM says the union is willing to negotiate the contract.  I assume that means they will not immediately go on strike.  The Governor and Assembly are going to have to figure out what to do.  I will no longer act as counsel on the Northeasts' behalf if you want to take this further through the courts.

Good luck in the new session!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on April 21, 2010, 06:43:00 PM
I wish Spade could teach me how to very cryptically say something without referring to it openly.

That was my only comment here during the debate over the Practical Labor Policy Act. If you expect me to eat, breathe, and sleep judicial matters and never do anything else, that's not going to happen. We all express our opinions somewhere on this site, and finding anyone to be absolutely impartial who never says a cross word to anyone is unrealistic.

I have been careful to judge cases on their merits and how the law contrasts with them. Everyone knows I was a supporter of HAEV. Did I try to save that institution from the court? Hell no I didn't. It's guidelines were unconstitutional and I said as much to Spade in joining his opinion.

You just don't like me, Cinyc. It's okay to admit it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on April 21, 2010, 07:31:36 PM
Friendly note:

Cut the size of your legislature to three, immediately.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 21, 2010, 07:58:13 PM
Friendly note:

Cut the size of your legislature to three, immediately.
We already passed an amendment to be on the ballot in May, reducing it to six.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on April 21, 2010, 08:12:00 PM
Friendly note:

Cut the size of your legislature to three, immediately.
We already passed an amendment to be on the ballot in May, reducing it to six.

Six is way too many.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on April 21, 2010, 09:44:45 PM
Friendly note:

Cut the size of your legislature to three, immediately.
We already passed an amendment to be on the ballot in May, reducing it to six.

Six is way too many.

Really now?  Maybe three is too many.  Perhaps we should have one member of the legislature.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on April 21, 2010, 09:48:08 PM
Friendly note:

Cut the size of your legislature to three, immediately.
We already passed an amendment to be on the ballot in May, reducing it to six.

Six is way too many.

Really now?  Maybe three is too many.  Perhaps we should have one member of the legislature.

Don't be ridiculous.

You just elected four people to your legislature. The Mideast had a three-man legislature for a long time and it worked well.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on April 21, 2010, 09:56:06 PM
Friendly note:

Cut the size of your legislature to three, immediately.
We already passed an amendment to be on the ballot in May, reducing it to six.

Six is way too many.

Really now?  Maybe three is too many.  Perhaps we should have one member of the legislature.

Don't be ridiculous.

You just elected four people to your legislature. The Mideast had a three-man legislature for a long time and it worked well.

Three people in a legislature doesn't really give a whole lot of room for diversity of views.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on April 21, 2010, 10:01:59 PM
()

Welcome to the next session of the Northeast Assembly.


I would ask the Representatives to now begin making nominations for the next Speaker of the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on April 21, 2010, 10:04:05 PM
Friendly note:

Cut the size of your legislature to three, immediately.
We already passed an amendment to be on the ballot in May, reducing it to six.

Six is way too many.

Really now?  Maybe three is too many.  Perhaps we should have one member of the legislature.

Don't be ridiculous.

You just elected four people to your legislature. The Mideast had a three-man legislature for a long time and it worked well.

Three people in a legislature doesn't really give a whole lot of room for diversity of views.

Four, then.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on April 21, 2010, 10:08:16 PM
I think six is a balanced number of Representatives.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 22, 2010, 12:00:43 AM
I will run for Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on April 22, 2010, 12:25:49 AM
I think six is a balanced number of Representatives.

It would be good, but you don't have enough candidates to make it work.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on April 22, 2010, 12:33:41 AM
The region's legislature did this odd sorta thing where it grew and grew and grew and then popped. It is kinda like a financial bubble of sorts, which is a fairly good reason to remove floating numbers of seats.

I do think six is okay considering the size of the region. You can't blame it for an ebb tide.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on April 22, 2010, 12:37:46 AM
I think six is a balanced number of Representatives.

It would be good, but you don't have enough candidates to make it work.

That's just temporary.  Last time we had way more than enough candidates.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Badger on April 23, 2010, 03:01:39 PM
Friendly note:

Cut the size of your legislature to three, immediately.
We already passed an amendment to be on the ballot in May, reducing it to six.

Six is way too many.

Really now?  Maybe three is too many.  Perhaps we should have one member of the legislature.

Don't be ridiculous.

You just elected four people to your legislature. The Mideast had a three-man legislature for a long time and it worked well.

It's worked rather well with 5 members too.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on April 24, 2010, 01:57:30 PM
()

Alright, no other nominations for speaker? We shall begin voting now then.


Official Ballot of the Northeast

Speaker of the Assembly:

[ ] Dallasfan65
[ ] Write-in: __________


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 24, 2010, 08:40:16 PM
[1] Dallasfan65


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on April 24, 2010, 08:44:15 PM
[1] Dallasfan65


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on April 24, 2010, 11:57:57 PM
Dallasfan65


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on April 25, 2010, 06:30:05 AM
1. Dallasfan
2. Write In: Fred


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 25, 2010, 10:37:34 PM
Well, everyone has voted, and I'd like to thank the Assembly for selecting me as their Speaker. I can only hope I will live up to the task.

()

First bill:

Quote
Sensible Budget Amendment

1. No Northeast budget may spend more money than the Northeast takes in, without the support of 2/3rds of the voters of the Northeast via referendum.

2. No taxes shall be levied or raised without the support of 2/3rds of the Assembly.

Sponsor: Rep. Dallasfan65

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least Tuesday, April 27th, 11:35 PM unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Dallasfan65, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 25, 2010, 10:39:58 PM
The rationale for this bill, I feel, is rather simple.

As a rule of thumb we shouldn't be spending more money than we take in - barring some extreme circumstance, in which case, if the voters of our region felt that way, we would be allowed to.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Badger on April 26, 2010, 04:13:02 AM
The rationale for this bill, I feel, is rather simple.

As a rule of thumb we shouldn't be spending more money than we take in - barring some extreme circumstance, in which case, if the voters of our region felt that way, we would be allowed to.

California is in some of the worst financial doo-doo in the nation largely in part to exactly such a restriction.

Why on earth should raising taxes require a super majority as opposed to a simple majority? IMHO, majority rule democracy > tax increases.

Incidentally, for the sake of budget planning and simple consistency, does this mean tax cuts will likewise require a 2/3 majority as well?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on April 26, 2010, 04:39:07 AM
The rationale for this bill, I feel, is rather simple.

As a rule of thumb we shouldn't be spending more money than we take in - barring some extreme circumstance, in which case, if the voters of our region felt that way, we would be allowed to.

There are much easier ways of accomplishing that than mandating 2/3rds in a referendum and Assembly support for nearly anything spending or tax related.

Three examples come to mind. One being what Badger cited, another being Colorado post-Taxpayer Bill of Rights, another being the state of Texas' social safety net because of balanced budget requirements. People need to stop being so ideological about these things and focus on what actually works instead, and there are very easy ways to observably know such proposals are ridiculous.

California is undergoing a budget crisis. Colorado post-TABOR had serious problems that plague them to this day because of the days where they suffered a serious lack of revenue and spending flexibility. Texas has the worst healthcare and some of the worst education in the nation, among other things, and it's not because of them there illegals.

There has to come a point where people recognize there are certain issues that aren't decided on opinion or guesses. This isn't an issue where you can get good or bad results based on how strongly you believe in it. These issues are empirical. You can see them. The results have been recorded. It's not about opinion vs. opinion. This issue isn't about someone taking an opinion of theoretical physics, this is about people arguing over what color the sky is, when all you have to do is take a look at the sky to know.

Everyone do your research before making such silly decisions. Is that too much to ask? Less decisions based on ideological purity and more based on the reality of society-running.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on April 26, 2010, 05:16:18 AM
Quote
Sensible Budget Amendment

1. No Northeast budget may spend more money than the Northeast takes in, without the support of 2/3rds of the voters of the Northeast via referendum.

2. No taxes shall be levied or raised without the support of 2/3rds of the Assembly.

I oppose this bill. The State of California is one of the worst financial crises in the country largely in part leaving such important things up to the voters. I also don't see any merit at all requiring a supermajority in the Assembly to raise taxes, especially when revenue is needed. We shouldn't leave budgetary matters up to the voters, it could, and I fear, would turn into a disaster.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 26, 2010, 08:40:59 AM
The rationale for this bill, I feel, is rather simple.

As a rule of thumb we shouldn't be spending more money than we take in - barring some extreme circumstance, in which case, if the voters of our region felt that way, we would be allowed to.

California is in some of the worst financial doo-doo in the nation largely in part to exactly such a restriction.

Why on earth should raising taxes require a super majority as opposed to a simple majority? IMHO, majority rule democracy > tax increases.

Incidentally, for the sake of budget planning and simple consistency, does this mean tax cuts will likewise require a 2/3 majority as well?


That is a good idea, and I will amend my bill to read as such.

Quote
Sensible Budget Amendment

1. No Northeast budget may spend more money than the Northeast takes in, without the support of 2/3rds of the voters of the Northeast via referendum.

2. No taxes shall be levied or raised without the support of 2/3rds of the Assembly.

I oppose this bill. The State of California is one of the worst financial crises in the country largely in part leaving such important things up to the voters. I also don't see any merit at all requiring a supermajority in the Assembly to raise taxes, especially when revenue is needed. We shouldn't leave budgetary matters up to the voters, it could, and I fear, would turn into a disaster.


If the revenue was needed in such dire circumstances, would we not, or future assemblies, come together and vote for a tax increase?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 26, 2010, 08:47:10 AM
Quote
Sensible Budget Amendment

1. No Northeast budget may spend more money than the Northeast takes in, without the support of 2/3rds of the voters of the Northeast via referendum.

2. No taxes shall be levied, raised, or cut without the support of 2/3rds of the Assembly.

The bill is amended to read as such.

I motion shortening debate to 24 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on April 26, 2010, 08:53:41 PM
Quote
Sensible Budget Amendment

1. No Northeast budget may spend more money than the Northeast takes in, without the support of 2/3rds of the voters of the Northeast via referendum.

2. No taxes shall be levied, raised, or cut without the support of 2/3rds of the Assembly.

The bill is amended to read as such.

I motion shortening debate to 24 hours.

I second this motion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on April 26, 2010, 10:17:40 PM
I also support the motion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 26, 2010, 10:26:39 PM
()

Since we have achieved a majority, debate has been shortened until Monday, April 26th, 11:35 PM.

To those Assemblymen whom are online right now, I urge you to stay on a few more minutes to make the vote.

(I was looking at my clock, Day Light Savings, when posting this, so take that into account. It will still be in a few minutes.)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 26, 2010, 10:37:25 PM
()

We will now begin a vote on the Sensible Budget Amendment.

Voting will continue for 24 hours, or until all Representatives have voted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 26, 2010, 10:50:01 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on April 26, 2010, 11:29:24 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on April 27, 2010, 06:20:45 AM
Well I've been rather ill the past few days, but in case it wasn't official, I declare Dallasfan65 the lawfully elected Speaker of the Northeast Assembly.

Lt. Gov Libertas


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on April 27, 2010, 03:25:08 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 27, 2010, 11:58:11 PM
()

With two votes in favor, one unexcused absence and one vote against, the Sensible Budget Amendment passes and will be on the ballot in May.

There is no legislation in the queue at the moment, though there will be shortly, so I ask my fellow assemblymen to stay vigilant.

EDIT: A major oversight on my part. Since Representative redcommander did not vote, the bill fails.

*Applause from the Western Hemisphere of the PM chart.*


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 28, 2010, 12:49:05 AM
Did we ever get a ruling regarding whether the 3 people who wrote themselves in should have been deemed elected?   Given the Northeast's recent past electoral history, they should have.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 28, 2010, 08:34:23 AM
Did we ever get a ruling regarding whether the 3 people who wrote themselves in should have been deemed elected?   Given the Northeast's recent past electoral history, they should have.
Rowan only certified Han, Giovanni, redcommander, Segway (whom was subsequently banned) and myself.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on April 28, 2010, 09:10:35 AM
How many seats are being filled in Friday's election?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 28, 2010, 11:18:19 AM
How many seats are being filled in Friday's election?

Too many.

Five.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 28, 2010, 11:55:36 AM
()

The Assembly will move on to consider the next bill in the queue.

Quote
Practical Labor Policy Redux

1. The remaining provisions, except for Provision 6 in the original Practical Labor Policy are nullified.
2. A person may not be denied employment based on membership or non-membership in a labor organization.
3. A person may not be required as a condition of continued employment to be either a member or a non-member of a labor organization.

Sponsor: Rep. Dallasfan65

The Ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will contine until atleast Friday, April 30th, 12:55 PM unless debate is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Dallasfan65, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 30, 2010, 11:53:11 AM
()

The Assembly will now hold a vote on the Practical Labor Policy Redux.

Representatives have 24 hours to vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on April 30, 2010, 03:55:59 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 30, 2010, 04:04:29 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on April 30, 2010, 08:16:54 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on May 01, 2010, 08:32:17 PM
Sorry for the absence. Been out of town.

Aye, if I'm not too late...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on May 01, 2010, 08:36:25 PM
()

With four ayes and five vacancies, the Practical Labor Policy Redux passes and is presented to the Governor's desk for his signature or veto.

There is no legislation at the moment, though I urge all of our Representatives to get something through the pipe. I expect that we may have to pass Regional versions of the Animal Protection Act in the coming days.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on May 05, 2010, 11:35:34 AM
()

We will now bring the next piece of legislation to the floor.

Quote
The Animal Protection Act

The state of Atlasia recognizes that it is our duty to protect the welfare of animals. Therefore, the following shall be enforced by virtue of reducing by 10% all federal funding to the regions for environmental protection and wildlife management for any region which does not include the following provisions by 9/1/10.:

1. The Northeast recognizes animal cruelty as the following: a. Wilfull neglect b. Malicious killing c. Beatings d. Animal Fighting ie Dog fight, cock fight for sport.

2. The Northeast doesn't recognize the following as animal cruelty: a. Hunting for food or sport as regulated by local environmental protection laws b. Killing Animals for food.

3 No person shall:

   (a) Torture an animal, deprive one of necessary sustenance, unnecessarily or cruelly beat, needlessly mutilate or kill, or impound or confine an animal without supplying it during such confinement with a sufficient quantity of good wholesome food and water;

   (b) Impound or confine an animal without affording it, during such confinement, access to shelter from wind, rain, snow, or excessive direct sunlight if it can reasonably be expected that the animals would otherwise become sick or in some other way suffer. Division (3)(b) of this section does not apply to animals impounded or confined immediately prior to slaughter.

   (c) Carry or convey an animal in a cruel or inhuman[e] manner;

4. Any person under the age of 18, who is found guilty of animal abuse is required to undergo psychological evaluation to determine if the child needs individual or family counseling. If found sane said person shall serve a maximum of 1 year in juvenile jail. Parents or Guardians of said person under 18, are liable for all cost for the evaluation/counseling/fine.

5. If a person over the age of 18 commits animal abuse, said person shall serve a maximum of 1 year in jail and/or 5,000 dollars fine.

6. Except as otherwise permitted by Paragraph 7 below, the use of animals for testing of non-medicinal products related to ordinary grooming and care including, but not limited to cosmetics, non medicinal soaps, perfumes, colognes, non medicinal shampoos, conditioners, toothpastes, mouthwashes, and other toiletries not specifically prescibed by a licensed medical practitioner, is banned.

7. A producer of the items described in Section 6 above may apply to the Atlasian Regional Department of Commerce for a licensed exemption from this rule if the following can be demonstrated:

a) The product or substance in question cannot be feasibly tested or made safe in accordance with existing food and drug testing regulations for human use or consumption by using methods excluding the use of non-animal testing; or

b) Such animal testing procedures are certified by the Department of Commerce to not cause undue, prolonged pain or suffering of the tested animals, and that any animals ultimately exterminated as a result of such testing are specifically bred and raised for purpose of such testing rather than wild caught.

c) For determination of "feasible" pursuant to section 7) (a) above, a non-animal testing procedure that does not raise the estimated wholesale cost of producing said item by over 50% is presumed feasible.

8. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit or prohibit the use of animal testing as otherwise permitted by law in legitimate scientific or medical research not directly related to the commercial development of such products described in Section 6 above.

9. An organization, business or individual proprietor who violates Section 6 above may be fined up to $500k $500,000 per violation.

Sponsor: Dallasfan65

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until atleast Friday, May 7th, 12:35 PM unless debate is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Dallasfan65, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on May 05, 2010, 11:37:37 AM
While I'm very supportive of part of the bill, and not as supportive of other parts, we will lose funding if we do not pass this it's entirety, unless I'm mistaken.

Thus, I urge my fellow Representatives to pass this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on May 05, 2010, 05:54:39 PM
I like this bill, and see this is as something I will be supporting.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on May 05, 2010, 06:26:09 PM
I support this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on May 05, 2010, 07:00:03 PM
I support this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on May 05, 2010, 11:49:58 PM
It is not perfect but it is good. 

I support this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on May 07, 2010, 11:13:56 AM
are we planning on getting anything done? can we put this to a vote if no one wants to change anything already?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on May 07, 2010, 11:18:57 AM
are we planning on getting anything done? can we put this to a vote if no one wants to change anything already?

The vote is scheduled for 12:35.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on May 07, 2010, 11:34:59 AM
()

The Assembly will now hold a vote on The Animal Protection Act. Representatives have 24 hours to vote.

I'd ask that we simultaneously consider nominations for the Lt. Governorship.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on May 07, 2010, 11:46:01 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on May 07, 2010, 11:54:23 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on May 07, 2010, 12:03:59 PM
AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on May 07, 2010, 12:08:08 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on May 07, 2010, 03:59:47 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on May 07, 2010, 06:22:23 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on May 07, 2010, 06:32:51 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: ej2mm15 on May 08, 2010, 08:09:32 AM
aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on May 08, 2010, 11:04:16 AM
()

With eight ayes the bill passes and is presented to the Governor's desk for his signature.

We will now hold nominations for the Lieutenant Governorship, since there is a vacancy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on May 08, 2010, 08:59:04 PM
I nominate Fezzyfestoon for the recommendation for Lieutenant Governor.

Does anyone else have any recommendations?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on May 08, 2010, 09:02:52 PM
I nominate Fezzyfestoon for the recommendation for Lieutenant Governor.

Does anyone else have any recommendations?

If he would accept, I would second the recommendation of Fezzy. I believe he did well, and has the experience as a former Governor to do the job.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: true liberty on May 08, 2010, 09:04:23 PM
I approve of fezzy's nomination.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on May 09, 2010, 08:33:43 PM
Any more nominations, or can I bring our recommendation to a vote?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on May 10, 2010, 10:12:07 PM
I hearby sign the bill, since it wasn't posted in my office thread.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on May 10, 2010, 10:13:51 PM
I hearby sign the bill, since it wasn't posted in my office thread.

Please post these things in your office thread, preferably using the Northeast seal when you sign it.  Otherwise, it becomes impossible for someone to track down should the Wiki get out of date again.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on May 10, 2010, 10:14:46 PM
I hearby sign the bill, since it wasn't posted in my office thread.

Please post these things in your office thread, preferably using the Northeast seal when you sign it.  Otherwise, it becomes impossible for someone to track down should the Wiki get out of date again.

Nevertheless, I think it was passed with a veto-proof majority, so it doesn't need the Governor's signature.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on May 10, 2010, 11:14:08 PM
I hearby sign the bill, since it wasn't posted in my office thread.

Please post these things in your office thread, preferably using the Northeast seal when you sign it.  Otherwise, it becomes impossible for someone to track down should the Wiki get out of date again.

Nevertheless, I think it was passed with a veto-proof majority, so it doesn't need the Governor's signature.

Every bill needs the governor's signature or inaction.   That it was passed by a veto-proof majority is irrelevant.

Trust me - it's a lot easier to track down legislation when signed in the Governors' thread under the Seal of the Northeast.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on May 11, 2010, 02:11:00 PM
()

We will now hold a vote on our recommendation for Lt. Governor:

[ ] Fezzyfestoon
[ ] Write-in

Representatives have 24 hours to vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on May 11, 2010, 04:21:42 PM
Fezzy


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on May 11, 2010, 07:51:24 PM
fezzy


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on May 11, 2010, 08:00:26 PM
Fezzy


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: ej2mm15 on May 11, 2010, 09:48:36 PM
fezzy


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on May 12, 2010, 08:23:59 AM
[1] Fezzyfestoon


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on May 12, 2010, 02:19:54 PM
()

With five votes and four absences, Fezzyfestoon is recommended by the Assembly for Lieutenant Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Badger on May 12, 2010, 09:16:32 PM
()

With five votes and four absences, Fezzyfestoon is recommended by the Assembly for Lieutenant Governor.

Good choice.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on May 22, 2010, 09:22:25 PM
()

Quote
Combat HIV/AIDS Act of 2010

Whereas:
 
Annually, Hepatitis C treatment costs $25,000 to $30,000 per person.
 
HIV treatment was estimated to cost about $20000 per person per year.
 
And whereas
 
The cost to prevent one HIV infection through a syringe and needle exchange program has been calculated at $4,000 to $12,000.

 The Northeast region shall appropriate $4 million to implement a functioning syringe and needle exchange program targeting areas with rates of injected drug use that exceed the national average.

Sponsor: Rep. Dallasfan65

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.


Debate on this bill will continue until at least Monday, May 24th, 10:22 PM unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Dallasfan65, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on May 22, 2010, 09:27:47 PM
Aye



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on May 22, 2010, 09:29:45 PM

Vote hasn't started yet.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on May 22, 2010, 09:39:02 PM
Where is the money coming from? Can we afford this?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on May 22, 2010, 09:39:41 PM
I was responding to weather it should be considered. :(


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on May 24, 2010, 10:08:01 AM
Where is the money coming from? Can we afford this?

Well, under these estimations, it would reduce the amount of money we spend. (Treating less people for diseases from needles)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on May 24, 2010, 11:09:55 AM
I approve of this legislation.  Some may find it morally abhorrent to provide needles to drug abusers, but government should not infringe on personal liberty to force morality, and instead should simply deal with the facts of life in the Northeast.  People are always going to be injecting sh-t into their veins, and there is nothing we can do about it.  We can at least make sure that they do not catch diseases, which would take a burden off of our health care system.

Though I must ask, are drug abusers really going to take the needles?  I think there should be some sort of provision in place, providing that these needles be freely available at hospitals and the like.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on May 24, 2010, 05:33:29 PM
I suppose I endorse this bill then.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on May 24, 2010, 05:50:06 PM
I assume the needles would be available at health clinics and hospitals, correct?

I support this legislation. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on May 24, 2010, 06:05:43 PM
Hey all, just wanted to give you a heads up that I'm havin laptop problems here. It isn't charging, and since I have a new job can't quite sneak on at work yet, so I can only use my phone. If someone would be kind and send me a pm when we have a vote it would be greatly appreciated until I get this fixed. Thanks!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on May 24, 2010, 09:24:53 PM
()

We will now hold a vote on the Combat HIV/AIDS Act of 2010. Representatives have 24 hours to vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on May 24, 2010, 09:32:22 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on May 24, 2010, 09:35:23 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Countess Anya of the North Parish on May 25, 2010, 02:54:09 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on May 25, 2010, 04:20:42 PM
aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on May 25, 2010, 11:05:03 PM
()

With Four ayes, Zero nays, and four unexcused absences, the Combat HIV/AIDS Act of 2010 passes and is presented to the Governor for his signature or veto.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on May 27, 2010, 06:01:14 PM
My apologies for my absence.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: ej2mm15 on May 28, 2010, 10:30:35 PM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on June 11, 2010, 09:31:02 PM
()

Quote
The Prisoner Diet Reform Act

Northeast Prisons will not be permitted to feed prisoners meat, and will keep prisoners on a strict vegetarian diet.

Sponsor: Rep. Hantheguitarman

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill shall extend until atleast Sunday, June 13th, 10:30 PM unless the debate period is shortened or extended in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Rep. Hantheguitarman, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on June 11, 2010, 11:00:08 PM
Basically, meat is an expensive luxury. It'll be much better for the environment to feed prisoners a vegetarian diet. Additionally, it'll be cheaper for the Northeast Government to feed the prisoners a vegetarian diet, since that we don't have to buy the meat to feed the prisoners. Why should we be giving prisoners this luxury that they clearly don't need to be healthy anyway? If I may add, this bill was inspired by legislation in the Pacific.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on June 14, 2010, 09:29:15 PM
()

We will now hold a vote on the Prisoner Diet Reform Act. Representatives have 24 hours to vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on June 14, 2010, 09:33:15 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on June 14, 2010, 09:34:23 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: ej2mm15 on June 15, 2010, 04:05:47 PM
aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on June 15, 2010, 08:20:36 PM
NAY!

The only other way they will get protien is by getting some protien shakes in the shower.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on June 16, 2010, 08:26:18 PM
()

With three ayes, one nay, and three unexcused absences the Prisoner Diet Reform Act goes to the Governor's desk for his signature or veto.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on June 16, 2010, 08:46:44 PM
Sorry about missing this one guys.  For the record, I would have voted no on this one.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on June 19, 2010, 02:29:10 AM
Sorry for my absence, I would have voted in favor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on June 27, 2010, 10:04:25 PM
I vote that we hold an emergency assembly to deal with recent happenings, as the old assembly has phased out and the elections have still not been certified.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on June 27, 2010, 10:42:29 PM
I vote that we hold an emergency assembly to deal with recent happenings, as the old assembly has phased out and the elections have still not been certified.

Are you even a member of the Assembly?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on June 27, 2010, 11:06:04 PM
I vote that we hold an emergency assembly to deal with recent happenings, as the old assembly has phased out and the elections have still not been certified.

Are you even a member of the Assembly?

He's not - or atleast, not yet.

However, I don't think we have the authority to convene an emergency Assembly. We should ask the CJO to make haste with the results.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on June 28, 2010, 03:27:25 PM
OK, so, uh, now that we're all here, what exactly should we do first?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on June 28, 2010, 03:56:52 PM
OK, so, uh, now that we're all here, what exactly should we do first?

Get a bill that raises the minimum wage and cuts small business taxes, on my desk pronto.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on June 28, 2010, 04:06:09 PM
OK, so, uh, now that we're all here, what exactly should we do first?

Get a bill that raises the minimum wage and cuts small business taxes, on my desk pronto.

Submit'd.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on June 28, 2010, 04:06:37 PM
Not to intervene, but you guys need to elect a Speaker before you do anything else.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 28, 2010, 04:18:19 PM
Time for my favorite quote of all


"WHO THE HELL IS CHARGE OF THIS FIASCO? "


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on June 28, 2010, 05:56:48 PM
Do we have any nominations for Speaker?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on June 28, 2010, 06:00:37 PM
Not to intervene, but you guys need to elect a Speaker before you do anything else.

Well the Lt. Governor is supposed to run the Assembly, with the Speaker becoming necessary when the Lt. Gov declares a leave of absence.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on June 28, 2010, 06:05:39 PM
Not to intervene, but you guys need to elect a Speaker before you do anything else.

Well the Lt. Governor is supposed to run the Assembly, with the Speaker becoming necessary when the Lt. Gov declares a leave of absence.

You have to elect one, though. I was there we they wrote the procedure. ;)

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102877.msg2171384#msg2171384


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on June 28, 2010, 06:15:04 PM
Electing a Speaker is the first order of Assembly business.  Legislation generally cannot be placed on the floor until a Speaker is elected.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on June 28, 2010, 07:19:40 PM
Do we have any nominations for Speaker?

I will run for Speaker


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on June 28, 2010, 07:31:51 PM

x WilliamSargent


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on June 28, 2010, 09:03:45 PM

There isn't time to vote yet. After candidates have declared, the Lieutenant Governor opens the vote for Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on June 28, 2010, 09:22:21 PM

There isn't time to vote yet. After candidates have declared, the Lieutenant Governor opens the vote for Speaker.

Ok, in that case, strike that last post.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on June 28, 2010, 10:27:15 PM
I assume I was elected, since I got the PM from Dallas?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on June 28, 2010, 10:38:46 PM
I hope this Assembly will choose to consider a ConCon resolution early on. It is something that will lend itself to extensive debate and will also help my administration make good on the major promise of our campaign.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: California8429 on June 28, 2010, 10:42:31 PM
Time for my favorite quote of all


"WHO THE HELL IS CHARGE OF THIS FIASCO? "

^ perfect


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on June 29, 2010, 09:06:17 PM
who is our lieutenant governor and where is he?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on June 29, 2010, 11:33:18 PM
who is our lieutenant governor and where is he?

fezzyfestoon and perhaps you or another member of the Assembly should PM him.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: fezzyfestoon on June 30, 2010, 09:02:11 PM
SORRY. OK START TO VOTE.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on June 30, 2010, 09:07:02 PM
[1] hantheguitarman


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on June 30, 2010, 09:15:08 PM
lol

[1] hantheguitarman


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on June 30, 2010, 10:23:55 PM
[X] hantheguitarman


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on June 30, 2010, 11:02:59 PM
[X] Han


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on July 01, 2010, 01:02:04 AM
[1] hantheguitarman


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on July 01, 2010, 07:17:00 AM
X han


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: ej2mm15 on July 01, 2010, 09:41:18 AM
[1] hantheguitarman


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: fezzyfestoon on July 01, 2010, 05:42:14 PM
Tada!  7 outta 8 ain't bad...you WIN.  Do your thang, Speaker Han.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on July 01, 2010, 07:28:02 PM
Just an FYI guys, this is something I missed as Speaker, unfortunately.

Quote
  1. Proposed Legislation Thread

(a) The Lt. Governor shall open a new Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread at the start of each Northeast Assembly term.

link (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly#Standing_Order_on_Assembly_Procedure)

Whether you wish to amend the SOAP or have Lt. Governor Fezzyfestoon create a new thread is your prerogative.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 01, 2010, 09:52:38 PM
I just PMed our Lt Governor about creating a new thread. After that, we're getting this party started! :D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 02, 2010, 07:15:48 AM
()

Quote
All elections must be certified no more than 1 day after the election is declared closed. Exceptions will be granted in cases of controversy or of an extremely close election, at the discretion of the Lieutenant Governor. There will be two backups appointed to the CJO in order to ensure the deadline is met.

Sponsor: Rep. WilliamSargent

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill shall extend until at least Sunday, July 4th, 8:13 AM unless the debate period is shortened or extended in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Rep. WilliamSargent, has the floor


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 02, 2010, 07:42:39 PM
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to begin by hoping that you all have a great holiday weekend.

First off, the reason I created this bill was because of this year's election for governor, lieutenant governor, and assembly. Though the gubernatorial election ran smoothly, the assembly results were not certified until a week after, despite no controversy.

While I do not begrudge the CJO, as his job is unquestionably difficult, we want to make sure that election results arrive in a timely manner.

Thus my bill. Though the deadline is one day, I have had requests to amend that. I would accept an amendment to lengthen the deadline.

I have also created two backup positions, to help the CJO should he not be able to fulfill his duty.

The deadline shall also be waived should the election prove controversial, at the discretion of the lieutenant governor.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on July 02, 2010, 08:56:34 PM
I must say that although I know this bill has a good reason behind it, I dont find it needed. The CJO, Lt. Governor, and Governor (atleast by the last NE Constitution) were able to provide and certify results. When it comes to the Assembly, it takes time in counting the numbers to make sure that they are correct, and many people, including myself, do have work or school, whcih makes it difficult to provide that number as soon as the election has been completed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 02, 2010, 09:24:47 PM
I agree with AndrewCT.  There are good reasons for why election results are delayed, and putting an arbitrary limit like this does little good.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 02, 2010, 10:04:11 PM
I agree with AndrewCT.  There are good reasons for why election results are delayed, and putting an arbitrary limit like this does little good.

Well, the bill certainly provides for good reasons.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on July 02, 2010, 10:58:59 PM
I also do not see the need for this bill.  Adversely, I find it to be distracting this body from more important matters.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 02, 2010, 11:11:33 PM
I also do not see the need for this bill.  Adversely, I find it to be distracting this body from more important matters.

Well, it was the first bill submitted in the thread, which is why I chose to bring it to a debate and a vote. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on July 02, 2010, 11:14:55 PM
I also do not see the need for this bill.  Adversely, I find it to be distracting this body from more important matters.

Well, it was the first bill submitted in the thread, which is why I chose to bring it to a debate and a vote. :P

Well, of course procedure must be followed, but I see bringing this bill to a vote as, well, pointless.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 02, 2010, 11:15:20 PM
Looks like the nays have it :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 02, 2010, 11:25:20 PM
So are we tabling this then?

Quote
(c) The sponsor of a proposed amendment may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before the end of the debate period.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 02, 2010, 11:36:54 PM
So are we tabling this then?

Quote
(c) The sponsor of a proposed amendment may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before the end of the debate period.


I think so, unless someone has any objection :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 03, 2010, 01:37:13 PM
Seeing as Representative Sargent has tabled his bill,

()

Quote
Third Constitutional Convention Petition

The Northeast Region formally petitions the President of Atlasia to call a Constitutional Convention for the purposes of consolidation of the constitution and/or legislative reboot of the game.

Sponsor: Rep. hantheguitarman

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill shall extend until at least Monday, July 5th, 2:35 PM unless the debate period is shortened or extended in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Rep. hantheguitarman, has the floor


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 03, 2010, 01:46:15 PM
This bill was submitted at the request of President Purple State and Vice President Marokai Blue. I'm kind of ambivalent about game reform, but a reboot and a constitutional convention doesn't sound like a bad idea, and will make the game more interesting. What do y'all think?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 03, 2010, 09:42:36 PM
I support Speaker's motion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on July 04, 2010, 10:55:07 AM
I repeat my request to the Assembly, please get me a bill that increases the minimum wage and cuts small business taxes on my desk, ASAP. The people of the Northeast are counting on you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 04, 2010, 11:32:14 AM
I repeat my request to the Assembly, please get me a bill that increases the minimum wage and cuts small business taxes on my desk, ASAP. The people of the Northeast are counting on you.

Sorry for not getting it to you sooner, the bill was lost during the whole situation where we needed to create another legislation thread, but I have asked Representative WilliamSargent (who wrote the initial bill) to submit it in the new legislation thread, so the bill should hopefully be coming into the Assembly for debate soon.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on July 04, 2010, 03:30:53 PM
I repeat my request to the Assembly, please get me a bill that increases the minimum wage and cuts small business taxes on my desk, ASAP. The people of the Northeast are counting on you.

Sorry for not getting it to you sooner, the bill was lost during the whole situation where we needed to create another legislation thread, but I have asked Representative WilliamSargent (who wrote the initial bill) to submit it in the new legislation thread, so the bill should hopefully be coming into the Assembly for debate soon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 05, 2010, 01:35:38 PM
()

We will now hold a vote on the Third Constitutional Convention Petition. Representatives have 24 hours to vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 05, 2010, 01:35:59 PM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on July 05, 2010, 04:42:39 PM
I plan on having nothing to do with it, but...

 Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on July 05, 2010, 07:21:46 PM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 05, 2010, 08:32:44 PM
Aye

Are we going to send a delegate to the Convention, or something?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on July 05, 2010, 11:16:29 PM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 05, 2010, 11:48:32 PM
NAY


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 06, 2010, 12:08:42 AM
I'm eager to understand the ever-baffling Northeast Assembly's votes, here.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 06, 2010, 01:06:37 AM
The president thinks a vote from us for his anti-freedom crap is a given. Let's prove him wrong.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 06, 2010, 01:38:21 AM
The president thinks a vote from us for his anti-freedom crap is a given. Let's prove him wrong.

Explain that a bit for me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 06, 2010, 01:41:19 AM
The president thinks a vote from us for his anti-freedom crap is a given. Let's prove him wrong.

Explain that a bit for me.


Whereas, a majority of the regions have requested a Constitutional Convention, with the two remaining regions likely following suit shortly;



I don't think we should just cancel everything we've done up to this point and change the constitution our founders created.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 06, 2010, 01:47:57 AM
You are being entirely ignorant if you think making radical changes with the Constitution is our goal at all and you must have completely ignored everything we've said up until this point, because that's the only explanation I can come up with that explains your hysterical attitude.

Do you even know our intent? Do you know anything we've proposed for Constitutional reform? Have you taken a glance at our drafted Constitution? If you did, you'd know that 95% of what we're doing is taken what is already in the Constitution through the Amendment process and drafting a cleaned up model to get rid of all the dead weight.

Do you oppose statute consolidation, too? Presumably you would, since it's the same principle. We're hoping to toss out old crap that serves no purpose except to clutter and confuse, to replace it with new cleaned up versions and simplifying the statute pages on the Wiki.

These are not nefarious plots. In reality, they're quite simple and common sense-y, only made complicated by simple minds and hysterical rants bent on opposing us regardless of our proposals.

No objective reasoning could possibly be found to justify your attitude right now but knee-jerk silliness and downright contrariness.

In other words: /hiss


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 06, 2010, 01:51:25 AM
Quote
already in the Constitution through the Amendment process

That doesn't mean its constitutional.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 06, 2010, 01:52:10 AM
Quote
already in the Constitution through the Amendment process

That doesn't mean its constitutional.

That,

A: Does not make sense.

& B: Has nothing to do with what we were talking about.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 06, 2010, 01:52:52 AM
Quote
already in the Constitution through the Amendment process

That doesn't mean its constitutional.

That,

A: Does not make sense.

& B: Has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Whatever, I won't be a lap dog to your communist agenda.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 06, 2010, 01:54:43 AM
I'm going to assume you are either on drugs or a troll. Or both.

If this is the caliber of our opposition, I can't wait to actually make my first policy proposals.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 06, 2010, 01:56:28 AM
I'm going to assume you are either on drugs or a troll. Or both.

If this is the caliber of our opposition, I can't wait to actually make my first policy proposals.

If the establishment has to resort to personal attacks, I don't see why our nation's enemies couldn't topple our country single-handedly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 06, 2010, 01:57:13 AM
Answer a yes or no question for me:

Have you even glanced at our proposed/drafted Constitution?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 06, 2010, 02:01:53 AM
Yes, of course.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 06, 2010, 02:04:22 AM
Just refreshed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 06, 2010, 02:07:09 AM

()

Fyi; If you're completely lacking knowledge on the subject you're pretending to actually know a damn thing about, log out to do your research if you're going to hunt through someone's posts, because I saw you searching Purple State's profile endlessly, and even looking at the Government board, before you finally lucked out and found the "Big Idea" thread.

The answer is in the end, of course you haven't. Not until I mentioned it.

And I encourage all people to not fall into this nonsense.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 06, 2010, 02:08:18 AM

()

Fyi; If you're completely lacking knowledge on the subject you're pretending to actually know a damn thing about, log out to do your research if you're going to hunt through someone's posts, because I saw you searching Purple State's profile endlessly, and even looking at the Government board, before you finally lucked out and found the "Big Idea" thread.

The answer is in the end, of course you haven't. Not until I mentioned it.

And I encourage all people to not fall into this nonsense.

I admit you're right, this is my fault, and I will change my stance.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: ej2mm15 on July 06, 2010, 11:25:51 AM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 06, 2010, 01:38:23 PM
()

With two ayes, one nay, four abstentions, and one unexcused absence the the Third Constitutional Convention Petition goes to the Governor's desk for his signature or veto.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on July 06, 2010, 03:51:14 PM
Mr. Vice President, please excuse the activity of my colleague...He's a bit...eccentric in his positions.  As for the Amendment, I simply do not feel strongly on either side of the issue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 06, 2010, 04:04:49 PM
()

Quote
The Balanced Budget Amendment
1. The Northeast Budget Annual Budget shall not exceed 15% of its annual revenue.
2. Whereas the Northeast Budget had a deficit of $11.5 billion last year, the Northeast pledges to reduce this by 50% by 2020.

Sponsors: Rep. hantheguitarman and Rep. justW353

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill shall extend until at least Thursday, July 8th, 5:05 PM unless the debate period is shortened or extended in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsors, Rep. hantheguitarman and Rep. justW353, have the floor


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 06, 2010, 04:10:37 PM
Here's my general logic for this bill. The Northeast Government should not be spend more money than it takes in, or else we'll run major deficits and run into economic problems. Now Representative justW353 and I understand that there may be some calamity where deficit spending may be needed, which is why we are fine with an annual deficit no higher than 15% of our annual income. Also, we need to pay for the deficit that we already have now, so that it will not pile up on our children.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 06, 2010, 04:14:59 PM
I support this bill, and so does the entire membership of the Presbyterian Party.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 06, 2010, 04:44:05 PM
That's led to problems in the real world where it's been attempted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on July 07, 2010, 01:27:59 AM
I thank the Assembly for passing the Convention petition. Hopefully its actual implementation will legitimize it in the eyes of those of you who are on the fence.

William, I did not mean to take the vote of the Northeast Assembly for granted, but I was simply following the rules of the Constitution in calling for the creation of the Convention when I did. The current Constitution says that upon petition of the citizens of a majority of the regions, the president shall call a Constitutional Convention with the advice and consent of the Senate. The timing of my announcement was perhaps inopportune, but such is the pitfalls of having late nights. ;)

Anyway, I do encourage you to read our draft Constitution and provide any constructive feedback. I do hope that the Convention will use the draft that we posted on the Wiki (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Third_Atlasian_Constitution_Draft) as a template, but I think that greater input will produce many other positive changes. The end result should be a Constitution that is cleaner and simpler, but also one that maintains the structure of the game as it stands now. Think of it more as cleaning up the Constitution, rather than overhauling it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 07, 2010, 03:44:07 AM
I accept your explanation as legitimate and I look forward to working closely with the administration.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on July 07, 2010, 10:21:42 PM
My colleagues, I wish I could present this case fully, but I do not have the chance.  however, I urge you to vote in favor of fiscal responsibility rather than voting to dig this region into a deeper hole.  please take the Speaker's argument as a acceptable reflection of my views.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 08, 2010, 04:07:47 PM
()

We will now hold a vote on The Balanced Budget Amendment. Representatives have 24 hours to vote.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 08, 2010, 04:08:28 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on July 08, 2010, 04:27:52 PM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 08, 2010, 04:38:30 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on July 08, 2010, 05:05:39 PM
Aye!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 08, 2010, 06:14:01 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on July 08, 2010, 09:22:01 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: ej2mm15 on July 08, 2010, 10:24:45 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on July 09, 2010, 04:17:42 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 09, 2010, 09:50:20 AM
()

With seven ayes and one abstention, The Balanced Budget Amendment passes goes to the Governor's desk for his signature or veto.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 11, 2010, 11:43:29 AM
I would like to announce that I am inviting a delegation from Italy, France and Australia to the Northeast Capital New York City as an international mission of goodwill.

ITALIAN DELEGATION:

Minister of the Interior, Roberto Maroni
Minister of Federal Reforms, Umberto Bossi
President of the Senate, Renato Schifani
Minister of Infrastructures, Antonio Di Pietro

FRENCH DELEGATION:

Gérard Onesta, MEP, former Vice President of European Parliament
Lionel Jospin, former Prime Minister
Michèle Alliot-Marie. Minister of Justice

AUSTRALIAN DELEGATION:

Ron Boswell, Queensland Senator
Steve Fielding, Victoria Senator
John Howard, former Prime Minister
John Stanhope, Chief Minister of ACT

I am proud to welcome these luminaries to the Northeast.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on July 12, 2010, 04:05:51 PM
Are you guys still working? I vetoed the Balanced Budget act a few days.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 12, 2010, 04:55:33 PM
Are you guys still working? I vetoed the Balanced Budget act a few days.

It was a weekend and now it's the beginning of the week, so it may be a few days :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 13, 2010, 12:19:45 PM
()

Quote
[Needs A Name]

HENCEFORTH, let it be known that the minimum wage will increase 5% for ALL Northeastern workers,

AND that violators of this law will have their rights to a tax cut,

IN THE NEXT SECTION, arbitrarily removed at the expense of business party,

AT the discretion of officer appointed to Lieutenant Governor.

UNTIL said requirements are met.

LET it also be known that all small businesses.

UNLESS previous law violated

WILL be entitled to a tax cut of up to 30%

DEPENDING on level of yearly income, at the discretion of said officer.

x WilliamSargent

Sponsor: Rep. WilliamSargent

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill shall extend until at least Thursday, July 15th, 1:18 PM unless the debate period is shortened or extended in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsors, Rep. WilliamSargent, has the floor


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 13, 2010, 12:49:02 PM
I believe this tax cut will help grow our economy. I accept any proposals for amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 13, 2010, 02:23:08 PM
I don't support this bill. I believe that increasing the minimum wage will hurt small businesses who are already struggling to pay their employees and make ends meet. Small businesses are doing everything they can to stay afloat, and do we really want to make their lives harder? Increasing the minimum wage will hurt the economy, cause a rise in unemployment, and will exacerbate the problems it was meant to destroy.

Aside from an ideological difference with this bill, there are practical and legal matters that conflict with this bill. The first problem, that we have a huge deficit, and it would be irresponsible to expand the deficit through tax cuts right now, lest we create a bigger deficit and mortgage our children's future. The second problem, is that this bill directly conflicts with already established law.

Quote
  The New Northeast Minimum Wage Act

   1. The Northeast Minimum Wage Act is hereby repealed.
   2. The Northeast minimum wage shall be equivalent to the current Federal minimum wage.
   3. The Northeast minimum wage shall increase and decrease concurrent to the Federal minimum wage.

link (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly)

In other words, we can't unilaterally increase the Northeast minimum wage. We must set our minimum wage equal to the Federal minimum wage. That is the law.

I shall be voting nay on this bill (no offense, Representative Sargent), and I hope the rest of the Northeast Assembly will do the same.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 13, 2010, 03:42:15 PM
I make a motion that we end debate and start voting imminently.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on July 13, 2010, 05:09:37 PM
I don't support this bill. I believe that increasing the minimum wage will hurt small businesses who are already struggling to pay their employees and make ends meet. Small businesses are doing everything they can to stay afloat, and do we really want to make their lives harder? Increasing the minimum wage will hurt the economy, cause a rise in unemployment, and will exacerbate the problems it was meant to destroy.

Aside from an ideological difference with this bill, there are practical and legal matters that conflict with this bill. The first problem, that we have a huge deficit, and it would be irresponsible to expand the deficit through tax cuts right now, lest we create a bigger deficit and mortgage our children's future. The second problem, is that this bill directly conflicts with already established law.

Quote
  The New Northeast Minimum Wage Act

   1. The Northeast Minimum Wage Act is hereby repealed.
   2. The Northeast minimum wage shall be equivalent to the current Federal minimum wage.
   3. The Northeast minimum wage shall increase and decrease concurrent to the Federal minimum wage.

link (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly)

In other words, we can't unilaterally increase the Northeast minimum wage. We must set our minimum wage equal to the Federal minimum wage. That is the law.

I shall be voting nay on this bill (no offense, Representative Sargent), and I hope the rest of the Northeast Assembly will do the same.

I agree with most of this statement. By increasing the minimum wage, especially by 5%, small businesses will really suffer the most out of all of this. As most of us know, the Northeast has a very lage small business block. If this were to pass, we would be killing the dreams and incomes of a lot of hard working people of this region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on July 13, 2010, 06:32:25 PM
I note the Speaker's points, and agree quite unilaterally with him on this issue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on July 13, 2010, 07:05:47 PM
I don't support this bill. I believe that increasing the minimum wage will hurt small businesses who are already struggling to pay their employees and make ends meet. Small businesses are doing everything they can to stay afloat, and do we really want to make their lives harder? Increasing the minimum wage will hurt the economy, cause a rise in unemployment, and will exacerbate the problems it was meant to destroy.

Aside from an ideological difference with this bill, there are practical and legal matters that conflict with this bill. The first problem, that we have a huge deficit, and it would be irresponsible to expand the deficit through tax cuts right now, lest we create a bigger deficit and mortgage our children's future. The second problem, is that this bill directly conflicts with already established law.

Quote
  The New Northeast Minimum Wage Act

   1. The Northeast Minimum Wage Act is hereby repealed.
   2. The Northeast minimum wage shall be equivalent to the current Federal minimum wage.
   3. The Northeast minimum wage shall increase and decrease concurrent to the Federal minimum wage.

link (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly)

In other words, we can't unilaterally increase the Northeast minimum wage. We must set our minimum wage equal to the Federal minimum wage. That is the law.

I shall be voting nay on this bill (no offense, Representative Sargent), and I hope the rest of the Northeast Assembly will do the same.

I agree with most of this statement. By increasing the minimum wage, especially by 5%, small businesses will really suffer the most out of all of this. As most of us know, the Northeast has a very lage small business block. If this were to pass, we would be killing the dreams and incomes of a lot of hard working people of this region.

As someone who works for a "Small business" that can barely make ends meet, I have to third this. Any one of my friends that works for a big chain starts off with atleast fifty-cents greater than the minimum wage - this strikes a blow to the gut of small business.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on July 13, 2010, 07:08:29 PM
The small businesses also get a tax cut in my proposal that would offset the extra costs that they would incur(though this current bill is poorly written). My intent is on a bill that would be cost neutral for the small businesses. I won't sign a bill that doesn't do that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on July 13, 2010, 07:09:25 PM
The small businesses also get a tax cut in my proposal that would offset the extra costs that they would incur(though this current bill is poorly written). My intent is on a bill that would be cost neutral for the small businesses. I won't sign a bill that doesn't do that.

Could it perhaps be a carrot instead of a stick?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on July 13, 2010, 09:10:48 PM
The small businesses also get a tax cut in my proposal that would offset the extra costs that they would incur(though this current bill is poorly written). My intent is on a bill that would be cost neutral for the small businesses. I won't sign a bill that doesn't do that.

Could it perhaps be a carrot instead of a stick?

Well what do you have in mind?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on July 13, 2010, 09:13:26 PM
The small businesses also get a tax cut in my proposal that would offset the extra costs that they would incur(though this current bill is poorly written). My intent is on a bill that would be cost neutral for the small businesses. I won't sign a bill that doesn't do that.

Could it perhaps be a carrot instead of a stick?

Well what do you have in mind?

I have no power in the Assembly any more, but perhaps it would just be a "voluntary" mechanism? (Paying an employee X% greater than the minimum wage in exchange for X% tax-cut) Perhaps that could be used by employers to incentivize workers to work harder.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 14, 2010, 10:20:24 AM
The thing is that this bill conflicts with already established law. Therefore, we can't increase the minimum wage without repealing The New Northeast Minimum Wage Act.

As for the tax breaks, realize that when we pass the bill, we're not cutting spending to go along with these tax breaks, which will lead to a bigger deficit. Is that really what we want? I mean, tax breaks are all nice and dandy, but this bill isn't very responsible with them.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 15, 2010, 02:52:31 PM
Ok, as debate as already ended 2 hours ago, I think that it is time to open the drubbing voting.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 15, 2010, 03:35:09 PM
()

We will now hold a vote on [Needs A Name]. Representatives have 24 hours to vote.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 15, 2010, 03:36:00 PM
NAY.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 15, 2010, 03:36:24 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on July 15, 2010, 04:24:29 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: ej2mm15 on July 15, 2010, 04:56:36 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on July 15, 2010, 07:05:55 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 15, 2010, 08:21:09 PM
Naw


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 15, 2010, 11:16:55 PM
Did we ever pick a representative to the ConstiConvo? I nominate myself, if not.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on July 16, 2010, 01:14:55 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 16, 2010, 02:48:54 AM
Did we ever pick a representative to the ConstiConvo? I nominate myself, if not.

An individual actually interested in a genuine good faith debate over game reform would be preferable to someone who has demonstrated a general lack of knowledge in every subject on which he's spoke.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 16, 2010, 04:32:33 AM
Did we ever pick a representative to the ConstiConvo? I nominate myself, if not.

An individual actually interested in a genuine good faith debate over game reform would be preferable to someone who has demonstrated a general lack of knowledge in every subject on which he's spoke.

And someone who had more than the IQ of a grapefruit would be preferable to you for the position of vice president.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 16, 2010, 09:23:53 AM
()

With seven nays, [Needs A Name] fails.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 16, 2010, 09:28:01 AM
2 things.

1. When will the special election be held for SoIA Winston Disraeli's seat?
2. I nominate our Senator Dallasfan65 to be our delegate for the Constitutional Convention.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 16, 2010, 01:38:21 PM
I will nominate myself as delegate, though I will also second Dallasfan's nomination.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 16, 2010, 02:13:21 PM
I withdraw my nomination because I would support Speaker's nominee. A fine candidate and a great fellow, Dallasfan is the person we need to represent the Northeast at the ConCon.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 17, 2010, 03:12:45 PM
Dallasfan would be a wonderful choice.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 17, 2010, 08:05:25 PM
Does anyone have any more nominations for delegates? If not, we might as well hold a vote on who we'll nominate to the Constitutional Convention.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on July 17, 2010, 08:09:14 PM

I agree with the Vice President's assertion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 17, 2010, 09:06:34 PM
Constitutional Convention vote:

  • DallasFan65


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on July 17, 2010, 09:28:40 PM
I'm honored.

I accept, so long as I'm not forbidden to serve as a Senator and a Delegate at the same time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 17, 2010, 10:18:01 PM
Eh, I'll drop my bid for delegate.  Dallasfan would do a better job than I.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on July 18, 2010, 01:13:37 AM
When will the special election be held for SoIA Winston Disraeli's seat?

Quote
In accordance to Article V, section ix) of the New Northeast Constitution, vacancies in the Legislative Assembly shall be filled in the following manner :

1. In the case of a vacancy in the Northeast Legislative Assembly for any reason, a special election shall be held to elect a new Representative.

2. The special election must take place no less than 5 days following the vacancy and the booth shall open at 12:00 AM EST on the nearest Friday, provided that Friday is at least 5 days since the vacancy occurred and shall close on that Sunday at 11:59 PM EST, to be administered by the appropriate official.

3.  The appropriate official shall place the names of all candidates who declare their intention to run in the special election on the Candidate Declaration Thread before 12:00 midnight Eastern time on the Thursday before the poll opens.

4.  Any candidate who receives write-in votes must confirm that he or she is willing to assume the vacancy by publicly declaring a willingness to receive write-in votes before the polls close in the Candidate Declaration Thread or writing in his or her own name on the ballot to fill the vacancy.  Otherwise, those write-in votes shall be deemed void.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on July 18, 2010, 07:17:06 AM
I also support DallasFan to the Convention.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 18, 2010, 10:04:37 PM
Seeing as there have been no more nominations, we might as well vote on our delegate.

()

Representatives have 24 hours to vote.


Official Ballot of the Northeast

Northeast Delegate To The Constitutional Convention:

[ ] Dallasfan65
[ ] Write-in: __________


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 18, 2010, 10:15:42 PM
[X] Dallasfan


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 18, 2010, 10:30:47 PM
[X] Dallasfan65


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on July 18, 2010, 10:33:50 PM
[X] Dallasfan65


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: ej2mm15 on July 18, 2010, 10:44:13 PM
[X]Dallasfan65


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on July 18, 2010, 11:48:44 PM

[X] Dallasfan65


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 19, 2010, 12:53:30 AM
Constitutional Convention vote:

  • DallasFan65


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on July 19, 2010, 05:41:04 PM
X- dallasfan


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 19, 2010, 09:14:59 PM
()

With a unanimous vote by all 7 representatives, Senator Dallasfan65 has been nominated as our delegate to the Constitutional Convention.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on July 19, 2010, 09:43:53 PM
Thanks for moving so quickly!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 20, 2010, 12:46:32 AM
()

With a unanimous vote by all 7 representatives, Senator Dallasfan65 has been nominated as our delegate to the Constitutional Convention.

I thought there were 8?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 20, 2010, 10:39:52 AM
()

Quote
The Balanced Budget Amendment
1. The Northeast Budget Annual Budget shall not exceed 15% of its annual revenue.
2. Whereas the Northeast Budget had a deficit of $11.5 billion last year, the Northeast pledges to reduce this by 50% by 2020.

Sponsors: Rep. hantheguitarman and Rep. justW353

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill shall extend until at least Thursday, July 22nd, 11:40 AM unless the debate period is shortened or extended in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsors, Rep. hantheguitarman and Rep. justW353, have the floor


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 21, 2010, 03:08:51 PM
Here's my general logic for this bill. The Northeast Government should not be spend more money than it takes in, or else we'll run major deficits and run into economic problems. Now Representative justW353 and I understand that there may be some calamity where deficit spending may be needed, which is why we are fine with an annual deficit no higher than 15% of our annual income. Also, we need to pay for the deficit that we already have now, so that it will not pile up on our children.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on July 21, 2010, 08:24:01 PM
My colleagues, I wish I could present this case fully, but I do not have the chance.  however, I urge you to vote in favor of fiscal responsibility rather than voting to dig this region into a deeper hole.  please take the Speaker's argument as a acceptable reflection of my views.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 22, 2010, 10:45:03 AM
Wasn't the Governor supposed to give his input on what he wanted to see in a BBA?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 22, 2010, 10:47:31 AM
At any rate...

()

We will now hold a vote on The Balanced Budget Amendment. Representatives have 24 hours to vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 22, 2010, 12:44:26 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 22, 2010, 01:45:27 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on July 22, 2010, 03:43:09 PM
Wasn't the Governor supposed to give his input on what he wanted to see in a BBA?

I wanted to. But I didn't realize you were going to take it up so soon. I'll just sign it now anyway since after thinking about it, 90% of what I want is better than not getting what I want at all.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 22, 2010, 04:35:09 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on July 22, 2010, 05:44:57 PM
AYEasourusrex


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on July 23, 2010, 03:16:24 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on July 23, 2010, 12:50:37 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 23, 2010, 01:42:50 PM
()

With six ayes and one unexcused absence, The Balanced Budget Amendment passes goes to the Governor's desk for his signature or veto.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: ej2mm15 on July 23, 2010, 03:25:48 PM
aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 23, 2010, 08:20:03 PM
()

Quote
Score Voting Act

Should any election for an office in the Northeast have more than two candidates, the method of election shall be score voting.

Each voter may give each candidate a score of one to ten, ten being the highest and one being the lowest, or cast a "No opinion" vote for that candidate, signified by an X.

The score for each candidate will be added up, and divided by the number of votes for that respective candidate, excluding "no opinion" votes.  The winner(s) shall be the candidate(s) with the highest average(s).

Sponsor: Rep. Morgan Brykein

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill shall extend until at least Sunday, July 24nd, 9:18 PM unless the debate period is shortened or extended in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Rep. Morgan Brykein, has the floor


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 23, 2010, 08:58:33 PM
Score voting is a lot simpler than our current system.  In the last election, I had a hard time figuring out if I had been elected or not.  Instant-runoff has it's flaws, and I think it wouldn't hurt to experiment with other, potentially better, voting systems.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on July 23, 2010, 09:10:30 PM
I support this, I do love voting with just an X, but it makes sense to go by a scoring when there is more than 2 candidates.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 24, 2010, 10:14:02 AM
It seems like this would be very hard to implement, and voters not actively following politics in the Northeast would be confused. Plus issues like ties seem more likely with this kind of voting.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on July 24, 2010, 10:39:09 AM
While I agree with the notion that our current system is a little difficult to figure out, I believe it is the fairest system and I'm reluctant to change it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 24, 2010, 01:13:28 PM
It seems like this would be very hard to implement, and voters not actively following politics in the Northeast would be confused. Plus issues like ties seem more likely with this kind of voting.

Ties are probably more likely with IRV, than with score voting.  And voters who aren't familiar with a candidate can just put in a "no opinion" vote, which will have no effect on that candidate's standing.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 24, 2010, 09:09:36 PM
I will offer an amendment.

Quote
Score Voting Act

Should any election for an office in the Northeast have more than two candidates, For the Northeast Lieutenant Gubernatorial Election to be held on October 2010, the method of election shall be score voting.

Each voter may give each candidate a score of one to ten, ten being the highest and one being the lowest, or cast a "No opinion" vote for that candidate, signified by an X.

The score for each candidate will be added up, and divided by the number of votes for that respective candidate, excluding "no opinion" votes.  The winner(s) shall be the candidate(s) with the highest average(s).

Changing everything to score voting would be a major leap. Why don't we take this change slowly, and only implement it for the October Lt. Gubernatorial Election as a trial? If we like how it works, we can write another bill making the score voting permanent, and if we don't like it, then we never have to worry about it again!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 24, 2010, 09:26:20 PM
I will offer an amendment.

Quote
Score Voting Act

Should any election for an office in the Northeast have more than two candidates, For the Northeast Lieutenant Gubernatorial Election to be held on October 2010, the method of election shall be score voting.

Each voter may give each candidate a score of one to ten, ten being the highest and one being the lowest, or cast a "No opinion" vote for that candidate, signified by an X.

The score for each candidate will be added up, and divided by the number of votes for that respective candidate, excluding "no opinion" votes.  The winner(s) shall be the candidate(s) with the highest average(s).

Changing everything to score voting would be a major leap. Why don't we take this change slowly, and only implement it for the October Lt. Gubernatorial Election as a trial? If we like how it works, we can write another bill making the score voting permanent, and if we don't like it, then we never have to worry about it again!

That's a wonderful idea!  I support this amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 24, 2010, 09:38:55 PM
I will offer an amendment.

Quote
Score Voting Act

Should any election for an office in the Northeast have more than two candidates, For the Northeast Lieutenant Gubernatorial Election to be held on October 2010, the method of election shall be score voting.

Each voter may give each candidate a score of one to ten, ten being the highest and one being the lowest, or cast a "No opinion" vote for that candidate, signified by an X.

The score for each candidate will be added up, and divided by the number of votes for that respective candidate, excluding "no opinion" votes.  The winner(s) shall be the candidate(s) with the highest average(s).

Changing everything to score voting would be a major leap. Why don't we take this change slowly, and only implement it for the October Lt. Gubernatorial Election as a trial? If we like how it works, we can write another bill making the score voting permanent, and if we don't like it, then we never have to worry about it again!

That's a wonderful idea!  I support this amendment.

Thanks man, I'll hold the vote on the amendment right now! I just realized that we don't have to hold votes on amendments to legislation if they're deemed friendly, so we're good to go for tomorrow!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 25, 2010, 12:10:16 AM
It's always good to try new things, even in government.  If the people are happy with the results for Lieutenant Governor in October, then we can implement score voting to apply to all regional elections with more than two candidates.

Now, hopefully we'll have more than two candidates for lieutenant governor.

I nearly forgot...there should be a write-in option.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 25, 2010, 09:07:38 PM
()

We will now hold a vote on The Score Voting Act. Representatives have 24 hours to vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 25, 2010, 09:36:27 PM
Aye (BTW this vote is being held on the amended bill, as Representative Morgan supports the amendment)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 25, 2010, 09:47:16 PM
Yeah


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on July 25, 2010, 10:36:16 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on July 26, 2010, 01:36:32 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on July 26, 2010, 11:09:17 AM
I've decided to ABSTAINANATIONATORIES!!

Lab

"Abstain"


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: ej2mm15 on July 26, 2010, 12:42:33 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on July 26, 2010, 04:00:14 PM
Ayewhatever


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on July 26, 2010, 04:28:11 PM
()

With six ayes and one abstention, The Score Voting Act passes goes to the Governor's desk for his signature or veto.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on August 05, 2010, 08:41:56 PM
It's been over a week since the Assembly has conducted any business. What's going on guys?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on August 06, 2010, 03:59:16 PM
It's been over a week since the Assembly has conducted any business. What's going on guys?

We're too busy being Hamilton.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on August 06, 2010, 05:54:40 PM
Governor, there's simply been no legislation on the table at the moment- as soon as somebody submits legislation (or, for that matter, if you want to propose something) we'll get this party rolling again.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on August 06, 2010, 06:11:40 PM
I would like to submit legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on August 06, 2010, 06:23:50 PM

Submit it here, then. 

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=119914.0


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on August 06, 2010, 06:59:58 PM

Go for it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on August 06, 2010, 07:55:00 PM

I'll send it tomorrow. Right now, I'm in the process of registering with a different party and deciding what course of action I should take.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on August 07, 2010, 04:12:11 PM
Sorry Gov, looks like we've been out partyin a bit too much. I'm sure we will get things back on track shortly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on August 07, 2010, 08:50:12 PM
Sorry Gov, looks like we've been out partyin a bit too much.

And you didn't invite me??


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on August 07, 2010, 11:10:38 PM
I'm hoping to introduce a major piece of legislation tomorrow.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on August 09, 2010, 07:03:44 PM
If this is OK with Assembly Procedure, Representative WilliamSargent has authorized me to vote in his name- as he will be absent temporarily.

Hello Speaker,

I've been shot in an assassination attempt (mod review)

I will temporarily be unavailable. I authorize you to vote in my name, however way you choose.
                                                              Thanks,
                                                              William


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on August 10, 2010, 06:03:27 AM
Is that legal?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on August 10, 2010, 09:38:51 AM
I glanced the Constitution and I don't think there's anything prohibiting that. If the rest of the Assembly feels uncomfortable about it, I will not exercise Representative Sargent's voting power (because he could just be counted as a leave of absense).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on August 10, 2010, 09:40:27 AM
()

Quote
Northeastern Healthcare Act

Section I


1). A Health Insurance Company may not manipulate prices for specific treatments because of the discovery of a medical ailment, or a change in the customer's occupation or marital situation. A Health Insurance Company also cannot manipulate premium or deductible prices due to a customer's race, sex, country of origin, or occupation.

2). A Health Insurance Company may not drop a Northeastern Citizen's coverage due to any reason related to their current or past medical status.

Section II

1). An Insurance Company caught violating any clause in Section I of the Insurance Company Regulation Act will be subject to a fine of no less than $200,000, and no more than $1,000,000.

Section III

1).  A Health Insurance Exchange shall be created to generate competition between insurance providers and to aid the citizens of the Northeast in finding the most desirable care possible.

Section IV


1).  An action for any health-related malpractice claim must be commenced within two years of the act, omission or failure complained of; provided the patient is not incapacitated as a result of the act, omission or failure during that period.

2).  Specialized medical courts shall be created.  Within these courts, medically-trained judges shall evaluate malpractice cases to determine whether any claims were legitimate and decide the case based on medical fact.  Said judge shall also decide the value of any damages to either party and order compensation accordingly.

Sponsor: Rep. justW353

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill shall extend until at least Thursday, August 12, 10:40 AM unless the debate period is shortened or extended in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Rep. justW353, has the floor



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on August 11, 2010, 07:53:44 PM
First, let me thank the Speaker for posting this bill in my absence and at my request.  Due to unforeseen circumstances, I cannot fully explain why I believe this bill to be essential, however I will say a few words.

Months ago this body rejected a bill that would have reformed the healthcare industry.  I have written a bill that I hope at least partially alleviates the concerns felt about the rejected bill.

This bill was developed by individuals with varying opinions, and I hope that fact is reflected in it's text.  I'll let the bill speak for itself, but I urge you to vote for this bill, which aims only to lower the costs of healthcare for all the residents of the Northeast.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on August 12, 2010, 09:55:33 AM
()

We will now hold a vote on The Northeastern Healthcare Act. Representatives have 24 hours to vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on August 12, 2010, 09:56:28 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: ej2mm15 on August 12, 2010, 10:21:46 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on August 12, 2010, 10:59:35 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on August 12, 2010, 01:21:49 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on August 12, 2010, 05:21:57 PM
aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 13, 2010, 12:04:40 AM
Yeah


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Ameriplan on August 13, 2010, 04:37:51 AM
Just wanted to comment on this bill.

This is exactly the type of bill needed to solve Atlasia's healthcare woes. Not only does it end many of the insurance companies' greed-mongering, it also avoids the socialist direction the JCP's would have taken it in.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on August 13, 2010, 12:27:42 PM
()

With six ayes, and one unexcused absence (has Zacoftheaxes been certified yet as the winner of the NE assembly special election?), The Northeastern Healthcare Act has passed, and will be sent to the Governor's desk for his signature or veto.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on August 13, 2010, 03:39:24 PM
The CJO certified the results so zacoftheaxes should be participating.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on August 23, 2010, 05:07:00 PM
()

Quote
The Northeast Small Business Incentive

 Section I

1)  Small businesses may apply to this incentive, and be able to pay new employees a minimum of $7.00 an hour depending on the companies annual revenue.

2) If a small business has a final take home of under $500,000 and already has 2 full time employees, they are available for a tax rebate of 4% per year for the next 2 years.

3) The employee must work a minimum of 35 hours a week, but no more than 43 hours per week.

Section II

1) If the employer lays off any employee taken in under this incentive, they are still available for the rebate if the reason for the employee being laid off is documented behavior issues, or financial strain.

2) Financial strain must be proven by accurate financial documents showing significant loss of income, and will need to be signed off by a state financial expert before being finally approved.

3) Abuse of this system will result in expulsion of being able to use this incentive, and possibly any other tax incentive offered by the regional, or federal government in the future.

Sponsor: Rep. AndrewCT

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill shall extend until at least Wednesday, August 25, 6:05 PM unless the debate period is shortened or extended in accordance with the SOAP.

The Sponsor, Rep. AndrewCT, has the floor


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on August 23, 2010, 06:17:07 PM
Mr. Speaker,

 Thank you for allowing me the time to present this bill. Although it was placed last minute, I felt that something had to be done about unemployment in this region, and I believe that this would be a good start. To my fellow Representatives, I have no issues with changes to this bill, although I do ask that we work quickly on this, as my time in the Assembly is coming to an end, and I'd like to be able to help get this passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on August 26, 2010, 05:05:31 PM
()

We will now hold a vote on The Northeast Small Business Incentive. Representatives have 24 hours to vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on August 26, 2010, 05:09:06 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on August 26, 2010, 05:30:55 PM
aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: ej2mm15 on August 26, 2010, 06:23:16 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on August 26, 2010, 06:24:25 PM
No discussion or debate of the bill, guys?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 26, 2010, 09:15:06 PM
Yeah


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Zacoftheaxes on August 26, 2010, 10:06:27 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on August 27, 2010, 02:58:13 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on August 27, 2010, 03:16:31 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on August 27, 2010, 09:27:36 AM
()

With seven ayes, The Northeast Small Business Incentive has passed, and will be sent to the Governor's desk for his signature or veto.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on August 27, 2010, 09:28:16 AM
Also we'll need to hold a special election for Representative WilliamSargent's seat in the near future.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on August 27, 2010, 11:29:52 AM
Don't forget about mine. Ill be resigning soon.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on August 27, 2010, 03:25:30 PM
I guess we should just wait until Andrew resigns and hold them both on the same day to make it easier.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on August 27, 2010, 07:40:58 PM
I will post it elsewhere if needed, but to make things easier, I herby resign the office of northeast representative effective noon tomorrow. It has been a blast serving here, an
d I thank everyone for their support!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on August 27, 2010, 09:53:43 PM
I guess we should just wait until Andrew resigns and hold them both on the same day to make it easier.

Actually, under Article V, Section iv of the New Northeast Constitution, there should have been an election for the whole Assembly last Friday.  This Assembly's time is up.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on August 29, 2010, 07:22:33 AM
I guess we should just wait until Andrew resigns and hold them both on the same day to make it easier.

Actually, under Article V, Section iv of the New Northeast Constitution, there should have been an election for the whole Assembly last Friday.  This Assembly's time is up.

Hmmm.. well hopefully someone will want to open this up, that would be super duper.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on August 29, 2010, 07:26:46 AM
I guess we should just wait until Andrew resigns and hold them both on the same day to make it easier.

Actually, under Article V, Section iv of the New Northeast Constitution, there should have been an election for the whole Assembly last Friday.  This Assembly's time is up.

Well that's dumb. We should have Assembly elections the same time as the Gubernatorial and Lt. Gubernatorial ones.

By the by, did anyone even declare to run for Assembly? That's probably why I forgot about it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on August 29, 2010, 11:29:31 AM
I guess we should just wait until Andrew resigns and hold them both on the same day to make it easier.

Actually, under Article V, Section iv of the New Northeast Constitution, there should have been an election for the whole Assembly last Friday.  This Assembly's time is up.

Well that's dumb. We should have Assembly elections the same time as the Gubernatorial and Lt. Gubernatorial ones.

By the by, did anyone even declare to run for Assembly? That's probably why I forgot about it.

I dont think anyone declared... but if we open a voting booth with just write-in down, those seeking"re-election" can just put themselves down first preference, and annnounce they are accepting write- ins.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on September 01, 2010, 12:05:32 PM
I guess we should just wait until Andrew resigns and hold them both on the same day to make it easier.

Actually, under Article V, Section iv of the New Northeast Constitution, there should have been an election for the whole Assembly last Friday.  This Assembly's time is up.

Well that's dumb. We should have Assembly elections the same time as the Gubernatorial and Lt. Gubernatorial ones.

By the by, did anyone even declare to run for Assembly? That's probably why I forgot about it.

It's not dumb.  Just as in most states, state governors are elected every 4 years and state reps more frequently, Northeast Representatives are elected for a 2 month term, not 4 months.  And the elections generally run concurrent with the Senate elections (except in December, due to a quirk in the Senate election schedule).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 13, 2010, 02:03:36 AM
As the proposed new Constitution must be ratified by the regions, I am posting this public service announcement in the threads of the regional legislatures:

Very Important Announcement

The Constitutional Convention is reaching its end, with the final two documents being voted on as we speak.

At this time, delegates and all Atlasians are welcome to offer their thoughts on an amendment to ANY part of the new Constitution, which will be considered all at once in one final amendment vote coming up in the next 48-72 hours. This means that any changes you would like to see to the current document should be offered right now.

Here is the relevant announcement in the Convention thread:

During the next 48 hours, please offer any amendments, as well as debate, that you would like to see considered for any part of the document. This is your last chance to make finishing touches to any of the more controversial changes, including dual-office holding, regional legislatures, the legislative restart, etc.

Feel free to offer opposing variations to amendments as well, which will then be brought up as a package vote.

Here is the relevant links to help you out:

Constitutional Convention thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=120987.0)

Constitutional Convention completed documents page (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Constitutional_Convention_Completed_Documents)

Please review the completed documents and post here or in the Convention thread with your comments, ideas or amendments. I would be happy to offer well thought out amendments on behalf of non-delegates.

This is a crucial moment in this process, as the next step is a final vote and then presentation to the regions for approval.

Thanks,
~President Purple State

Articles VII and VIII have been passed and the entire proposed Third Constitution is now nearly set. There is now just under 24 hours remaining for the proposal of amendments to any part of this document, before a final vote and presentation to the regions for the ratification process.

Please, I implore all the citizens of Atlasia, read through the completed documents page (linked in the quoted announcement above) and propose any amendments in this thread or in the Constitutional Convention thread (also linked above). Even if you don't know how to word the amendment properly, provide your thoughts and I will help you out.

Also, what the hell happened to this legislature?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: justW353 on October 15, 2010, 01:03:44 AM
I have no clue, Mr. President.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on October 15, 2010, 05:50:18 PM
Hopefully the new Governor can help spark things again, but I simply have no interest in this game anymore.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on October 15, 2010, 08:16:23 PM
who is speaker


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on October 15, 2010, 08:24:34 PM

C'est moi, but the results for the new assembly were never ratified by the CJO.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on October 15, 2010, 08:53:10 PM

C'est moi, but the results for the new assembly were never ratified by the CJO.
and who is that


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on October 15, 2010, 08:56:36 PM

Mr. Moderate


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 16, 2010, 06:55:46 PM
Then the "current" Assembly should impeach Mr. Moderate and appoint a new CJO to ratify those results.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 16, 2010, 09:14:43 PM
As a former member of the Assembly and current NE resident, I'll be your CJO if you just want someone to ratify the results or something... Watching the NE Assembly just slip away has been painful.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on October 17, 2010, 12:22:18 PM
As a former member of the Assembly and current NE resident, I'll be your CJO if you just want someone to ratify the results or something... Watching the NE Assembly just slip away has been painful.

Go ahead. Thanks. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 17, 2010, 03:33:31 PM
As a former member of the Assembly and current NE resident, I'll be your CJO if you just want someone to ratify the results or something... Watching the NE Assembly just slip away has been painful.

Go ahead. Thanks. :)

I would, but wouldn't that require Mr. Morderate's removal? I'll do it, certainly...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on October 17, 2010, 08:18:44 PM
Can I just fire him or does the assembly have to do something?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 17, 2010, 09:46:37 PM
Can I just fire him or does the assembly have to do something?

Hopefully we can get some clarification on that. In any case, according to my count, these would be the winners. I double checked everything, so this should be right. Not listing in any particular order, the winners...

Hantheguitarman...
JustW...
FallenMorgan...
Red Commander...
Electoral Jew...
Wormguy...
Zacofthetaxes...
Cinyc...

There is what should've been this term's Assembly based on ballots and write ins.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on October 18, 2010, 06:03:53 PM
Let's just assume these are the winners. Anyway the election for the next assembly's coming up shortly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on October 18, 2010, 06:04:47 PM
Let's just assume these are the winners. Anyway the election for the next assembly's coming up shortly.

The Governor or the Lt. Governor could have certified the ballot.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 19, 2010, 01:04:57 PM
Can I just fire him or does the assembly have to do something?

Hopefully we can get some clarification on that. In any case, according to my count, these would be the winners. I double checked everything, so this should be right. Not listing in any particular order, the winners...

Hantheguitarman...
JustW...
FallenMorgan...
Red Commander...
Electoral Jew...
Wormguy...
Zacofthetaxes...
Cinyc...

There is what should've been this term's Assembly based on ballots and write ins.

Except that I and others did not accept write ins.

Let's just assume these are the winners. Anyway the election for the next assembly's coming up shortly.

The Governor or the Lt. Governor could have certified the ballot.

True.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 21, 2010, 12:55:16 PM
Can I just fire him or does the assembly have to do something?

Hopefully we can get some clarification on that. In any case, according to my count, these would be the winners. I double checked everything, so this should be right. Not listing in any particular order, the winners...

Hantheguitarman...
JustW...
FallenMorgan...
Red Commander...
Electoral Jew...
Wormguy...
Zacofthetaxes...
Cinyc...

There is what should've been this term's Assembly based on ballots and write ins.

Except that I and others did not accept write ins.


He only asked me to count the top 8, after that, you're on your own :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on October 21, 2010, 10:53:44 PM
Noting potential problems, I, on behalf of the DoFE, am willing to assist if requested.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on October 22, 2010, 02:00:06 PM
Shouldn't the Northeast local elections be open?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on October 28, 2010, 09:50:59 PM
Bump.

There are several things that we need to do as an Assembly. I will outline several policy proposals of mine so that we may revitalize and re-energize the Northeast. I will ask the Northeast Assembly to hold a vote for these proposals once the Speaker of the Northeast Assembly has been elected:

  • A Constitutional Amendment limiting the members of the Northeast Assembly to 6
  • A quarterly, or a six month budget.
  • A Constitutional Amendment eliminating the need for a quorum in a Constitutional Amendment.
  • Emergency legislation in the event of results not being certified on time. Former Representative WilliamSargent (who was banned) created a piece of legislation that was tabled, which looked something like this

    Quote
    All elections must be certified no more than 1 day after the election is declared closed. Exceptions will be granted in cases of controversy or of an extremely close election, at the discretion of the Lieutenant Governor. There will be two backups appointed to the CJO in order to ensure the deadline is met.

    It's up to you guys to figure out how to address this issue, here's just an example of such lesilation

More proposals to come


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on October 29, 2010, 08:59:32 PM
Well, I'm back.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 29, 2010, 09:03:36 PM
Good to be here, looks like we got some work ahead of us.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on October 29, 2010, 09:07:29 PM
Just putting this out there in advance (since Fezzy may open up for declarations while I'm at work tomorrow) I intend to run for Speaker.


Good to be here, looks like we got some work ahead of us.

:)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: fezzyfestoon on October 30, 2010, 02:07:58 PM
Well, the new Reps take office on Tuesday if I'm not mistaken.  I'll open nominations for Speaker now among the newly elected members so we can get rolling right away on Tuesday.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 02, 2010, 05:18:05 PM
Since it's Tuesday... :P

We need a Northeast Legislation Introduction Thread, created by the Lt. Gov, to get the ball rolling.

No rush ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 02, 2010, 05:22:51 PM
Has Fezzy even sworn in?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 03, 2010, 10:37:05 PM
I'd like to reintroduce my Score Voting Act, but for the Lieutenant Governor position for the next election.

Also, maybe a bill to make 'Hurr Durr" the official motto of the Northeast.  :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 06, 2010, 09:09:35 PM
Fezzy? :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on November 06, 2010, 09:11:09 PM
Bump.

There are several things that we need to do as an Assembly. I will outline several policy proposals of mine so that we may revitalize and re-energize the Northeast. I will ask the Northeast Assembly to hold a vote for these proposals once the Speaker of the Northeast Assembly has been elected:

  • A Constitutional Amendment limiting the members of the Northeast Assembly to 6
  • A quarterly, or a six month budget.
  • A Constitutional Amendment eliminating the need for a quorum in a Constitutional Amendment.
  • Emergency legislation in the event of results not being certified on time. Former Representative WilliamSargent (who was banned) created a piece of legislation that was tabled, which looked something like this

    Quote
    All elections must be certified no more than 1 day after the election is declared closed. Exceptions will be granted in cases of controversy or of an extremely close election, at the discretion of the Lieutenant Governor. There will be two backups appointed to the CJO in order to ensure the deadline is met.

    It's up to you guys to figure out how to address this issue, here's just an example of such lesilation

More proposals to come


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 06, 2010, 09:15:17 PM
I would love to introduce such proposals immediately, but I'd like us to discuss a few things before we do so...

  • Whether we should have five Representatives or six
  • Whether the Lieutenant Governorship should be abolished
  • Probably establish a new list of succession if we do the above


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on November 06, 2010, 09:27:29 PM
I would love to introduce such proposals immediately, but I'd like us to discuss a few things before we do so...

  • Whether we should have five Representatives or six
  • Whether the Lieutenant Governorship should be abolished
  • Probably establish a new list of succession if we do the above
Chiming in, I think it is vital that y'all reduce the number of Representatives. One thing ailing this region is the lack of competitive elections. Another thing to consider is completely eliminate the CJO and delegate those duties back to the Governor. If you decide on 6 Representatives, the Lt. Governor can serve to break ties and can also serve as the Speaker of the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 06, 2010, 09:31:13 PM
I would love to introduce such proposals immediately, but I'd like us to discuss a few things before we do so...

  • Whether we should have five Representatives or six
  • Whether the Lieutenant Governorship should be abolished
  • Probably establish a new list of succession if we do the above
Chiming in, I think it is vital that y'all reduce the number of Representatives. One thing ailing this region is the lack of competitive elections. Another thing to consider is completely eliminate the CJO and delegate those duties back to the Governor. If you decide on 6 Representatives, the Lt. Governor can serve to break ties and can also serve as the Speaker of the Assembly.

I'd personally be more inclined to abolish the Lieutenant Governorship than the CJO.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on November 06, 2010, 09:33:03 PM
Y'all need to elect a Speaker before we can get the party started .


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on November 06, 2010, 09:33:53 PM
I would love to introduce such proposals immediately, but I'd like us to discuss a few things before we do so...

  • Whether we should have five Representatives or six
  • Whether the Lieutenant Governorship should be abolished
  • Probably establish a new list of succession if we do the above
Chiming in, I think it is vital that y'all reduce the number of Representatives. One thing ailing this region is the lack of competitive elections. Another thing to consider is completely eliminate the CJO and delegate those duties back to the Governor. If you decide on 6 Representatives, the Lt. Governor can serve to break ties and can also serve as the Speaker of the Assembly.

I'd personally be more inclined to abolish the Lieutenant Governorship than the CJO.

Well, from what I've seen, you all have struggled with inactive CJO's, which has caused election day problems. Don't continue doing what isn't working, and right now, the CJO position isn't working out well. I'd actually recommend cutting both, but that would be taking drastic measures, and I'm sure not many of you would be ready to cut government officials that much. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 06, 2010, 09:43:48 PM
I would love to introduce such proposals immediately, but I'd like us to discuss a few things before we do so...

  • Whether we should have five Representatives or six
  • Whether the Lieutenant Governorship should be abolished
  • Probably establish a new list of succession if we do the above
Chiming in, I think it is vital that y'all reduce the number of Representatives. One thing ailing this region is the lack of competitive elections. Another thing to consider is completely eliminate the CJO and delegate those duties back to the Governor. If you decide on 6 Representatives, the Lt. Governor can serve to break ties and can also serve as the Speaker of the Assembly.

I'd personally be more inclined to abolish the Lieutenant Governorship than the CJO.

Well, from what I've seen, you all have struggled with inactive CJO's, which has caused election day problems. Don't continue doing what isn't working, and right now, the CJO position isn't working out well. I'd actually recommend cutting both, but that would be taking drastic measures, and I'm sure not many of you would be ready to cut government officials that much. ;)

The Governor also has authority to ratify results, to my knowledge.

The Lieutenant Governor can serve as the Speaker, but a sort of informal "mold" has been set where the Lieutenant Governor leaves the duties to the Speaker. The CJO should be a good legal mind, and leaving regional lawsuits to the Governor's discretion might not be the best idea. The only inactive CJO that I can recall is Mr. Moderate - Rowan was decent, but resigned.

I do think measures of changing the CJO - firing or reconfirming, ought to be discussed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on November 06, 2010, 09:46:50 PM
Maybe make it an elected position, so that hopefully the person that does it will be active?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 06, 2010, 09:54:51 PM
Maybe make it an elected position, so that hopefully the person that does it will be active?

I'm a bit reluctant to do that at this juncture, though if we have a string of inactive CJO's it might come to that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 07, 2010, 11:32:00 AM
I believe Han has authority to open up nominations for, and hold the vote for Speaker:

Quote from: New Northeast Constitution
The Lieutenant Governor of the Northeast Region shall be charged with the responsibilities of the Legislative Assembly of the region. He or she shall ensure that the Legislative Assembly has the ability to propose legislation that they are able to be debated on, and voted on during appropriate periods. In the temporary absence of the Lieutenant Governor, than the Governor may take up these responsibilities.

I strongly encourage him to do so, and hope my colleagues feel the same way.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on November 07, 2010, 12:47:36 PM
Alright, we are now holding nominations for Speaker of the Northeast Assembly! Representatives must declare their candidacy for Speaker by tomorrow Monday November 8th at 1:00 pm!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 07, 2010, 05:30:05 PM
I don't think making it an elected position will somehow make people interested in undertaking it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 07, 2010, 09:16:39 PM
I shall run for Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on November 08, 2010, 04:25:16 PM
Alright, Representatives have 24 hours to vote!

()


Official Ballot of the Northeast

Speaker of the Assembly:

[ ] Dallasfan65
[ ] Write-in: __________



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 08, 2010, 04:30:05 PM
Official Ballot of the Northeast

Speaker of the Assembly:
[X] Dallasfan65
[  ] Write-in: __________


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 08, 2010, 04:49:04 PM
Speaker of the Assembly:
[X] Dallasfan65
[  ] Write-in: __________


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 08, 2010, 05:24:30 PM
Official Ballot of the Northeast

Speaker of the Assembly:
[X] Dallasfan65
[  ] Write-in: __________


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 09, 2010, 12:09:12 AM
Official Ballot of the Northeast

Speaker of the Assembly:
[X] Dallasfan65
[  ] Write-in: __________


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on November 09, 2010, 07:53:58 PM
With the vote closed, Representative Dallasfan65 is the new Speaker of the Northeast Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 09, 2010, 07:57:55 PM
Thank you, Governor. The gavel feels every bit as good as she used to. ;D

()

We shall move onto our first piece of legislation - an amendment.

Quote
Making Competitive Elections Amendment:


Article V, vii shall be amended from:
vii) The number of Reps to be elected corresponds to the entire part of the quotient C/6, with C being the number of citizens in the Northeast Region as of the third Friday at 12:00:00am EST of the month of the election.

to

vii) The Northeast Assembly shall be composed of five members, each of whom shall be registered voters residing in the Northeast Region.

Sponsor: Rep. Dallasfan65 (on behalf of the Governor)

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.


Debate on this bill will continue until at least November 11th, 7:57 PM unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponsor, Dallasfan65, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 09, 2010, 08:07:29 PM
Alright, well.

I'm supportive of this bill.

However, with an odd number, this limits even further the office of the Lieutenant Governor.

I'm in favor of abolishing the Lieutenant Governorship altogether - though that may require other work on re-working the line of succession, and whom presides over the Assembly - something I'm willing to lead on.

Before I push for any of that, I want to hear from my fellow Representatives, and concerned Northeast citizens, though.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 09, 2010, 08:33:25 PM
I support this.  I love the number five.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 09, 2010, 08:35:09 PM
I'm against this, for entirely self-interested reasons (I was the 8th one elected!)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 09, 2010, 08:38:10 PM
I'm against this, for entirely self-interested reasons (I was the 8th one elected!)

If it becomes an issue, I'll bow out of the first race this takes effect to increase your chances. :P

And, guys, how do you feel about the Lt Govship? Axe it, or leave it as is?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 09, 2010, 08:41:14 PM
I'm against this, for entirely self-interested reasons (I was the 8th one elected!)

If it becomes an issue, I'll bow out of the first race this takes effect to increase your chances. :P

And, guys, how do you feel about the Lt Govship? Axe it, or leave it as is?

But I want you to be in the assembly!

Also, get rid of it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Verily on November 09, 2010, 09:40:12 PM
Support. Not much more to say.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 09, 2010, 11:36:34 PM
I'll pretty much echo Verily here, I support this.

The Lt Governorship is really unnecessary, remove the position, and amend the line of succession to make the Speaker the next in line, but in the event of the Speaker having to act for the Governor in a temporary capacity have a Deputy Speaker who's already a member of the assembly to act in their stead.

 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on November 09, 2010, 11:39:52 PM
For the record, I wrote this based off Mideast law. Just changed the region name. ;)

If you move to 6, you may want to keep Lt. Governor and consider abolishing CJO. If you stay at 5, vice-versa. Regardless, I think this is a significant step towards making Northeast elections more competitve.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 10, 2010, 12:26:43 AM
I'm against this, for entirely self-interested reasons (I was the 8th one elected!)

If it becomes an issue, I'll bow out of the first race this takes effect to increase your chances. :P

And, guys, how do you feel about the Lt Govship? Axe it, or leave it as is?

But I want you to be in the assembly!

Also, get rid of it.

And I will be in the Assembly for quite some time - but if I had to choose between a more energetic Northeast, or my own office-holding, I'd pick the former everytime.

For the record, I wrote this based off Mideast law. Just changed the region name. ;)

If you move to 6, you may want to keep Lt. Governor and consider abolishing CJO. If you stay at 5, vice-versa. Regardless, I think this is a significant step towards making Northeast elections more competitve.

As I've stated before, I would much rather abolish Lt. Governor than CJO - the latter serves a genuine purpose.

I'll pretty much echo Verily here, I support this.

The Lt Governorship is really unnecessary, remove the position, and amend the line of succession to make the Speaker the next in line, but in the event of the Speaker having to act for the Governor in a temporary capacity have a Deputy Speaker who's already a member of the assembly to act in their stead.

 

Sounds good - I was mulling over writing a bill adding a superficial title to the most senior Representative, and whomever held that title could take over in his absence.

Anywho, since there's a broad consensus, does anybody mind me amending this bill so that it also abolishes the Lieutenant Governorship?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 10, 2010, 04:02:47 PM
Another issue - Wormy's motion to impeach Lieutenant Governor Fezzyfestoon.

After this bill, I will give Fezzyfestoon the floor to testify as to why he should not be impeached - once he does so, I'll open up the vote.

Of course, if he does not testify (by a time yet to be determined) then the vote will begin anyway.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 10, 2010, 04:37:09 PM
Just an odd thought - what about trying a single legislator and a plural executive?  Would be interesting to see how that plays out in practice.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 10, 2010, 05:25:39 PM
Just an odd thought - what about trying a single legislator and a plural executive?  Would be interesting to see how that plays out in practice.

It's certainly an intellectually interesting concept, but I'd be dubious, honestly, about it's ability to be really effective.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 11, 2010, 10:36:23 AM
After much deliberation, I will be introducing an amendment abolishing the Lieutenant Governorship as a separate amendment - I don't want it to be attatched to this incase it sinks the support of this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 11, 2010, 08:09:34 PM
()

We will now hold a vote on the Making Competitive Elections Amendment. Representatives have 24 hours to vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 11, 2010, 08:11:29 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 11, 2010, 08:14:23 PM
Da


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 11, 2010, 08:15:00 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 11, 2010, 08:16:44 PM

I am interpreting this as an affirmative vote.

Also, due to my work schedule, I likely will be an hour or so late in closing the vote tomorrow (will be closed around 9-10 PM as opposed to 8 PM.)

Following that, we'll allow fezzyfestoon to testify before the Northeast Assembly, hold a vote on impeachment, and then discuss Polnut's bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 11, 2010, 08:21:07 PM
NAY


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 11, 2010, 08:21:58 PM

Why?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 11, 2010, 08:24:00 PM
I already said why.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 11, 2010, 08:32:51 PM
Well, I did offer to bow out of the first race this actually takes effect (February, I believe.)

We have three vacancies(provided the other winners don't swear in by the third vote, which I imagine they won't) and half of the winners were those that wrote themselves in without any intention of winning. Turnout has been depressed in recent cycles because of uncompetitive elections - I'm confident you would win re-election, with or without me in the running, in the next few cycles.

Besides, I don't know of any session where there wasn't atleast one vacancy, and there'd be plenty of opportunity to run in a special election. Han, who's now Governor, won in a special.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 11, 2010, 08:41:04 PM
I should stress that my support of this, as indicated by my vote, is somewhat qualified.

I'm not 100% sure this will arrest a lack of activity or a perceived lack of competitiveness.

You get more competition with a higher participation rate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on November 11, 2010, 08:41:13 PM
Sorry to interrupt here, but....

As former Lieutenant Governor of this great region, I would like to voice my opposition to the proposal to "axe" the position. That the current Lt. Governor is inactive should not be reason to abolish the entire office. The Lieutenant Governor is supposed to serve a real purpose in presiding over the Northeast Assembly, as well as opening and closing election booths.

Better to reduce the size of the Assembly, which is way too large, than to take away another unique position.

That is all.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Verily on November 11, 2010, 11:10:48 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 12, 2010, 10:26:40 PM
()

The amendment passes!

Ayes: 4
Nays: 1

I open the floor for Lieutenant Governor Fezzyfestoon to testify in his defense, and will be giving him until Sunday, 10:00PM to do so, unless any of my colleagues object and would like it moved to a different time. I will be PMing Fezzyfestoon so he is aware.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 14, 2010, 12:42:16 AM

Indeed.  It is both "Yes" in Russian and Shiani.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 14, 2010, 10:13:26 PM
()

I now open up the vote for the impeachment of Lieutenant Governor Fezzyfestoon. Representatives have 24 hours to vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 14, 2010, 10:23:25 PM
Let me say this as the man who first recommended Fezzyfestoon for the Lieutenant Governorship back in May, to Governor Morgan.

I gave Fezzy ample time to acquit himself, and my vote was very much up for grabs. Yet, despite having posted on other boards in this forum, despite a PM from myself telling him about the hearing, he did not show up and attempt to sway any of our votes. I don't really have much of a choice but to vote...

Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 14, 2010, 10:48:48 PM
Mr Speaker,

I consider this to be among the most significant powers bestowed upon this Assembly, Fezzyfestoon was elected virtually unanimously as Lt Governor of this region.

I wish to point this out as we know the step we are currently taking is going against what was the will of the people.

However, the Lt Governor has displayed a lack in interest in fulfilling that role to which he was elected, and has shown an equal lack of interest in defending himself in the face of his impeachment. I was fully prepared to have an open mind should the Lt Governor had appeared before us.

We are granted this power, to use it only in those times when we have exhausted all reasonable avenues, I believe that point has been reached. The vote I cast has been done so with considerable introspection and with the greatest seriousness.

Therefore, in the interest of active and effective government, I vote,


AYE.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Verily on November 15, 2010, 01:02:51 AM
More inactivity encourages abolition of the office of Lt. Gov. I therefore find Fezzy's conduct admirable and befitting of a useless office.

Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on November 15, 2010, 01:07:12 AM
More inactivity encourages abolition of the office of Lt. Gov. I therefore find Fezzy's conduct admirable and befitting of a useless office.

Nay.

The job of the Lieutenant Governor is to preside over the Northeast Assembly, to open up election booths, to step in for the governor, etc.

If you're against the NE Lt. Gov position, then you should be against the national Vice President position just as well.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 15, 2010, 02:24:12 AM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 15, 2010, 06:43:14 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Verily on November 15, 2010, 07:39:49 PM
More inactivity encourages abolition of the office of Lt. Gov. I therefore find Fezzy's conduct admirable and befitting of a useless office.

Nay.

The job of the Lieutenant Governor is to preside over the Northeast Assembly, to open up election booths, to step in for the governor, etc.

If you're against the NE Lt. Gov position, then you should be against the national Vice President position just as well.

Did someone say I wasn't? I'm not really all that big on the positions of Governor or President.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 15, 2010, 10:16:29 PM
()

The impeachment measure fails.

Ayes: 3
Nays: 1
Abstentions: 1


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 15, 2010, 10:20:32 PM
()

We shall move on to the next piece of legislation.

Quote
Hepatitis B Prevention Bill

1. A full course of Hepatitis B vaccinations will be made available for all students in the Northeast from grades 6 - 12

2. Parents of students under the age of 16 will have the option to opt-out of the vaccinations

3. If the student is 16 but not 17, both student and parent must sign the form of withdrawal

4. If the student is 17 or over, only the student's signature is required

5. There will be a token cost to parents of $10 per child, parents on government support or household incomes below $50,000 are exempt from this cost, with a maximum cost of $50 per family regardless of family size.


Sponsor: Rep. Polnut

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least November 17th, 10:20 PM unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponsor, Polnut, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 15, 2010, 10:26:25 PM
Just a few questions I have,

Does 'course' just imply 'session' or is it a class?

Also, not asking for specific numbers, but will this fee help mitigate the affect that this will have on the budget?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 15, 2010, 10:48:16 PM
Why is it so incredibly necessary that schoolchildren get Hepatitis B vaccinations?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 15, 2010, 11:12:24 PM
Thank you Mr Speaker,

Hepatitis B is a terrible disease, it also, incredibly common.

This is disease that is carried in bodily fluids, and unlike many of the more feared infectious diseases, including saliva.

The condition leads to painful inflammation of the liver, and has been linked a key cause in primary liver cancer, with the effects similar to that of chronic alcoholism.

The disease is currently in epidemic proportions in many parts of the world, with 400m people world-wide currently infected with chronic hepatitis B, which is treatable, but not curable.

It is highly infectious, and this adolescent age group has been specifically targeted for vaccination programs around the world. When you are infected as an adult, assuming medical attention is quickly gained, most will recover fully. This age group, however, has little immunity to battle the virus, so a significant proportion of those infected under the age of 21, will carry the disease with them for the rest of their lives. With the massive increased risk of liver cirrhosis and cancer.

The traditional method of vaccination is 3 injections over 3 months, this is to slowly increase immunity. So this is what is meant in the Bill as a 'course'.

This is an age at which children are more social and learning about their sexuality. While it is primarily an STI, it is one of the most easily gained and spread infectious diseases.

It should also be noted that it is recommended by Doctors also for children at a younger age who play contact sports.

There is also a public health element, Hepatitis B can develop into a pandemic very quickly if measures are not taken to control it. While developing countries are most at risk, there have been many localised outbreaks in areas of the developed world too.

This is a program with limited cost impacts, but considerable social and health benefits. The contribution from parents will reduce the impact on the bottom line by roughly a third of what it would cost if it were fully government funded.

This disease exists, it's effects are horrific, and our young people are the most at risk. It seems common sense in the face of a preventable disease, to do what we can to prevent it.

Thank you Mr Speaker.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 15, 2010, 11:30:41 PM
Luckily, we live in a first world country in which vaccination rates for Hepatitis B and related diseases are high and infection rates are low.  The majority of unvaccinated children are so because their parents objected to the vaccination for religious, or medical reasons, or due to personal choice.  The main effect of this bill would be to publicly identify the unvaccinated children at school, opening them to social ostracization and ridicule.  Furthermore, a simple cost-benefit analysis would reveal that the money would save far more lives if it were spent on, say, tuberculosis vaccines in the developing world, or the like.  The only people who should be under any obligation to vaccinate their children are the parents, and it ought to be their decision alone.  Parents do not always make the right decision, but adopting a one size fits all policy will not help matters.  This is a wasteful, expensive program that will do little good (indeed, do some bad) for the considerable investment, of other peoples' money, which they should decide how to spend themselves, involved.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 15, 2010, 11:52:22 PM
If I can respond.

Yes, there is a large proportion of children who are already vaccinated, and that's a good thing.

The honourable gentleman has forgotten those may not have been vaccinated as a child, were not, due to financial circumstances.

This is not compulsory, I never have and never will consider such an approach, parents have the right to not vaccinate their children, as do the students up to the point that their rights become more autonomous from their parents.

There is no desire to ostracise unvaccinated children, and the Gentleman knows this full well, and this is a highly melodramatic attempt. 

Let me repeat, this is not a mandatory action, parents and older students will still have that fundamental right to go ahead or refuse.

The key element that the Gentleman misses is that for parents who want their children to be immunised but were unable to do it due to financial restraints, no longer have that concern.

I also agree that mass TB vaccinations in the third world would be a great program.

But let me just do it this way

1. this is not compulsory
2. this fills in gaps where parents were unable to have their child immunised or for older students to do so
3. this is not an expensive program taking into account the proportions already immunised and
4. the rights of parents to object remains in place.

While I expect most Bills requiring spending to be opposed by the Gentleman, this is low-cost opportunity for immunity against a dangerous disease, with no rights being impinged on. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Verily on November 16, 2010, 07:05:50 PM
I agree with Polnut that the financial aspect is the strongest selling point of this bill. Many children are not given the option of vaccination because of their parents' financial situations. The health care plans marketed to low-income families typically do not cover HepB vaccinations, and generally speaking affordability makes a significant bar to many childhood vaccines. It is our manifest duty not to punish children for the financial troubles of their parents, and to alleviate that disparity whenever possible.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 17, 2010, 10:25:51 PM
()

We shall now hold a vote on the Hepatitis B Prevention Bill. Representatives have 24 hours to vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 17, 2010, 10:43:43 PM
Nay

(Representatives should consider that Atlasia already has a UHC system that pays for vaccinations in full.  This measure therefore does nothing but to harass those who choose not to be vaccinated).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 17, 2010, 10:46:28 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 17, 2010, 11:05:37 PM
Aye

I would like to stress that this is about back-filling gaps that do exist, there are many children who were not vaccinated, and many parents who would take advantage of such a program. While I note the gentleman's concern for the vilification of children, this is hyperbole in the face of an affordable program that has international evidence to attest to its effectiveness.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Verily on November 17, 2010, 11:36:04 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 18, 2010, 01:58:21 PM
I suppose it fails, then.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Verily on November 18, 2010, 03:41:28 PM
I don't think it does anything. Ties don't default to defeats, they go to the LG. Or, you know, hypocritical people could actually vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 18, 2010, 04:05:46 PM
Morgan hasn't voted yet, guys.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 18, 2010, 04:44:57 PM
Therefore it'll go down, lol


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 18, 2010, 04:50:24 PM

You said it would be 24 hours to vote, it's been like 30.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 18, 2010, 05:43:31 PM

You said it would be 24 hours to vote, it's been like 30.

What am I missing ???

We shall now hold a vote on the Hepatitis B Prevention Bill. Representatives have 24 hours to vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

We have until 10:25 PM tonight.


I wouldn't count Morgan as a sure-fire Nay on this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 18, 2010, 05:47:03 PM
Thought it was 10:25 AM.  My bad.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 18, 2010, 05:51:40 PM

No worries.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 18, 2010, 06:37:25 PM

Oops

Um...um...Ni.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 18, 2010, 06:41:44 PM
I suppose that means it officially fails.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 18, 2010, 06:44:43 PM
()

The bill fails.

Ayes: 2
Nays: 3

Next up, we shall move to the next piece of legislation.

Quote
Amendment to the SOAP (Standing Order on Assembly Procedure)

Section 1, subsection A of the SOAP is amended to read

(a) The Speaker or Lieutenant Governor shall open a new Northeast Assembly Legislation Introduction Thread at the start of each session, or the one from the previous session may be carried over into the next session, at the Speaker's discretion.

Sponsor: Rep. Dallasfan65

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least November 20th, 6:45 PM unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponsor, Dallasfan65, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 18, 2010, 06:46:14 PM
I motion that we either shorten debate until November 19th, 9:30 PM or extend it until November 20th, 9:30 PM. I won't be able to close the vote in a timely manner otherwise.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 18, 2010, 06:48:35 PM
I second the motion to shorten debate.  I do not see how this measure is controversial.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 18, 2010, 06:54:04 PM
Can somebody third it?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 18, 2010, 09:15:48 PM
...ok, thirded.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 18, 2010, 09:21:01 PM
Anybody have any input?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 18, 2010, 09:22:18 PM
This is a reasonable procedural device, I'll probably support it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 18, 2010, 09:23:24 PM
A necessary thing.  Is it constitutional?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 18, 2010, 09:28:59 PM
A necessary thing.  Is it constitutional?

As far as I know, yes - this is just us editing our SOAP, or rather, how we run ourselves - and I'm almost positive we need not the Governor's signature to do this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 19, 2010, 09:30:04 PM
()

We shall now hold a vote on the Amendment to the SOAP. Representatives have 24 hours to vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 19, 2010, 09:35:28 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 19, 2010, 11:54:57 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 20, 2010, 12:32:07 AM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 20, 2010, 09:08:30 PM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Verily on November 20, 2010, 09:54:11 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 20, 2010, 11:20:37 PM
Does this mean we're all in agreement?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 21, 2010, 12:10:35 AM
My sincerest apologies for not closing the vote earlier - I left the door at about 7 AM and just walked back in a few minutes ago. Phew.

()

The amendment to the SOAP passes.

Ayes: 5


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 21, 2010, 12:15:17 AM
()

We shall now move on to the Northeast Regional Drinking Policy.

Northeast Regional Drinking Policy

1. In accordance The Regional Legal Age Act, the Northeast hereby sets the drinking age to 18.

2. Any bar, liquor store, or other legitimate distributor unknowingly accepting a false ID will not be penalized.

3. Any bar, liquor store, or other legitimate distributor knowingly accepting a false ID shall be fined no less than $5,000, and no greater than $10,000.

4. Any minor having been found using a false ID shall face destruction of the ID in question and twenty-four hours of community service.

5. With permission of a parent or legal guardian, a minor has permission to consume, but not purchase, alcohol, including but not limited to: wine, champagne, beer, whiskey, liquor, etc.


Sponsor: Dallasfan65


The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this bill will continue until at least November 23rd, 12:15 AM unless the debate period is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponsor, Dallasfan65, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 21, 2010, 05:18:58 PM
I apologise, needed to butt in here, I wanted to get my concerns on the record.

I commend the gentleman for this Bill, I feel it addresses some important issues.

I fully support lowering the drinking age to 18, however, there are some other elements of this Bill, that I feel do not reflect those key issues when it comes to drinking. In its current form, I cannot vote for this in its entirety.

I will be offering up amendments to this Bill.

Northeast Regional Drinking Policy

1. In accordance The Regional Legal Age Act, the Northeast hereby sets the drinking age to 18.

2. Any bar, liquor store, or other legitimate distributor unknowingly accepting a false ID will not be penalized.

3. Any bar, liquor store, or other legitimate distributor knowingly accepting a false ID shall be fined no less than $5,000, and no greater than $10,000 for a first offence. Each repeat offense will increase the fine by a multiplier of two, with the distributor's liquor licence being revoked after four instances.

4. Any minor having been found using a false ID shall face destruction of the ID in question and twenty-four hours of community service for a first offense. Each subsequent act will incur an additional twenty-four hours of community service, as well as a $1000 fine, which will go towards alcohol rehabilitation programs.

5. With permission of a parent or legal guardian, a minor has permission to consume, but not purchase, alcohol, including but not limited to: wine, champagne, beer, whiskey, liquor, etc.



You will note that I have amended this Bill to remove clause 5, I have done this as I feel this Bill should be focused on the purchase of alcohol, rather than the consumption. I also think this would be a very difficult clause to monitor, under this clause it would be fine for a 10-year old to have a beer.

Thank you,

I yield the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 21, 2010, 09:25:00 PM
I accept the amendments as friendly - and for the record, this, in a sense, raises the drinking age since the Regional Legal Drinking Age Act actually abolishes the Federal drinking age altogether.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 21, 2010, 10:06:05 PM
I accept the amendments as friendly - and for the record, this, in a sense, raises the drinking age since the Regional Legal Drinking Age Act actually abolishes the Federal drinking age altogether.

I'm sorry - I suppose I'm not familiar with the relevant issues.  What do you mean by this?

Also, if this passes, I'd like to motion to amend so that it appears in its original form.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 21, 2010, 10:11:27 PM
I accept the amendments as friendly - and for the record, this, in a sense, raises the drinking age since the Regional Legal Drinking Age Act actually abolishes the Federal drinking age altogether.

I'm sorry - I suppose I'm not familiar with the relevant issues.  What do you mean by this?

Also, if this passes, I'd like to motion to amend so that it appears in its original form.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=122588.90

Basically, this abolished any and all federal drinking age and left this to the Regions.

I'm indifferent, but since wormyguy prefers it in the original form...

I will accept polnut's amendments as unfriendly, thus opening up a vote for it so the whole Assembly may decide.



()

We shall hold a vote on Polnut's amendments to the Northeast Regional Drinking Policy. Representatives have 24 hours to vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.


Northeast Regional Drinking Policy

1. In accordance The Regional Legal Age Act, the Northeast hereby sets the drinking age to 18.

2. Any bar, liquor store, or other legitimate distributor unknowingly accepting a false ID will not be penalized.

3. Any bar, liquor store, or other legitimate distributor knowingly accepting a false ID shall be fined no less than $5,000, and no greater than $10,000 for a first offence. Each repeat offense will increase the fine by a multiplier of two, with the distributor's liquor licence being revoked after four instances.

4. Any minor having been found using a false ID shall face destruction of the ID in question and twenty-four hours of community service for a first offense. Each subsequent act will incur an additional twenty-four hours of community service, as well as a $1000 fine, which will go towards alcohol rehabilitation programs.

5. With permission of a parent or legal guardian, a minor has permission to consume, but not purchase, alcohol, including but not limited to: wine, champagne, beer, whiskey, liquor, etc.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 21, 2010, 10:14:46 PM
So, as of right now, there's no drinking age at all?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 21, 2010, 10:15:03 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 21, 2010, 10:15:49 PM
So, as of right now, there's no drinking age at all?

Nope.

Unless the Northeast legislated this in a session before my time, that isn't on the wiki.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 21, 2010, 10:20:17 PM
So, as of right now, there's no drinking age at all?

Nope.

Unless the Northeast legislated this in a session before my time, that isn't on the wiki.

Okay, then.

Nay.

There's no minimum drinking age in China or Portugal - somehow their societies continue to function.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 22, 2010, 10:00:47 PM
Okay, then.

Nay.

There's no minimum drinking age in China or Portugal - somehow their societies continue to function.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 22, 2010, 10:20:43 PM
()

The amendment fails.

Ayes: 1
Nays: 2

Debate will continue until November 22nd, 10:20 PM, unless extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 22, 2010, 10:22:56 PM
Wait, that was the amendment?

I suppose I'll be voting the same way on the actual bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 22, 2010, 10:56:21 PM
Motion to end debate and enter voting procedure.

(Since Morgan, Dallas, and I are all here).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 22, 2010, 11:06:09 PM
Seconded.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 23, 2010, 01:26:28 AM
Thirded


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 23, 2010, 02:37:42 AM
I support this motion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 23, 2010, 04:55:15 PM
()

We are now voting on the Northeast Regional Drinking Policy. Representatives have twenty four hours to vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 23, 2010, 04:57:54 PM
Nay.

There's no minimum drinking age in China or Portugal - somehow their societies continue to function.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Verily on November 23, 2010, 05:15:20 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 23, 2010, 05:30:29 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 23, 2010, 07:03:15 PM
I don't believe this is a perfect Bill, but it does do something positive, so...

Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 23, 2010, 11:26:26 PM
Nay.

There's no minimum drinking age in China or Portugal - somehow their societies continue to function.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 23, 2010, 11:34:43 PM
Good man!  I sent a PM to Dallas imploring him to change his vote - if that doesn't work, I suppose it's in the governor's hands.

Would be a shame if the first act of the first assembly outright controlled by radical libertarians is an assault on personal liberty.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 24, 2010, 06:02:59 PM
Apologies for my tardiness.

()

The bill fails.

Ayes: 2
Nays: 3


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 24, 2010, 06:07:41 PM
We shall move on to the next piece of legislation.

()

Quote
Nullification Resolution

The Northeast Assembly asserts its authority, when a federal law, order, treaty, ruling, regulation etc. is unconstitutional (either being not contained within the powers enumerated by the the constitution, or otherwise in violation of the rights guaranteed by the constitution), to declare that Federal action to be illegal, and to prevent its being enforced within the Northeast with appropriate legislation.

Nullification Resolution Amendment 1 (these would be all friendly, obviously, but I want each part to be voted on separately).

The Northeast Assembly acknowledges that the Governor is Commander-in-Chief of all military, paramilitary, and militia forces raised at the regional level, and that they may not be placed under Federal command without permission from the Governor.

Nullification Resolution Amendment 2

The Northeast Assembly acknowledges the authority of state and local governments, when a regional law, order, treaty, agreement, regulation etc. is unconstitutional (either being not contained within the powers enumerated by the the regional constitution, or otherwise in violation of the rights guaranteed by the regional constitution), to declare that regional action to be illegal, and to prevent its being enforced within their state or local borders with appropriate legislation.

Sponsor:
Rep. Wormyguy

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate will continue until atleast November 26th, 6:08 PM unless debate is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponsor, Wormyguy, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 24, 2010, 10:57:09 PM
Thank you, speaker.

To explain the three parts of the resolution:

The main resolution:

We are lucky to live in a nation with a constitution that strictly delineates and limits the powers of the federal government, unlike the totalitarian regimes of the past and present, in which there is no such limits on the federal government.  However, it is not merely enough to simply pretend that the constitution is inviolable and a perfect shield against overreach by the government of Atlasia.  The regional assemblies must use their constitutionally-guaranteed powers under Article 4, Sections 1§4 and 2§2, and which is not denied to them under Article 1, section 7, and which is protected by Article 1, Section 6§7.  You may note that this is a resolution, not a law - this is because it is merely an assertion of a power we already possess.

Furthermore, to expect the federal government to keep itself within constitutional boundaries is to ask the inmates to run the asylum, or (to use a favorite example of liberals) to ask private businesses to self-regulate pollution.  The regional assemblies must be ever-vigilant guards to defend the people against unconstitutional acts of the federal government.  After all, an unconstitutional act is by definition illegitimate and illegal (and therefore a criminal use of force against our citizenry), so it is not only our right but our duty to prevent its enforcement in our region.

The second part:

The federal government has, in the last 100 years, taken over full control of our regional militia and National Guard.  This is an unconstitutional usurpation of power from our governor, as nowhere in the constitution is the federal government granted control over regional forces.  While it is within the rights of the Governor to authorize that our armed forces be placed under federal command, they cannot be legitimately be given orders from the federal government without the Governor's consent.

The third part:

My justification for this one is simple:  If we are to adopt the rest of this resolution, it would be hypocritical to deny our subservient governmental entities the same powers we are asserting for ourselves.

I yield to debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 24, 2010, 11:23:03 PM
I would like to ask the Gentlemen, what's the point of a Federated state if we don't trust the Federal government to do anything?

Obviously, if a Federal Act, whether by Executive Order or legislation is deemed unconstitutional, then obviously we would not be bound to it. So I take from this you are asking the Assembly, to make a call on the constitutionality of such an Act, which may leave this region vulnerable to abuse from ideological thugs, of any political persuasion?

While I know the Gentleman clearly has strong feelings on the role of Government, I must know what did Government do to you to have so little faith in your fellow Atlasians?

I believe if a Region considers an Act of the Federal Government to be unconstitutional they have every opportunity to have that judgement made, unless you don't trust the judiciary either.

I would support a Bill which allows the region to not enforce a national law whose constitutionality is being challenged, but this Bill strikes me as completely unnecessary and respectfully, verging on the paranoid. We have a Federation for a reason, be vigilant, sure, but this view is nonconstructive and potentially dangerous.

I have few problems with your second issue, but I would need to have some clearer picture of what the actual impact would be on the country's military position overall.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 25, 2010, 01:28:10 PM
I approve of the resolution, but I don't want this to come down to a 3-2, considering it's importance - I'm going to strive for more unanimity.

It seems like there is some room for agreement, if I'm not mistaken - I strongly encourage Wormy and Polnut to work something out to the point where they can both vote Aye, and if needed, I'm willing to play a part.

The only real question I have:

How would we deem it "unconstitutional?" Would that go to the discretion of the Chief Judicial Officer?

Also, since it's a holiday, I suggest we extend debate for a day or two.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 25, 2010, 11:03:59 PM
I fully support this legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 25, 2010, 11:19:48 PM
To Polnut:

Do I trust the federal courts?  No, of course not.  Do you think that every decision that the federal courts are making now, have made in the past, and will make in the future is constitutionally sound?  If your answer to any of those questions is "no," then we are in agreement.  Considering how frequently precedent is overturned, one would have to be schizophrenic to believe every decision made by the courts is constitutionally sound - indeed, the reason why I included "ruling" in the list of nullification powers we are asserting.

National Guard soldiers presently form a large portion (though not nearly the majority) of those fighting in the current Middle Eastern "overseas contingency operations."  As our governor favors an aggressive foreign policy, passing the second part of the resolution is at present unlikely to have a significant effect on foreign policy.

To Dallasfan:

The sponsor of a nullification act would list the legal justifications (i.e. it violates Article X, Section Y) for declaring an act unconstitutional, and then the assembly would vote on it like a normal bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on November 25, 2010, 11:24:53 PM
So who is the judge of what is constitutional, you?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 25, 2010, 11:25:40 PM
The assembly, and the governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 25, 2010, 11:28:22 PM
Just a notice:

Seeing as how I'll be in the confines of a diner from 8 AM to 9 PM tomorrow, I won't be able to close the vote at the appropriate time, unless one wants to extend debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 25, 2010, 11:32:56 PM
Okay, a motion to close debate and end voting procedure (a majority of us are here right now, and I think everyone knows how they will vote).

If that fails, motion to extend debate by another day.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 25, 2010, 11:35:14 PM
Okay, a motion to close debate and end voting procedure (a majority of us are here right now, and I think everyone knows how they will vote).

If that fails, motion to extend debate by another day.

I would prefer to extend it to November 27th, 10:00 PM.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 25, 2010, 11:36:48 PM
Okay, I'll second that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 26, 2010, 01:52:01 AM
I would prefer extension, so thirded.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 26, 2010, 02:08:26 AM
I understand the ideological concern about this, I would be happy to consider a middle-ground Bill here.

For example

In the event that a Federal Law's constitutionality is being challenged, the Northeast Region will not be obliged to enact said law until its status has been determined by a Constitutionally recognised judicial authority.

Any deployment of Regional Military forces must be approved by first, the Governor, as Commander-in-Chief of those forces, followed by a majority vote in the Assembly

This Bill could be the beginning of the end of an independent Judiciary, it is not our job, as legislators to make calls on matters of Constitutionality, not the least of which I have grave concerns of the viability of any law, which could be challenged by ANY majority within the Assembly who simply disagree and interpret the Constitution in a form of group-think.

I'm fully prepared to discuss where there is common-ground, but if the Representative is not prepared even discuss those elements, then, Mr Speaker, unanimity on this Bill will be impossible.  


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 26, 2010, 02:13:14 AM
I like the revisions - especially the latter, since it provides a check on the Governor.

Wormy?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on November 26, 2010, 10:13:39 AM

How absurd. So any bill you simply don't like by the federal government you can deem it "unconstitutional" and not follow it? Why don't you just secede while you're at?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 26, 2010, 05:52:35 PM
Why don't you just secede while you're at?

:D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 26, 2010, 06:48:53 PM
I would like to point out that what I am proposing is hardly unprecedented.

[If I may use "real world" examples]:

Similar resolutions to the first part of mine have recently been passed and signed by the governor in Alabama, Alaska, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming, have passed both houses of the state legislature in Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and South Dakota, and have passed one house of the state legislature in Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia.

State laws nullifying the REAL ID national identification system have recently been passed, signed by the governor, and enacted into law in Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, and Washington, and have passed one house of the state legislature in Pennsylvania.  Resolutions indicating opposition to the REAL ID national identification system have recently been passed and signed by the governor in Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah, and have passed one house of the state legislature in Alabama.

State laws nullifying federal marijuana penalties for medical users have recently been passed, signed by the governor, and enacted into law in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, and have passed one house of the state legislature in Illinois and Maryland.

State laws nullifying federal gun laws have recently been passed, signed by the governor, and enacted into law in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming, and have passed one house of the state legislature in Kansas and Virginia.

State laws nullifying the "individual mandate" portion of the recent healthcare bill have been passed, signed by the governor, and enacted into law in Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Utah and Virginia, and have passed one house of the state legislature in Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee.

A state law prohibiting the federal government from regulating purely intrastate commerce has passed one house in Virginia.

States by how many nullification-themed acts and resolutions have passed at least one house of their state legislature:

(
)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 26, 2010, 06:51:46 PM
As for Polnut's changes, I would be happy to pass those in addition to this resolution, but not instead of.

(I might point out that what he's proposing is technically stronger than what I am, since he is proposing a binding law whereas I am only proposing a resolution).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 26, 2010, 07:05:40 PM
As for Polnut's changes, I would be happy to pass those in addition to this resolution, but not instead of.

(I might point out that what he's proposing is technically stronger than what I am, since he is proposing a binding law whereas I am only proposing a resolution).


Actually, the wording of my alternative includes "not obliged" - there is no automatic enactment, only in the event that the Assembly decides it is - in that circumstance that a constitutionally provided judicial authority is determining the Law's constitutionality.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 27, 2010, 01:08:05 AM
Any more debate is a waste of time.  We all know how we're going to vote.

(Actually, we don't know how Verily will vote, but he hasn't participated in this debate).

I motion to end debate and enter voting procedure.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 27, 2010, 07:55:15 AM
If the Gentleman feels there is no more room to move on this, then I'll second his motion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 27, 2010, 10:23:40 PM
Thirded - and, apologies for my tardiness, I only just walked in the door.

()

We shall now hold a vote on the Nullification Resolution. Representatives have twenty-four hours to vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 27, 2010, 10:38:48 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 27, 2010, 11:01:40 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 27, 2010, 11:47:22 PM
/e/


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 28, 2010, 12:56:30 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 29, 2010, 11:34:53 AM
()

The Resolution passes.

Ayes: 3
Nays: 1


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on November 29, 2010, 11:39:11 AM
We shall now move on to the next piece of legislation - also, I must apologize to the Assembly: I was having Internet problems last night and I was only able to go on Google - no other webpage would load, nor would AIM.

()

Quote
The Public Transport Integration Bill

1. This will require planning authorities, as a condition of approval, that all large-scale residential developments of more than 1000 dwellings (or with 3000 expected residents) must meet standards to ensure adequate connections to public transport.

2. This standard will apply to developments no further than 20 miles from the next large (25000 residents) settlement.

3. This standard will include (but not limited to);
- bicycle lockers at railway stations and bus interchanges
- Increased car parking capacity at railway stations and bus interchanges, with any fees charged to not exceed $8 per day
- bicycle paths between community and railway stations and/or bus interchanges
- Installation of bicycle racks on buses

4. This will apply to all developments proposed from 1 July 2011


Sponsor: Rep. Polnut

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate will continue until atleast December 1st, 11:39 PM unless debate is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponsor, Polnut, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 29, 2010, 06:19:51 PM
Thank you Mr Speaker,

In major metropolitan areas public transport is often the primary means of transport, and most who use it, while often out of necessity, consider it a good thing, that benefits the environment and costs less than daily running of a car.

Where that issue becomes more difficult is when people due to the lifestyle or the cost of living in the inner suburbs buy into developments on the urban fringes.

Very often these are built with no concern for the availability of public transport infrastructure, believing that as the population grows, the demand will be created, and it will come... so it's more a case if you come, they will build it.

Many who live in these areas complain that little thought to has been given to a thorough public transport plan. This is often shown by the placement of new developments adjacent to an interstate and presumes a dependence on the car. 

What this Bill proposes is that a plan for public transport infrastructure is required for new developments (within the legislated parameters), in order for them to be approved.

The Bill lists options for developers to include, depending on location and other particulars of the development.

The Bill will encourage greater availability to public transport, in areas where it is critically needed, this is not something that 'external forces' will necessarily bring about on their own, we can lead on this matter.

The costs of this to the Region are minimal, and will be part of the normal planning approvals processes.

I'm happy to take any questions.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 01, 2010, 04:55:28 PM
()

We shall now hold a vote on the Public Transport Integration Bill. Representatives have 24 hours to vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 01, 2010, 04:57:52 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 01, 2010, 05:37:14 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 01, 2010, 09:09:08 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on December 02, 2010, 01:00:35 AM
(Shouts from the chamber)

Why do you hate infrastructure, so?

It would benefit our region; it would create jobs; pump money into the economy. Though having said this,  I myself would have gone further, much further and encourage greater availability within the inner city; even call to buy back the networks, though I doubt that would have been successful. But I commend Mr. Polnut's actions - particularly in hostile climate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on December 02, 2010, 03:38:21 AM
What are the reasons for opposing this bill? It seems like common sense to me. More transportation options leads to a greater quality of life.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 02, 2010, 06:52:46 AM
Apart from the 'it's idiotic' I got from Wormy... I honestly have no idea why they'd vote against it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 02, 2010, 10:59:35 AM
Since I have yet to hear any reasons why it's wrong,

Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 02, 2010, 11:00:18 AM
()

The bill is tied.

Ayes: 2
Nays: 2



There is no legislation in the queue at the moment, but I will have something coming down the pipe shortly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 02, 2010, 11:52:20 AM
It doesn't pass - there are only two aye votes.

In any case:

This act would provide zero benefit and be ruinous towards our local business.  Providing yet another way for unaccountable "planning boards" to arbitrarily deny approval to investments in housing development (a tactic historically, and often even today used to discriminate against minority small-business owners), based on poorly-worded, vague, and bizarre regulations such as one demanding "increased car parking capacity" (which is to be provided at the developer's expense) will only serve to significantly increase housing prices and scare investment out of the state due to regulatory uncertainty.  Furthermore, this act is absurd in its geographical scope.  Even the tiny, extremely rural hamlet of New Ashford, Massachusetts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Ashford,_Ma) would be subject to it, being within 20 miles of the also small and rural city of Pittsfield.  I'd want to know what a bicycle path to the nearest train station to New Ashford would look like!  Furthermore, if people wanted their apartments to have "adequate" access to sources of public transportation, they would be willing to seek out and pay more for developments with such "adequate" access.  If it is in fact the case that they are not doing so, then it is clear there is no popular demand for what the honorable representative is suggesting, and it is merely a fixation of his own personal agenda.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 02, 2010, 12:25:13 PM
My mistake - I had thought Verily voted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 02, 2010, 12:41:21 PM
()

Quote
The Random Statist Mandate Act (RSM) - Will Dallasfan Vote for It?

1. As of April 1, 2011, all schools and workplaces will be required to provide chocolate to anyone who requests it, charging no more that $0.

2. The amount of chocolate provided must be sufficient.

3. The chocolate must be suitably high-quality.

4. Schools and workplaces must also provide toothbrushes, toothpaste, and dental floss free of cost to prevent tooth decay from the chocolate.

5. Schools and workplaces must also keep their restroom sinks to a reasonable degree of cleanliness, so that they may be used for oral hygienic purposes.

6. An independent commission shall be created to enforce these regulations.

7. The independent commission shall be empowered to impose fines of no more than seventy trillion dollars ($70,000,000,000,000) for violations of these regulations.

8. The independent commission shall be empowered to create any additional regulations necessary or useful to the enforcement of those above.

Sponsor: Rep. Wormyguy

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate shall continue until December 4th, 12:41 PM unless debate is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 02, 2010, 12:44:10 PM
Well, I'd just like to say that everyone likes chocolate, so we should have free chocolate.  Since we also are getting free toothbrushes, there won't be any tooth decay from the chocolate either.  I therefore see no reason at all to vote against this bill.

I yield my time to the speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 02, 2010, 12:45:42 PM
A bit of clarification.

I opposed the bill.

However, I felt that an insufficient amount of dialogue had been exchanged, and that voting aye would have been a bit of a wake up call (I hadn't realized Verily hadn't voted.)

Dialogue is necessary for this body to thrive with activity.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 02, 2010, 12:50:52 PM
If you opposed it, and you wanted more dialogue, then write something opposing it yourself.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 02, 2010, 12:57:20 PM
If you opposed it, and you wanted more dialogue, then write something opposing it yourself.

My apologies, I've been fatigued lately.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 02, 2010, 12:58:51 PM
Okay, I would like to table my bill at the speaker's discretion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 02, 2010, 12:59:38 PM
Okay, I would like to table my bill at the speaker's discretion.

Done. (A sponsor can table/withdraw his bill without the need for other votes.)

I will be introducing something tonight, SOAP related.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on December 02, 2010, 01:30:32 PM
By the power vested in me as Governor, I will break the tie on The Public Transport Integration Bill. As Representative wormyguy already stated, these new economic regulations will hurt small business and will distort the natural workings of the free market economy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 02, 2010, 02:04:40 PM
()

Quote
The Hurr Durr Act

1) The motto of the Northeast is hearby changed to "Hurr Durr."

Sponsor: Rep. FallenMorgan

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate shall continue until December 4th, 2:04 PM, unless debate is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponsor, FallenMorgan, has the floor.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 02, 2010, 03:17:39 PM
The phrase "Hurr Durr" represents the independent spirit of the people of the Northeast, and our region's values of liberty and justice.

Also um...hurrdurr.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 02, 2010, 03:21:25 PM
I like the phrase "Hurr Durr" for our slogan - the other regions have demonstrated that we do not have to be 100% serious.

However, I also like our current slogan:

Quote
Motto: Fax mentis est incedium gloriae (the passion of glory is the torch of the mind)

What if we were to change our motto to...

"Fax mentis est incedium gloriae... Hurr Durr"

?

Or we could potentially make it our second motto and have two.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 02, 2010, 03:24:03 PM
I demand that our motto be Herp Derp, not Hurr Durr.

Herp Derp uber alles!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 02, 2010, 04:34:06 PM
Well, I'd just like to say that everyone likes chocolate, so we should have free chocolate.  Since we also are getting free toothbrushes, there won't be any tooth decay from the chocolate either.  I therefore see no reason at all to vote against this bill.

I yield my time to the speaker.

Just... wow...

My above comment also applies to the current proposition before us.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 02, 2010, 04:40:10 PM
I like the phrase "Hurr Durr" for our slogan - the other regions have demonstrated that we do not have to be 100% serious.

However, I also like our current slogan:

Quote
Motto: Fax mentis est incedium gloriae (the passion of glory is the torch of the mind)

What if we were to change our motto to...

"Fax mentis est incedium gloriae... Hurr Durr"

?

Or we could potentially make it our second motto and have two.

What would be the Latin form of "hurr durr"?

We could have two slogans.  And I prefer "hurr durr" over "herp derp," really.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on December 02, 2010, 05:06:19 PM
(Shouts from the Chamber)

Bring back monthly propositions!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 02, 2010, 06:10:59 PM
Well, I'd just like to say that everyone likes chocolate, so we should have free chocolate.  Since we also are getting free toothbrushes, there won't be any tooth decay from the chocolate either.  I therefore see no reason at all to vote against this bill.

I yield my time to the speaker.

Just... wow...

My above comment also applies to the current proposition before us.

You don't like the idea? :(


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 02, 2010, 06:41:27 PM
What the hell does Hurr Durr mean?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 02, 2010, 07:42:57 PM

It's my understanding that Hurr Durr is a retort or phrase Morgan likes to use. (He can probably clarify this,)

I do acknowledge that making this part of our motto is a bit of tomfoolery, but tomfoolery is not unprecedented in Atlasia. The Midwest and Pacific do this, and even the Southeast is now known as "The Imperial Dominion of the South."

I would be opposed to a giant makeover like that, but this, in my opinion, is harmless.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 02, 2010, 08:22:22 PM

It's my understanding that Hurr Durr is a retort or phrase Morgan likes to use. (He can probably clarify this,)

I do acknowledge that making this part of our motto is a bit of tomfoolery, but tomfoolery is not unprecedented in Atlasia. The Midwest and Pacific do this, and even the Southeast is now known as "The Imperial Dominion of the South."

I would be opposed to a giant makeover like that, but this, in my opinion, is harmless.

I think i'll abstain on this one.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on December 02, 2010, 08:26:51 PM
Actually we should rename the Northeast the "Land of the Kennedys."

The Governor will be named John F. Kennedy
The Lt. Governor will be named Robert F. Kennedy
The CJO will be named Edward M. Kennedy
Representatives will be referred to as "[Insert user name here] Kennedy"
The Northeast Senator shall be named Joe Kennedy Jr.
The Speaker of the Northeast Assembly (or whatever position Dallasfan65 holds in the future) shall be named Master of the Kennedys. His motto shall be: One Kennedy to rule them all, One Kennedy to find them, One Kennedy to bring them all and in the darkness bind them."





Just kidding


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 02, 2010, 08:56:53 PM
Actually we should rename the Northeast the "Land of the Kennedys."

The Governor will be named John F. Kennedy
The Lt. Governor will be named Robert F. Kennedy
The CJO will be named Edward M. Kennedy
Representatives will be referred to as "[Insert user name here] Kennedy"
The Northeast Senator shall be named Joe Kennedy Jr.
The Speaker of the Northeast Assembly (or whatever position Dallasfan65 holds in the future) shall be named Master of the Kennedys. His motto shall be: One Kennedy to rule them all, One Kennedy to find them, One Kennedy to bring them all and in the darkness bind them."





Just kidding


MY EYES.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 02, 2010, 08:58:21 PM

It's my understanding that Hurr Durr is a retort or phrase Morgan likes to use. (He can probably clarify this,)

I do acknowledge that making this part of our motto is a bit of tomfoolery, but tomfoolery is not unprecedented in Atlasia. The Midwest and Pacific do this, and even the Southeast is now known as "The Imperial Dominion of the South."

I would be opposed to a giant makeover like that, but this, in my opinion, is harmless.

It's more of a retort.  It's used all over the interbutt as a response to when somebody says something retarded.  For example, in a discussion about tagging, someone might say in defense of tagging that "nobody owns the walls," to which someone will reply with "hurr durr" or "herp derp."


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 02, 2010, 11:16:20 PM
What the heck has happened to this region?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 03, 2010, 12:38:09 AM
Actually we should rename the Northeast the "Land of the Kennedys."

The Governor will be named John F. Kennedy
The Lt. Governor will be named Robert F. Kennedy
The CJO will be named Edward M. Kennedy
Representatives will be referred to as "[Insert user name here] Kennedy"
The Northeast Senator shall be named Joe Kennedy Jr.
The Speaker of the Northeast Assembly (or whatever position Dallasfan65 holds in the future) shall be named Master of the Kennedys. His motto shall be: One Kennedy to rule them all, One Kennedy to find them, One Kennedy to bring them all and in the darkness bind them."





Just kidding


Maybe all the lefties could be Kennedy, and all the righties Cabot Lodge.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 03, 2010, 12:39:34 AM
Actually we should rename the Northeast the "Land of the Kennedys."

The Governor will be named John F. Kennedy
The Lt. Governor will be named Robert F. Kennedy
The CJO will be named Edward M. Kennedy
Representatives will be referred to as "[Insert user name here] Kennedy"
The Northeast Senator shall be named Joe Kennedy Jr.
The Speaker of the Northeast Assembly (or whatever position Dallasfan65 holds in the future) shall be named Master of the Kennedys. His motto shall be: One Kennedy to rule them all, One Kennedy to find them, One Kennedy to bring them all and in the darkness bind them."





Just kidding


Maybe all the lefties could be Kennedy, and all the righties Cabot Lodge.

yes, we all knew who ended up winning that battle :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 04, 2010, 06:57:16 PM
I propose an amendment to my bill:

1) The phrase "hurrdurr" is hereby added to the end of the motto of the Northeast.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 04, 2010, 10:36:56 PM
I propose an amendment to my bill:

1) The phrase "hurrdurr" is hereby added to the end of the motto of the Northeast.


You're lucky I was late in starting the vote. :P

Since you can amend your own bill with impunity, and it's assumed the amendment you propose will be "friendly", it's added.


()

We shall now hold a vote on the Hurr Durr Act. Representatives have twenty-four hours to vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 04, 2010, 10:54:49 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 05, 2010, 12:57:01 AM
/e/


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 05, 2010, 01:19:10 AM
I'm torn, I think it's silly... but whether it's actually worth a nay...

...erring on the side of caution.... Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 05, 2010, 01:20:54 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 05, 2010, 11:10:09 PM
()

The Bill Passes.

Ayes: 2
Nays: 1
Not Voting/Abstain: 2


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on December 05, 2010, 11:13:23 PM
IIRC abstentions don't count in the vote total, so the bill passes 2-1. But I'm going to veto it anyway, but you should put it on my desk anyway to make things official. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 05, 2010, 11:27:45 PM
IIRC abstentions don't count in the vote total, so the bill passes 2-1. But I'm going to veto it anyway, but you should put it on my desk anyway to make things official. :P

I would dispute that, but for the sake of speeding things up I will change my vote to Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 06, 2010, 12:14:46 AM
And it therefore passes unanimously, and veto-proof.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 06, 2010, 12:19:49 AM
What the Hell?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 06, 2010, 12:20:32 AM
And it therefore passes unanimously, and veto-proof.

No... it wasn't unanimous...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 06, 2010, 12:46:47 AM
I suppose there is a bit of a dispute here.

Han and Wormy seem to believe that official abstentions don't contribute to the vote total - I do.

However, if that is to be the case and we go by the Wormy/Han theory, then..

2/3 = Pass,

3/4 = 75%, or veto-proof.

I merely changed my vote to Aye to speed up the process and get it to the Governor's desk, but since doing so makes it veto-proof, I suppose we're in a bit of a quandry.*


I just checked the SOAP - apparently I was wrong.

Quote
(d) A vote will be held on all proposed amendments not deemed friendly at the end of the debate period. Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours, or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. An amendment shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).

In which case, I revert back to my abstention, and it is placed on the Governor's desk (presumably for a veto.)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on December 06, 2010, 05:43:23 AM
(Shouts from the Public Gallery, rather drunkardly)

Why are there mysterious stains on the Constitution - or did I confuse it with The Conscience of a Conservative? Hard to tell these days.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on December 06, 2010, 03:47:05 PM
Official Announcement:

By the power vested in my, I officially pronounce NiK, Conor, and RowanBrandon the winners of the Northeast Assembly Special Election. Congratulations to all!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 06, 2010, 06:25:33 PM
Okay, let's get things going!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Psychic Octopus on December 06, 2010, 08:27:41 PM
;D Let's get this show on the road!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 06, 2010, 08:51:07 PM
Welcome a'board :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on December 07, 2010, 09:03:22 PM
Mr. President and Governors of the Academy, Committee Members, fellows, my very noble and approved good masters, my colleagues, my friends, my fellow-students. In the great wealth, the great firmament of your nation's generosity, this particular choice may perhaps be found by future generations as a trifle eccentric, but the mere fact of it--the prodigal, pure, human kindness of it--must be seen as a beautiful star in that firmament which shines upon me at this moment, dazzling me a little, but filling me with warmth and the extraordinary elation, the euphoria that happens to so many of us at the first breath of the majestic glow of a new tomorrow.

From the top of this moment, in the solace, in the kindly emotion that is charging my soul and my heart at this moment, I thank you for this great gift which lends me such a very splendid part in this, your glorious occasion. Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 07, 2010, 09:50:35 PM
I would like to put forward a motion suspending Assembly activities between December 23 and January 3, taking the holiday season into account.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 07, 2010, 10:31:23 PM
Seconded.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on December 07, 2010, 10:38:04 PM

Thirded.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on December 07, 2010, 11:18:31 PM
You know, this specific assembly won't be in session during that time. All seats are up for re-election on December 17th.  I do support the motion, however.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 07, 2010, 11:23:33 PM
Oh... yay!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on December 08, 2010, 05:20:50 PM
ATTENTION NORTHEAST ASSEMBLY

If you have intentions to run for re-election next week, announce your intentions to run in the Candidate Declaration Thread before 11:59 p.m. Friday December 10!!!!!!!!!!

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=40247.0


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 09, 2010, 02:55:19 AM
Forgive the intrusion, Northeast Assembly members, but I'd really like to hear from Governor Han on the Federal Stimulus for your regional needs in my office.

Biggest Need
Least Concern
Amount (You can estimate)

I need it by tomorrow\tonight


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on December 09, 2010, 07:29:09 AM
Forgive the intrusion, Northeast Assembly members, but I'd really like to hear from Governor Han on the Federal Stimulus for your regional needs in my office.

Biggest Need
Least Concern
Amount (You can estimate)

I need it by tomorrow\tonight

OOPS. Sorry my bad. :(

I'll let you know by tonight.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on December 09, 2010, 10:16:45 AM
Forgive the intrusion, Northeast Assembly members, but I'd really like to hear from Governor Han on the Federal Stimulus for your regional needs in my office.

Biggest Need
Least Concern
Amount (You can estimate)

I need it by tomorrow\tonight

OOPS. Sorry my bad. :(

I'll let you know by tonight.

Fine then.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 09, 2010, 02:49:26 PM
()

Quote
The Theft Prevention Act of 2010

1.  The Governor is hereby authorized to use any means at his disposal to prevent revenues from all taxes, subscriptions, charges, fees etc. collected by the Republic of Atlasia from reaching the Treasury UNLESS

i.  The Senate passes by a simple majority, and the President signs, a resolution specifically requesting said revenues from the Northeast.

And EXCEPT

ii.  For all voluntary and/or "a la carte" fees charged for individual federal government goods and services.

Sponsor: Rep. Wormyguy

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate shall continue until December 11th, 2:49 PM, unless debate is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponsor, Wormyguy, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 09, 2010, 07:18:37 PM
I support this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 09, 2010, 10:50:52 PM
Can't wait to hear the reasoning behind this one.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on December 09, 2010, 11:03:16 PM
I echo the sentiments of Representative Brandon.

My question to Representative Guy, the logic, sir behind this bill?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 10, 2010, 01:58:36 AM
Can't wait to hear the reasoning behind this one.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 11, 2010, 12:35:15 AM
I would love to explain the reasoning behind my latest bill.

It's simple, really.  I think everyone can agree that one of the primary functions of government is to prevent theft.  Theft can be person-to-person: for example, a mugger or a pickpocket, but it can also be government-to-person, as in a dictatorship where the tax money is all spent on palaces or fighter jets.  Taxation in such a case isn't a legitimate function of government - it's theft.

Now, this bill is a very trusting one.  It trusts that any use of our tax money by the Senate is legitimate merely because they say it is.  I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that we will never become such a banana republic.  But one thing we can know is that unrequested tax money certainly is not legitimate.  If the Federal Government doesn't even need the money in the first place, it is most certainly theft.  It is our duty to protect our citizens from theft.

Note that there need not be any de facto change at all.  The senate must merely pass a resolution requesting our tax money - the minimum that decency must allow, and the president must sign it.  That's not an onerous requirement, and it binds us to behave as normal.  Remember that our founders initially envisioned that the Federal Government would fund itself (when user fees, tariffs, and land sales were not sufficient) by asking each state to provide a certain amount of funds, and then the state would choose how to raise those funds.

RowanBrandon - I may remind you that you are a member of the Regional Protection Party.  Disregarding your party's radical origins, this is a perfect example of what regional protection is all about.  We are saying that the federal government cannot use our tax dollars illegitimately - that they must acknowledge that it is a give-and-take social contract, rather than something they are entitled to.  That's the least standard of decency I think our region should expect.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 11, 2010, 02:23:48 AM
Taxation is not theft, legal definition of theft is to take away with intent to permanently deprive... now, what proportion of the population pays more in taxes, than they get returned in services and benefits.... roughly 3%.... so that's 97% that gets their taxes returned to them in kind or moreso in those government services.

Taxation is a cost of living in a modern society, we have education, health, sewerage, infrastructure maintenance, policing... I am happy to pay taxes, and find the view of Gentleman quite disturbingly paranoid. This is 'theft', there isn't a degree of authority than can be trusted...

The gentleman talks about 'unrequested' money, which I find an interesting point. He is obviously making the case in this Bill that taxation that is not specifically directed in advance is illegitimate. However, what the Gentleman misses is the reality of the way government works... if the gentleman were to have this concept initiated it would require a ridiculous level of bureaucracy ... if every single scrap of Federal government spending required a funding Bill at both levels of government... it would clog up our legislatures. I thought he would dislike a bigger bureaucracy and legislative busy-work.

Plus, additional funds in Federal coffers creates surpluses which increases our credit rating, and makes our national economy stronger. The Gentleman also forgets that there are numerous methods for accountability of the proper expenditure of tax revenue...but clearly he doesn't trust them either.

I agree with one thing that the Gentleman says, he says that this is a social-contract between those who pay taxes and those whose responsibility it is to expend those taxes. However, I don't take it to the extreme that the gentleman does, I believe that contract exists, the terms of that contract are based upon our role as legislators to ensure the correct division and expenditure of that money for the greatest overall benefit. The consequences of that contract being breached is our removal from office.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 11, 2010, 10:42:41 AM
Party labels mean practically nothing to me. I don't care what party I am from. I am not a radical. In fact, I believe most members of my party would agree with me that this is an extreme unnecessary bill. Taxation is not theft, it is necessary for the government to function. The government has no obligation to you, or to anybody, to tell us exactly what our tax dollars will be going for. This has nothing to do with "protecting regions", it's a thinly veiled attempt by the Representative to move the Northeast towards secession from the federal government or even towards anarchy.

I will be voting against this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 11, 2010, 10:21:59 PM
()

We shall now hold a vote on The Theft Prevention Act of 2010. Representatives have 24 hours to vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 11, 2010, 10:52:15 PM
AYE.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 11, 2010, 10:56:02 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 11, 2010, 11:07:17 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 12, 2010, 12:02:16 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on December 12, 2010, 01:43:43 AM
Members of the Assembly,

I stand before you today with nothing to say. After all, my own concerns about the proposed legislation have already been raised.

Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 12, 2010, 03:24:15 PM
/e/


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 12, 2010, 10:25:15 PM
()

The bill ties.

Ayes: 3
Nays: 3


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 12, 2010, 10:29:23 PM
And Verily is no longer an NE representative.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on December 12, 2010, 10:33:31 PM
Looks like it's time for a tie breaker.

I sympathize with the intentions of this bill, but for the sake of Atlasian stability, I will vote nay on The Theft Prevention Act of 2010


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 12, 2010, 10:38:31 PM
Thank you, Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 12, 2010, 10:58:13 PM
I am reintroducing the THEFT PREVENTION ACT OF 2010, and tabling my previous bill.

At speaker's discretion, I would like an IMMEDIATE VOTE, as it has already been debated.

(Han says he'll sign it if it passes).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on December 12, 2010, 10:59:23 PM
What? No, I said that if you guys pass it without my signature (i.e. veto override), then I will abide by the Assembly's decision as I am lawfully required to do.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 12, 2010, 11:03:24 PM
I object to immediate vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 12, 2010, 11:06:20 PM
We would need to hold another vote to shorten debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 12, 2010, 11:07:08 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 12, 2010, 11:08:24 PM

... I have not yet brought the bill back to the floor yet - I will be doing so shortly, after I check with the SOAP.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 12, 2010, 11:11:57 PM

... I have not yet brought the bill back to the floor yet - I will be doing so shortly, after I check with the SOAP.

Can you please do so post haste?

We need to do this while you're still in the assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 12, 2010, 11:12:41 PM
I will support another vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 12, 2010, 11:13:35 PM
This is ridiculous.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 12, 2010, 11:16:35 PM
Although I am not fond of repeatedly ramming bills through the Assembly...

()
Quote
The Theft Prevention Act of 2010

1.  The Governor is hereby authorized to use any means at his disposal to prevent revenues from all taxes, subscriptions, charges, fees etc. collected by the Republic of Atlasia from reaching the Treasury UNLESS

i.  The Senate passes by a simple majority, and the President signs, a resolution specifically requesting said revenues from the Northeast.

And EXCEPT

ii.  For all voluntary and/or "a la carte" fees charged for individual federal government goods and services.

Sponsor: Rep. Wormyguy

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate shall continue until December 14th, 11:16 PM, unless debate is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponsor, Wormyguy, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 12, 2010, 11:18:46 PM
The Sponsor, wormyguy, introduces a motion to begin an immediate vote.

Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 12, 2010, 11:19:38 PM
I request an extension of debate time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 12, 2010, 11:20:07 PM
Representative Morgan seconds wormyguy's motion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 12, 2010, 11:24:32 PM
Mr. Speaker, we don't even have a majority of people present in the Assembly right now. At this hour of the night, this is highly inappropriate behavior by our representatives.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 12, 2010, 11:40:47 PM
Mr. Speaker, we don't even have a majority of people present in the Assembly right now. At this hour of the night, this is highly inappropriate behavior by our representatives.

Considering we have two Aussies in the Assembly, they may be online shortly.

However.

I ask that everybody put the brakes on for a moment, and see if we can come to some compromise on where to shorten debate until December 13th, 11:35.

How does everybody feel about this?

Elsewise, we will have to simultaneously consider Wormy's and Rowan's motions - and Rowan will need to specify when he wants debate extended until.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 12, 2010, 11:43:49 PM
I would like to extend debate an additional 24 hours so that members can have the time that they need to express their opinions.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 12, 2010, 11:46:42 PM
I would like to extend debate an additional 24 hours so that members can have the time that they need to express their opinions.

This has already been debated though.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 12, 2010, 11:50:57 PM
Nonetheless, if the sponsor believes that this bill is so important that he must try to ram it through after it has already been rejected, then surely it must be important enough for extended debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 12, 2010, 11:51:21 PM
Yea on Dallas' motion, Nay on RowanBrandon's.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 12, 2010, 11:56:09 PM
Well, since the Representatives do not favor my proposal, we will simultaneously consider Rowan's and Wormy's motions.

()

Motion to Bring to an Immediate Vote:

Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain - Representatives have twenty-four hours to vote.



Motion to Extend Debate an additional 24 hours (until December 15th, 11:16 PM)

Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain - Representatives have twenty-four hours to vote.


Representatives, please format your vote as such:

Quote from: Example
Shortening: Aye
Exstension: Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 12, 2010, 11:58:29 PM
I see the tactic being employed here, It's completely unacceptable.

Shortening: Nay
Extension: Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 13, 2010, 12:07:35 AM
Shortening: Aye
Extension: Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 13, 2010, 12:14:00 AM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 13, 2010, 12:23:33 AM
I see the tactic being employed here, It's completely unacceptable.

Shortening: Nay
Extension: Aye



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 13, 2010, 12:24:50 AM
Shortening: Abstain
Extension: Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Psychic Octopus on December 13, 2010, 11:52:08 AM
Shortening: Abstain
Extension: Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 13, 2010, 10:34:40 PM
()

Shortening:

Ayes: 2
Nays: 2
Abstentions: 2 (Counted as Nays)



Extension:

Ayes: 2
Nays: 2
Abstentions: 2 (Counted as Nays)

Both measures fail - debate shall continue until tomorrow.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 14, 2010, 10:39:27 PM
Are we wasting time here - let's just put it up for another vote for 24 hours.

Even though I can pretty much guarantee how this one will fall.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 14, 2010, 10:52:11 PM
()

We shall now hold a vote on the Theft Prevention Act of 2010. Representatives have 24 hours to vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 14, 2010, 11:01:45 PM
AYE!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 15, 2010, 12:02:32 AM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 15, 2010, 12:04:10 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 15, 2010, 12:21:03 AM
Absolutely NAY


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 15, 2010, 01:00:36 AM
Nay

But it's going to ridiculously pass anyway.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 15, 2010, 01:16:27 PM
Pathetic.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Psychic Octopus on December 15, 2010, 01:43:22 PM
NAY

Sorry, changed my mind at the last minute. Took me a while to grasp the exact extent of what this would mean.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 15, 2010, 01:53:34 PM
NAY

Sorry, changed my mind at the last minute. Took me a while to grasp the exact extent of what this would mean.

It doesn't mean anything!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 15, 2010, 01:59:08 PM
NAY

Sorry, changed my mind at the last minute. Took me a while to grasp the exact extent of what this would mean.

It doesn't mean anything!

Why would you introduce a bill that doesn't mean anything then?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 15, 2010, 02:04:23 PM
Because it would irritate you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on December 15, 2010, 04:29:35 PM

Excellent reasoning, as usual!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 15, 2010, 05:06:18 PM

It would certainly mean something - and he knows that full well


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 15, 2010, 11:13:56 PM
()

Ayes: 3
Nays: 3
Not Voting/Absent: 2

The tie is left to be broken by the Lieutenant Governor - or more realistically, the Governor (which means it fails.)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on December 15, 2010, 11:20:41 PM
Looks like it's time for a tie breaker.

I sympathize with the intentions of this bill, but for the sake of Atlasian stability, I will vote nay on The Theft Prevention Act of 2010


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 15, 2010, 11:25:05 PM
Thank you. Can we get to serious business now?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 15, 2010, 11:31:18 PM
Looks like it's time for a tie breaker.

I sympathize with the intentions of this bill, but for the sake of Atlasian stability, I will vote nay on The Theft Prevention Act of 2010

This was the right thing to do Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 15, 2010, 11:38:28 PM
That was fun.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 15, 2010, 11:38:45 PM
Somebody will need to re-introduce the Charter Schools Act for the Governor, since Representative Wormyguy tabled it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 16, 2010, 12:07:21 AM
()

Quote
The Northeast Omnibus Anti-Fascism Act

1.  The Bipartisan Safe Sex Education Act is amended to allow students to voluntarily withdraw from sex education, or at the request of their parents.

2.  The Northeastern Green Jobs Act is hereby repealed.

3.  The Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009 is hereby repealed.

4.  The Sustainable Forestry Act is hereby repealed.

5.  The second amendment to the Northeast Gun Safety Act is hereby repealed.

6.  Sections 2 and 3 of the Practical Labor Policy Redux are hereby repealed.

7.  The Combat HIV/AIDS Act of 2010 is hereby repealed.  Any existing needle exchanges will be provided with $100,000 to continue operation as nonprofit organizations.

8.  The Prisoner Diet Reform Act is hereby repealed.


Sponsor: Rep. Wormyguy

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate on this shall continue until December 18th, 12:07 AM unless debate is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 16, 2010, 12:49:53 AM
Thank you. Can we get to serious business now?

As you can see from above... the answer clearly is no.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 16, 2010, 12:51:19 AM
Not in favor of abolishing "right-to-work," I see?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 16, 2010, 01:14:13 AM
Weren't some of those passed during my governorship of fail?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 16, 2010, 01:28:14 AM
Weren't some of those passed during my governorship of fail?

The last two, I think.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 16, 2010, 01:31:48 AM
Also, lol @ the second amendment of the Gun Safety Act being repealed.

I support this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 16, 2010, 06:18:22 AM
Each of these items should be addressed separately. No realistic Assembly would consider 8 bills at one time and label it an "omnibus" act. Then again, we're not dealing with rational people here.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 16, 2010, 07:21:55 AM
Each of these items should be addressed separately. No realistic Assembly would consider 8 bills at one time and label it an "omnibus" act. Then again, we're not dealing with rational people here.

I agree with this completely


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 16, 2010, 11:07:21 AM
I take it you approve of the Republicans voting against the DREAM Act and DADT repeal because they were added to the Defense Appropriations bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 16, 2010, 01:00:22 PM
I don't think the Assembly has enough time for another piece of legislation, actually...

Quote from: The Gub'ner
You know, this specific assembly won't be in session during that time. All seats are up for re-election on December 17th.  I do support the motion, however.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 16, 2010, 01:01:45 PM
Did I declare my intention to run for re-election, already?  I remember doing so.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 16, 2010, 01:03:18 PM
Did I declare my intention to run for re-election, already?  I remember doing so.

Yes.

I'll be running for re-election to the Northeast Assembly.

I won't be, on the other hand, for obvious reasons.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 16, 2010, 01:07:51 PM
I take it you approve of the Republicans voting against the DREAM Act and DADT repeal because they were added to the Defense Appropriations bill.

They weren't before this Assembly, so it's a pointless question :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 16, 2010, 01:10:34 PM
So, do you actually have an argument you wish to make, or do you just have pointless mudslinging to offer?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 16, 2010, 01:37:24 PM
()

Guys, keep it business related.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 16, 2010, 02:45:15 PM
There are certain things in the bill that I would support if they were standalone. But I will be voting no if we just throw all of these things together.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 16, 2010, 03:12:52 PM
There are certain things in the bill that I would support if they were standalone. But I will be voting no if we just throw all of these things together.

I strongly encourage you guys to amend this, or pass/not pass piece by piece.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 16, 2010, 03:36:21 PM
There are certain things in the bill that I would support if they were standalone. But I will be voting no if we just throw all of these things together.

I strongly encourage you guys to amend this, or pass/not pass piece by piece.

No, they'd just find some other lame excuse to oppose it then.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on December 16, 2010, 03:36:50 PM
There are certain things in the bill that I would support if they were standalone. But I will be voting no vetoing if we just throw all of these things together.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 16, 2010, 03:40:37 PM
Looks like the Governor hath laid down the law...

Han's Veto Pen:

()


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 16, 2010, 04:03:10 PM
Well, that was fun, but perhaps we could get down to some (semi)serious business now?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 16, 2010, 04:04:49 PM
Well, that was fun, but perhaps we could get down to some (semi)serious business now?

It likely won't be till after the Assembly Elections...

I recommend somebody re-introduce Han's Charter Schools Act, since Wormy tabled it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 16, 2010, 10:17:07 PM
Well, that was fun, but perhaps we could get down to some (semi)serious business now?

It likely won't be till after the Assembly Elections...

I recommend somebody re-introduce Han's Charter Schools Act, since Wormy tabled it.

Anybody?

Polnut, Morgan, Rowan?

I'd do it myself, but...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on December 17, 2010, 03:26:23 PM
ANNOUNCEMENT

There is a Northeast Assembly Election right now. EVERYBODY GO VOTE!!!!!!! https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=129556

If you still wish to run, declare your acceptance of write-ins!!!!!!!!!!!

BTW, if I forgot to list anybody on the ballot, please let me know before it's too late!!!!!!!!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on December 20, 2010, 04:56:08 PM
The vooting booth has closed. Everybody who declared as a candidate won.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 20, 2010, 05:35:49 PM
I nominate Polnut as speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 20, 2010, 06:21:33 PM
Holy fark I got reelected.

I nominate wormyguy for Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on December 20, 2010, 07:10:17 PM
I second Representative Brandon's sentiments: Mr Polnut for Speaker!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on December 20, 2010, 09:15:49 PM
I also support Polnut for Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 20, 2010, 10:56:04 PM
Thanks guys, let me think on things :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Verily on December 21, 2010, 12:40:04 AM
I also support Polnut for Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 21, 2010, 08:43:27 PM
I have consented to my being nominated for speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 22, 2010, 06:43:43 PM
Guys - we either need to shut down the Assembly now... or get some final business done.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 22, 2010, 06:45:10 PM
Han should begin opening a vote, since it's unlikely fezzy shall do so.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on December 22, 2010, 07:05:31 PM
Alright, Representatives have 24 hours to vote!

()


Official Ballot of the Northeast

Speaker of the Assembly:

[ ] Polnut
[ ] wormyguy
[ ] Write-in: __________



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 22, 2010, 07:21:14 PM
[X]wormyguy


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 22, 2010, 07:41:05 PM
Polnut


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 22, 2010, 08:10:39 PM
write in: Jesus Christ


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 22, 2010, 08:34:25 PM

Well... at least we won't run out of wine...




Official Ballot of the Northeast

Speaker of the Assembly:

[ x ] Polnut
[ ] wormyguy
[ ] Write-in: __________





Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on December 22, 2010, 11:37:55 PM
I proudly endorse Representative Jack Polnut for the position of Speaker!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on December 23, 2010, 03:35:46 AM

Official Ballot of the Northeast

Speaker of the Assembly:

  • Polnut
[ ] wormyguy
[ ] Write-in: __________




Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 23, 2010, 07:15:57 PM
Once this is done - I'm going to move to suspend all Assembly activity until January 3, 2011.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on December 23, 2010, 07:18:01 PM
I second that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on December 23, 2010, 07:38:54 PM
Vote is closed. Mr. Polnut is now Speaker Polnut. Congratulations sir! :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 23, 2010, 07:59:18 PM
Vote is closed. Mr. Polnut is now Speaker Polnut. Congratulations sir! :)

Thank you Governor.

As I just said, while I will not reduce my desire for positive change, I believe I must serve all as fair an arbiter as I possibly can.

Unless anyone wishes this to be a formal vote, I move that the Assembly now rises until Monday 3 January 2011.

All in favour say I 'aye'... I think the 'ayes' have it :p


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Psychic Octopus on December 23, 2010, 08:17:43 PM
I missed the vote? Sorry, I was busy. :P I feel like a certain West Virginian politician right now.

Congratulations, Speaker Polnut.

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: redcommander on December 23, 2010, 08:31:40 PM
Sorry for missing the vote. Congrats Polnut. Are we moving to suspending activity for Christmas?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 23, 2010, 09:36:08 PM
Yeah


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 23, 2010, 11:57:09 PM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 24, 2010, 12:13:57 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on December 24, 2010, 03:39:04 AM
Firstly, I would like to echo the sentiments of the entire chamber and congratulate my friend, and Representative Polnut on his election as Speaker of the House. Once again, I shall adhere to the vast calls of those in this chamber to suspend legislative activity till 3 January.

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on December 24, 2010, 06:28:15 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on December 24, 2010, 09:51:15 AM
Vakay it up!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 24, 2010, 06:07:18 PM
OK - we have 5 AYES, so it passes.

The Assembly has now risen until Monday 3 January.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on January 02, 2011, 09:35:31 PM
Back to work tomorrow gang. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on January 03, 2011, 03:22:48 PM
So...let's get this party started, yeah?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 03, 2011, 05:54:57 PM
I shall officially open the session shortly :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 03, 2011, 09:29:26 PM
()

I hereby open this session of the Assembly of the Northeast Region of Atlasia.

Rep Sbane has put forward the Wind Farm Bill


Wind Farm Bill

1) Immediately allow establishment of wind farms on the entire continental shelf of the Northeast region.
2) Only big, slow rotating windmills that don't kill birds will be allowed.
3) Any project can only be challenged on the basis of adverse impact to species covered under the endangered species act, and not for any other reason, including the opposition of coastal residents.
4) The state can take part ownership of projects up to 49% in order to help startups and companies wanting to share the risk. Profits realized from the endeavor will be shared with the state, with profit sharing being proportional to ownership.
5) The state will assist utilities in building transmission lines to transport this energy from the coast. Improvements to the existing grid shall be made to accomodate this increase in electricity production and to deliver it efficiently to population centers.
6) Funding for provisions 4 and 5 shall come from the repeal of the Freedom to Drive Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102877.msg2431750#msg2431750). The Regional Gas Tax rate goes back to the level before the imposition of the moratorium.


I move this be considered by the Assembly, all in favour say 'Aye'... I think the 'Ayes' have it.

Rep. Sbane can you please speak to your Bill?

 -- Debate will conclude at 9:29pm, 5 January 2011


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 03, 2011, 10:12:29 PM
I generally support the measure, though I'm cautious about points 4, 5, and 6.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 03, 2011, 10:34:09 PM
Motion to strike all clauses and replace with the following (motion to amend):

1. a. The Northeast government grants free-of-charge perpetual leases of the submerged continental shelf to the individual municipalities along the coastline.  The leases shall be apportioned as if each municipality were an independent country under the Law of the Sea treaty.

b. Municipalities which consolidate or secede also consolidate or split the leases to the continental shelf.

2. a. Municipalities may auction or license construction (as of wind farms), fishing, mining or other rights to all or portions of their leases.

b. Municipalities may place any restrictions on these rights as they see fit, but may not abrogate contracts with the purchasers or licensees of the the rights ex post facto without full compensation.

3 a. Any sale or licensing of rights to the continental shelf in a municipality must be approved by a majority of the voters in that municipality in a prompt (within 2 months) referendum.

b. The proceeds from any sale or licensing of rights to the continental shelf in a municipality shall be wholly and equally distributed among the persons residing in the municipality at the time of voting on the referendum.

c. If a person can prove a substantial (greater than $4000 within a 3-year period) loss of livelihood due to the sale or licensing of continental shelf rights, he or she may file to receive additional compensation from the proceeds, equal to the loss of livelihood.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on January 04, 2011, 01:42:12 AM
My foremost goal with this legislation was to make better use of the vast natural resources of our region, help modernize our electricity grid to make it better suited for greater electricity supply and demand, as well as to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Today many wind projects are proposed, but most get caught up in endless redtape getting approval from the government. This process is further slowed by lawsuits by environmentalists and coastal residents. My bill helps cut the red tape by allowing wind projects everywhere within our jurisdiction, as long as they take the necessary steps to prevent bird kills (provision 2). If any other adverse impacts on protected species can be found, the project can be stopped. But the burden of proof is shifted to the environmentalists. I am also open to compensating individuals if they can prove a loss of livelihood due to the windfarms.

Another major part of this bill is to modernize the electricity grid as well as to build the transmission lines necessary to transport energy from the new wind farms to the existing grid. If we are not able to efficiently transport the energy from the source to where it is demand, we will lose most of it in transmission, making the wind farms less useful and profitable.

Lastly, I would like to lift the moratorium on our regional Gas taxes in order to pay for this bill. Incentivizing greater use of Gasoline is not the right thing to do for the Northeast or Atlasia in the long term. We need to develop sources of energy found right here in Atlasia, like wind power or coal, and wean ourselves of Gasoline.
 





Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on January 04, 2011, 02:00:35 AM
I generally support the measure, though I'm cautious about points 4, 5, and 6.

Provisions 5 and 6 are necessary, especially 5. I expect everyone to pitch in for grid modernization, but if we hold stakes in any of the wind farms, it's only fair that we also pitch in. Also grid modernization involves massive capital investments involving huge risk, and is a process that itself can get caught up in red tape. It is the right thing to do for the government to assist the utilities in getting the necessary infrastructure set up. Provision 6 is also necessary, imho, due to the reasons I have outlined in the previous post. Gasoline is a non-renewable resource we import from hostile nations; it's use should not be encouraged.

Provision 4 is currently necessary, imho, due to the risks involved in such projects. Of course a lot of the problems are created by the government itself, with various agencies creating a tangled beaureacratic web through which companies must navigate to get approval. This makes investors vary of getting involved in such projects. If we can reduce these regulations, and streamline the process, we might be able to encourage investment and eliminate the need of the government taking on a minority stake. Perhaps this can be a program that is phased out over a 5 year period?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on January 04, 2011, 02:08:02 AM
Wormyguy,

I must disagree with your plan to give control over the continental shelf to individual municipalities. This is a recipe for gridlock. Just imagine the sort of beaureacratic nightmare we would be creating, with companies needing to deal with up to 5 to 10 different sets of rules to create just one wind farm! Your bill would effectively kill windpower in the northeast, and so I cannot go along with it.

I do agree with provision 3c, as it seems to exclude the theoretical concerns of coastal homeowners with their property values. Hopefully we can add that to the final bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on January 04, 2011, 05:56:46 PM
I'm supportive of the bill, though I can't help but ask about the fourth point.

It states that the government will take part ownership of 49% in order to help start ups. My question to you, Representative Bane is will the government, inevitably sell off its share once the wind farms have been propped up; or will the government continue to maintain partial ownership?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 04, 2011, 06:33:41 PM
I generally support this Bill and it's aims - however, I do have some serious concerns about section 3 - which places some quite unparalleled restrictions on the grounds for challenging the construction of a turbine to be based only on environmental grounds, and even more specifically, if the project affects endangered species.

I would highly doubt this section would not be easily challenged, and likely, in my view, successfully. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 04, 2011, 07:09:20 PM
I support wormyguy's motion to amend.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on January 04, 2011, 07:47:14 PM
Just sayin', you need to include that there's 48 hours of debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 04, 2011, 07:50:16 PM
Just sayin', you need to include that there's 48 hours of debate.

Crap... I thought I had...

Rookie mistake :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 04, 2011, 07:52:04 PM
I support wormyguy's motion to amend.

I don't - I either fundamentally don't agree with it - or there's bureaucratic nightmares a-plenty within it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 05, 2011, 01:46:04 AM
Call me just a crazy sentimentalist, but if we're talking about something which is highly disruptive, such as a shallow-water wind farm, that could turn places dependent on the fishing or tourism industries (for example) into ghost towns, it might be best to consult the people who will be affected first, for the same reason that it would be wrong to turn a public park into a landfill without first consulting the surrounding population.  If that requires a "beaureacratic" nightmare, then so be it.  My proposal does not create a single new regional agency - in fact it reduces bureaucracy by partially ending regional administration over our shallow territorial waters.  I'm not exactly sure how someone who's proposing the partial nationalization of the entire power generation and transmission industry is complaining about supposed bureaucracy, but that's the way it goes.  I also like stating that you oppose my amendment before even having read it.  Mind reminding us who's supposed to be the "adult" here, Polnut?

In any case, Han says he will veto this bill without my amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 05, 2011, 02:03:10 AM
Ah, lol

I certainly read it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on January 05, 2011, 02:57:48 PM
I generally support this Bill and it's aims - however, I do have some serious concerns about section 3 - which places some quite unparalleled restrictions on the grounds for challenging the construction of a turbine to be based only on environmental grounds, and even more specifically, if the project affects endangered species.

I would highly doubt this section would not be easily challenged, and likely, in my view, successfully. 

I understand your concerns. I was trying to streamline the approval process but I may have overreached. Local input should be considered, but I don't think gifting off the continental shelf to municipalities is the answer.

Would you be able to support the bill without provision 3, or would you require further changes? Furthermore would you be willing to write an amendment that is more to your liking? Thanks.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on January 05, 2011, 03:09:51 PM
I'm supportive of the bill, though I can't help but ask about the fourth point.

It states that the government will take part ownership of 49% in order to help start ups. My question to you, Representative Bane is will the government, inevitably sell off its share once the wind farms have been propped up; or will the government continue to maintain partial ownership?


I would approach the issue like a business would. If a wind farm is performing well and is quite profitable, it would be silly for the government to sell off it's stake. On the other hand, if projects are not profitable, it would be in everyone's best interests to sell of those assets.

I would like to reiterate that this is not some sort of government takeover of industry. This is why I restricted ownership up to 49%. I view us as minority stake holders acting as investors propping up a new industry. We would not be in control of operations of any of these facilities. We would not be involved in everyday business decisions.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 05, 2011, 05:53:29 PM
I can certainly support this Bill with a few changes.

I think while the aim to restrict the challenges is ok, it's far far too restrictive. I would completely remove section 3 - and replace it with....

3) There must be a community consultation process prior to the construction of any wind power turbine, as well as a environmental impact study of the site and surrounding area.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on January 05, 2011, 09:20:04 PM
Ok, I will support that change. Hopefully common sense will prevail and locations where there truly isn't a lot of commercial or recreational traffic, will have wind farms installed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 05, 2011, 09:35:25 PM
Debate period has ended.

Please vote Aye or Nay

Voting period will conclude in 24 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 05, 2011, 09:50:43 PM
You have to vote on the amendment first.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 05, 2011, 09:53:44 PM
Slap head - sorry doing three things at once.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 05, 2011, 11:58:39 PM
We will now vote on Rep Wormguy's unfriendly amendments to the proposed Bill

- please vote 'aye' or 'nay' ... vote will last 24 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 06, 2011, 12:51:11 AM
YEAH MAN


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on January 06, 2011, 12:53:10 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 06, 2011, 09:00:35 AM
Yea


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 06, 2011, 06:18:51 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on January 06, 2011, 08:26:33 PM
No sir


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 07, 2011, 09:23:34 AM
Alright voting on the Rep Wormguy's has ended

Ayes: 2
Nays: 3

The amendment does not pass.

We will now move to vote on the Bill in its entirety.

Voting will conclude in 24 hours


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 07, 2011, 09:36:57 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on January 07, 2011, 11:33:01 AM
Alright voting on the Rep Wormguy's has ended

Ayes: 2
Nays: 3

The amendment does not pass.

We will now move to vote on the Bill in its entirety.

Voting will conclude in 24 hours

Wait, don't we have to vote on the amendment you made to the bill?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on January 07, 2011, 05:01:00 PM
Alright voting on the Rep Wormguy's has ended

Ayes: 2
Nays: 3

The amendment does not pass.

We will now move to vote on the Bill in its entirety.

Voting will conclude in 24 hours

Wait, don't we have to vote on the amendment you made to the bill?

Didn't you accept it as friendly?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on January 07, 2011, 08:26:26 PM
Alright voting on the Rep Wormguy's has ended

Ayes: 2
Nays: 3

The amendment does not pass.

We will now move to vote on the Bill in its entirety.

Voting will conclude in 24 hours

Wait, don't we have to vote on the amendment you made to the bill?

Didn't you accept it as friendly?

Yes. I suppose no vote is needed in that case? Sorry about the confusion.

I vote Aye on the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Psychic Octopus on January 07, 2011, 09:15:51 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 07, 2011, 09:58:38 PM
Nein


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 07, 2011, 11:14:11 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 08, 2011, 09:24:45 AM
Voting has now closed on the Bill...

With 3 Ayes and 2 Nays the Bill has passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on January 08, 2011, 11:55:02 AM
Aye ftr


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on January 08, 2011, 01:12:03 PM
()

Due to the expansion of government and tax raises, I, as Governor of the Northeast, hereby veto the Wind Farm Bill

Governor Han



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 08, 2011, 01:42:45 PM
()

Due to the expansion of government and tax raises, I, as Governor of the Northeast, hereby veto the Wind Farm Bill

Governor Han



Once again, ideology prevails over common sense in the Northeast. Sorry Polnut, you lost the bet.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on January 08, 2011, 02:46:28 PM
I think we can get an override with this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 09, 2011, 07:18:28 AM
()

Due to the expansion of government and tax raises, I, as Governor of the Northeast, hereby veto the Wind Farm Bill

Governor Han



Once again, ideology prevails over common sense in the Northeast. Sorry Polnut, you lost the bet.

Oh ye of little faith


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 10, 2011, 06:02:37 PM
We will now be considering Rep Morgan's

Quote
The NAME Bill

1.  Every citizen of the Northeast has a right to have a name of their own choosing.

2.  In order to legally change one's name, only the completion of a government-provided form is required.  Filing fees will be subsidized by the government.

3.  No change of name may be rejected, as long as it meets the requirement of being in Unicode characters.

4.  If the name change is fraudulent, he or she may be sued within a year after the name change, and a court may order the change reversed.  This may only be done if the person obtaining the name change had only fraudulent intent.

5.  A minor that is fourteen or older may change his or her name freely.

6.  No limit on the number of name changes one can obtain may be established.

7.  The same procedure will be required for a name change after marriage or divorce.

8.  The Northeast Assembly supports the right of women to keep their surname after marriage, and supports the right of men to take their female partner's surname after marriage.

I move that the Bill be considered... all in favour say 'aye', I think the 'ayes' have it.

Representatives will have 48 hours to debate this Bill, Representative Morgan, can you please speak to your Bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 10, 2011, 09:24:11 PM
I support this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 10, 2011, 10:06:15 PM
Hi Bill.  Nice to meet you.

Oh, wait...

This bill is of great personal importance.  The name you all know me by is not legally my name.  As early as the first or second grade, in elementary school, I disliked my legal name.  I first could not get it changed because of my age, and even now that I am no longer a minor, I still cannot get it changed for practical reasons, due to the whole process of getting a name change, which to my knowledge requires court dates and other legal nonsense.

If all I needed to do was fill out a form and drop it off, I could change my name without my father knowing, and actually be happy.

Besides my personal reasons for sponsoring this bill, I believe that everyone should have a name of their own choosing.  The legal system has no right to interfere in any way, unless it causes tangible harm to others.

I believe that this same process outlined in the bill should be applied to marriage, in complete fairness.  The process to change one's name after marriage should not be easier or harder, than simply getting a name change because you feel like it.

Finally, I hope the Assembly will support the final point of this bill.  It has no legal effect -- it is only a resolution by the Assembly.  Women should, of course, be able to take whatever name they want, but too many people take a very traditionalist point of view, that women should even be forced to take their partner's surname.  We should make a simple statement, expressing that women of the Northeast have this right, and that, furthermore, men have the right to take their partner's last name.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on January 10, 2011, 10:11:58 PM
I see no issue with this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 10, 2011, 10:16:22 PM
I don't see a huge issue with it, although a little side note that you seem to object to any public funds going to virtually anything, yet you advocate the public purse being used to subsidise the fees... that's more amusing for me than anything else.

I'll have a couple of more thoughtful questions a bit later.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 10, 2011, 10:19:51 PM
I don't see a huge issue with it, although a little side note that you seem to object to any public funds going to virtually anything, yet you advocate the public purse being used to subsidise the fees... that's more amusing for me than anything else.

I'll have a couple of more thoughtful questions a bit later.

I don't object to all public funding, and it's a simple filing fee.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Psychic Octopus on January 10, 2011, 11:37:21 PM
I too see no major issue with the bill, although I would like to create an amendment to the bill for the Assembly.

Quote
The NAME Bill

1.  Every citizen of the Northeast has a right to have a name of their own choosing.

2.  In order to legally change one's name, only the completion of a government-provided form is required.  Filing fees will be subsidized by the government.

3.  No change of name may be rejected, as long as it meets the requirement of being in Unicode characters.

4.  If the name change is fraudulent, he or she may be sued within a year after the name change, and a court may order the change reversed.  This may only be done if the person obtaining the name change had only fraudulent intent.

5.  A minor that is fourteen or older may change his or her name with consent of their parent/guardian.

6.  No limit on the number of name changes one can obtain may be established.

7.  The same procedure will be required for a name change after marriage or divorce.

8.  The Northeast Assembly supports the right of women to keep their surname after marriage, and supports the right of men to take their female partner's surname after marriage.


Reason being that I think a parent should have some input as to whether their son/daughter changes their surname, and I don't think it would be prudent to "shock" a parent in this fashion after learning that their child had changed the name they gave them.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 10, 2011, 11:43:18 PM
What if the age were raised to sixteen?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 10, 2011, 11:54:50 PM
I would think anyone under the age of 18 should have parental consent... that's the age of legal emancipation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 10, 2011, 11:57:35 PM
Fine, fine.  NiK's amendment is acceptable.  Though, I'd propose that the provision be that permission of one parent or guardian is required...or is that a generally accepted base requirement?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 10, 2011, 11:59:51 PM
I think 'one' parent could be a recipe for disaster, with so many divorced families I can see some serious potential issues from this one.

Do we even have a legal definition of 'parental consent'?



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 11, 2011, 12:02:31 AM
Well, regardless, I find the amendment permissible.  We can leave any specificnesses out.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 13, 2011, 12:55:12 AM
48 Hours has now passed, we will now move, assuming the Rep considers Rep Sbane's amendment as friendly, to vote on the Bill in it's entirety.

Please vote Aye or Nay

Vote will close in 24 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 13, 2011, 09:41:25 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on January 13, 2011, 01:03:10 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on January 13, 2011, 04:50:28 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 13, 2011, 05:23:21 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 13, 2011, 05:32:17 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Psychic Octopus on January 13, 2011, 10:28:09 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 15, 2011, 06:25:41 AM
The Bill has passed.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 16, 2011, 12:17:40 AM
Alright, the Assembly will now look at Rep Wormguy's Bill

Quote
The Self-Ownership Bill (Or, the If You Are Pro-Choice and You Oppose This Then You Are a Hypocrite Bill)

1. All persons are defined as the sole owners of their bodily organs.
2. Any non-minor person who has not been deemed mentally incompetent by a judge shall be allowed to sell their non-essential organs (such as the kidneys, skin, and spleen) to others.
3. Any organ removal surgery must be performed under standard levels of anesthesia and cleanliness by a licensed surgeon.
4. The surgeon must inform the donor of the potential risks of organ removal surgery.
5. All donors must be blood-tested for diseases transmittable through organ donation surgery.
6. A surgeon may, at his or her own discretion, declare a person mentally incompetent for the purposes of selling his or her bodily organs.
7. Unlawfully coercing a person to sell his or her bodily organs shall be a felony punishable by not less than 60 months in prison and/or a fine of not less than $50,000.  Attempting to unlawfully coerce a person to sell his or her bodily organs shall be a felony punishable by not less than 30 months in prison and/or a fine of not less than $25,000.
8. Persons with valid organ donor cards shall be eligible for a $500 yearly tax credit.

I move that the Assembly consider this Bill, all in favour say 'aye' ... the ayes have it.

Rep Wormguy, please speak to your Bill, debate on this Bill will last 48 hours from now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 16, 2011, 12:53:34 AM
Thank you, speaker.

As I am sure everyone is well aware, there is an acute shortage of organ donors, and waiting lists can be months long.  However, if only a miniscule percentage of the population chose to donate nonessential organs, such as a kidney or a lobe of their liver, the waiting list for those organs could be totally eliminated.

Now, there are several ways one could go about doing that.  One would be to choose people by random lottery and force them to donate their nonessential organs.  That would be an unethical, Orwellian nightmare.  Another is to simply acknowledge that people are the owners of their own bodies, and let them do with their bodies as they please, including selling their nonessential organs.  It is for the same reason that people are allowed to obtain body piercings or tattoos (including if they are being paid to have "PartyPoker.com" written on them) - because there is no more fitting custodian of a person's body that that self-same person.  Every argument that I have ever seen advocating for legalized abortion has rested on this notion of self-ownership - that a woman has the right to do with what is inside her own body as she pleases.  This bill relies on the same concept, except that nothing is being killed.  Indeed, it saves lives.

I suspect there will be two major objections made to this bill.  The first will be that it will result in the poor being "taken advantage" of.  One must think of the types of people who would sell their nonessential organs.  The first might be simply persons who are looking to make a quick buck.  These are the sorts of people who agree to be paid to be guinea pigs for drug trials (potentially far more dangerous than this).  The second is people who are doing so out of desperation.  This second group, if they are denied this opportunity, will turn to something even more degrading, such as prostitution, or a life of crime.  Who are we as an assembly to tell that person "no?"  To tell them to become a prostitute.  Become a drug dealer.  Become a bank robber.  Perhaps it is better to simply let each individual person decide what is best to do for themselves, especially when we are discussing something which ought to be considered theirs in the first place, their own bodies.

The second will be the somewhat populist-tinged objection that "it will only benefit the rich."  I would ask:  Are the rich less human, or less deserving?  Do they not have the right to do everything in their power to save the lives of themselves and their loved ones?  Furthermore, I must make two rather obvious points; as the supply of organs increases, so too will the cost decrease, and also that this proposal would greatly cut down on the length of waiting lists for uncompensated organ donations, so every recipient would benefit, even those unable to purchase one directly.

As for the tax credit, I doubt that's controversial, but I am open to discussing or modifying it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 16, 2011, 05:53:58 PM
I personally find the goal of the Bill quite positive... we need more organ donorship, without question.

I do have some issues with the overall tone of the Bill however, it stresses what rights people should have, but without any significant safeguards for abuse.

I would certainly consider supporting this Bill if it were more actually targeted on increasing organ donation... and less on 'rights' ...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on January 16, 2011, 06:10:15 PM
Selling body organs? No. Just no.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on January 16, 2011, 11:15:51 PM
I endorse this bill.

I personally find the goal of the Bill quite positive... we need more organ donorship, without question.

I do have some issues with the overall tone of the Bill however, it stresses what rights people should have, but without any significant safeguards for abuse.

I would certainly consider supporting this Bill if it were more actually targeted on increasing organ donation... and less on 'rights' ...

The second half of wormy's bill is to provide safeguards against abuse. If you don't think there are enough safeguards and wish to provide some ideas, please let us know. Also, what exactly about the 'rights' aspect of the bill worries you? Do you oppose these rights and if so why? The only real effect of his bill is that people that need organ transplants will have an easier time receiving organs that they need. What could be wrong with that?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 17, 2011, 01:12:07 AM
I support this bill as well.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 17, 2011, 04:01:02 AM
I endorse this bill.

I personally find the goal of the Bill quite positive... we need more organ donorship, without question.

I do have some issues with the overall tone of the Bill however, it stresses what rights people should have, but without any significant safeguards for abuse.

I would certainly consider supporting this Bill if it were more actually targeted on increasing organ donation... and less on 'rights' ...

The second half of wormy's bill is to provide safeguards against abuse. If you don't think there are enough safeguards and wish to provide some ideas, please let us know. Also, what exactly about the 'rights' aspect of the bill worries you? Do you oppose these rights and if so why? The only real effect of his bill is that people that need organ transplants will have an easier time receiving organs that they need. What could be wrong with that?

I don't see significant safeguards at all, aside from "if they want to do it, let them"

Which isn't a safeguard.

I would not support this Bill unless there is a clear medical oversight. People cannot go ahead with considering this process unless a Doctor has signed off that they are not in any way mentally deficient and that they will not be otherwise be put in medical jeopardy.

I oppose the idea that a right exists without an equal responsibility attached to it.

I do believe that people have the fundamental right to determine what happens to their bodies, but I would consider it a considerable dereliction of our duty of care to encourage potentially risky acts without considerable oversight.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 17, 2011, 11:03:58 AM
Hmm...

6. A surgeon may, at his or her own discretion, declare a person mentally incompetent for the purposes of selling his or her bodily organs.

In the future, you may want to read the bill first.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on January 17, 2011, 11:19:44 AM
Quote
The Self-Ownership Bill (Or, the If You Are Pro-Choice and You Oppose This Then You Are a Hypocrite Bill)

1. All persons are defined as the sole owners of their bodily organs.
2. Any non-minor person who has not been deemed mentally incompetent by a judge shall be allowed to sell their non-essential organs (such as the kidneys, skin, and spleen) to others.
3. Any organ removal surgery must be performed under standard levels of anesthesia and cleanliness by a licensed surgeon.
4. The surgeon must inform the donor of the potential risks of organ removal surgery.
5. All donors must be blood-tested for diseases transmittable through organ donation surgery.

6. A surgeon may, at his or her own discretion, declare a person mentally incompetent for the purposes of selling his or her bodily organs.
7. Unlawfully coercing a person to sell his or her bodily organs shall be a felony punishable by not less than 60 months in prison and/or a fine of not less than $50,000.  Attempting to unlawfully coerce a person to sell his or her bodily organs shall be a felony punishable by not less than 30 months in prison and/or a fine of not less than $25,000.

8. Persons with valid organ donor cards shall be eligible for a $500 yearly tax credit.

There are safeguards in this bill...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 17, 2011, 07:37:15 PM
Hmm...

6. A surgeon may, at his or her own discretion, declare a person mentally incompetent for the purposes of selling his or her bodily organs.

In the future, you may want to read the bill first.

Apologies.... my brain has clearly been a touch frazzled...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 17, 2011, 09:26:50 PM
So... after reading this Bill again... yes reading it.

I note some pretty basic concerns.

1. It's a very simplistic approach to a complex problem.
2. The belief that the individual has the right to determine what happens to their body, does therefore equal that being able to sell organs for money is a natural progression... maybe that makes perfect sense to you, but not to me.
3. The safeguards appear there, but the language doesn't seem that strong there's a lot of 'may's in there and no clear contraventions with exception of court declared mental instability... which is a very high standard.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 17, 2011, 10:21:17 PM
Naturally, if people have dominion over their own bodies, they should be able to do whatever they wish as long as they do not harm others.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: courts on January 17, 2011, 11:20:11 PM
So... after reading this Bill again... yes reading it.

I note some pretty basic concerns.

1. It's a very simplistic approach to a complex problem.
2. The belief that the individual has the right to determine what happens to their body, does therefore equal that being able to sell organs for money is a natural progression... maybe that makes perfect sense to you, but not to me.
3. The safeguards appear there, but the language doesn't seem that strong there's a lot of 'may's in there and no clear contraventions with exception of court declared mental instability... which is a very high standard.



1. Why is that inherently bad? It seems like lately all the left has to propose here is additional taxes, mandates or spending for problems. I would call all of those simple solutions frankly although that alone has no bearing on whether or not they're valid policies..
2. So why is one protected and not the other then? What makes you draw that distinction? At least in the case of abortion you could argue that it's a separate body you're also going to be effecting so your own professed right to 'self ownership' might not apply.. But how is deciding to donate or sell your own organs (particularly if it saves lives) not a valid choice for individuals? Either people have a right to decide what they want to do with their bodies or they don't, in which case it is simply another privilege.
3. What other "standard" do you have in mind besides the good judgment of the doctors and/or a court of law?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 18, 2011, 12:56:28 AM
The period for Debate has concluded.

We will now move for a vote on this Bill.

You will have 24 hours to vote 'aye' or 'nay'


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 18, 2011, 11:23:33 AM
AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 18, 2011, 11:25:17 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on January 18, 2011, 11:53:16 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 18, 2011, 10:52:47 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 19, 2011, 03:57:26 AM
Voting period has ended.

2-2 tie


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 19, 2011, 06:31:48 AM
The most saddening thing is the lack of participation of most of Representatives there. Half of them didn't even bother to vote, apparently.

PS : I swear this is the last time I intervent in the NE Assembly's business. Sorry people but for whatever reason a part of me still cares about this region. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on January 19, 2011, 07:39:03 AM
()

I, as Governor of the Northeast, will break the tie by signing The Self-Ownership Bill (Or, the If You Are Pro-Choice and You Oppose This Then You Are a Hypocrite Bill)l

Governor Han



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Psychic Octopus on January 19, 2011, 09:44:11 PM
Sorry about missing the vote, I would have supported the measure for the record. I've been really busy the last two days...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 19, 2011, 11:47:46 PM
We will now move to consideration of Rep Wormguy's Bill.

Quote
The Public Safety Bill of 2011

1. Any seller of firearms may refuse a sale to any buyer for any reason.
2. Any laws preventing the preceding clause from taking effect are hereby amended to allow it to do so.

I move that the Bill be considered, all in favour say 'aye'.... the 'aye's have it.

Can Rep Wormguy speak to this Bill - debate will last for 48 hours.


...also a procedural note for those proposing legislation - please refer to it as a Bill, not an Act, as we all know it's a Bill until the Governor signs it.

Thanks :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 20, 2011, 12:07:32 AM
As was reported by the media (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/jared-loughners-friend-says-suspect-did-not-watch-tv-disliked-the-news_b48040), when Jared Lee Loughner bought the gun that he used in the Tucson, AZ shooting, the gun shop that sold it to him did not actually want to sell him the gun (noticing his erratic behavior), but were required to by a state law mandating that guns be sold to anyone who passes the federal background check.  This bill would have prevented that tragedy, and has as its aim preventing future ones, by removing all such restrictions on firearms retailers so that they may deny a sale to anyone their good judgment tells them not to sell to.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 20, 2011, 12:21:56 AM
As you know, we come from completely different perspectives on this... however, I don't have many concerns with this Bill...

The only thing that worries me - is it would potentially be challenged as it could be open to abuse... for example, a gun shop owner, may not want to sell a gun to someone of a particular ethnicity.

While I do like severe restrictions on the availability of lethal weapons, and shop owners should have the right to refuse service to someone that they consider unstable ... however, having a coverall of "for any reason" - would counter anti-discrimination laws...

While gun shop owners should have the right to refuse service to someone they consider a risk, a customer cannot be refused service based purely on race.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 20, 2011, 12:47:02 AM
If we include any exceptions in this law, then it becomes pointless, as firearms dealers will continue to sell to clearly unstable people because they're afraid of being sued.  If a person truly feels that he or she has been treated unfairly, they might alert the media, or organize boycotts or protests or any manner of things.  Achieving a world free of racial discrimination is an admirable goal, but it must come second to ensuring that innocent people are not murdered by homicidal maniacs.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 20, 2011, 12:51:30 AM
Look, I don't disagree with that... however, I believe that this law's constitutionality would be challenged, and probably successfully.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 20, 2011, 12:52:26 AM
Which provision of the constitution would it be challenged under?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on January 20, 2011, 03:43:01 PM
So I can refuse to sell to a black guy simply because he is black?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 20, 2011, 03:59:26 PM
So I can refuse to sell to a black guy simply because he is black?

I don't know.  Is that what you want to do?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 20, 2011, 07:05:59 PM
So I can refuse to sell to a black guy simply because he is black?

I don't know.  Is that what you want to do?

Don't be coy, you know that's a legitimate concern.

In relation to your question about Constitutionality

ii) Equality
All persons of the Northeast are born equal, and shall be treated as so, no matter their age, gender, race, religion, disability, economic status or sexual orientation. No government institution may favour one group over another physical constraints excepting.

The second part of the sentence refers to Government but the first sentence is very clear in my mind.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 20, 2011, 07:37:52 PM
So I can refuse to sell to a black guy simply because he is black?

I don't know.  Is that what you want to do?

Don't be coy, you know that's a legitimate concern.

In relation to your question about Constitutionality

ii) Equality
All persons of the Northeast are born equal, and shall be treated as so, no matter their age, gender, race, religion, disability, economic status or sexual orientation. No government institution may favour one group over another physical constraints excepting.

The second part of the sentence refers to Government but the first sentence is very clear in my mind.

Is there anything in this law that prevents people from being treated equally?  (And, for that matter, why bold "race?")  If not, it's constitutional.  In any event, it's a proven fact that a black person accused of murder is significantly more likely to be convicted than a white person, and that blacks also receive harsher sentences.  If we as an assembly were to abolish all laws pertaining to murder, the sum total amount of racial discrimination would certainly decrease, but I think all will agree that the amount of murders would probably increase as well.  In the same vein, in theory more racial discrimination would be legal under this law (though you really don't think we'd have "FAR-RIGHT GUN NUT WON'T SELL TO BLACKS!" on Huffington Post or whatever within minutes?), but more importantly, it would have prevented the deaths of nine people at the hands of a psychotic gunman, in the Tucson shooting alone.

As I think you would agree from my example above (punishments for murder), preventing murders >>>>> preventing racial discrimination.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 20, 2011, 07:42:11 PM
While we should be in the business of preventing murder, we shouldn't be in the business of potentially promoting racial discrimination.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 20, 2011, 07:44:10 PM
While we should be in the business of preventing murder, we shouldn't be in the business of potentially promoting racial discrimination.

In which way does this bill promote racial discrimination?  I fail to see the "racial discrimination tax credit" or "segregation regulation" but I'm sure that if I keep looking I'll find it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 20, 2011, 07:47:36 PM
While we should be in the business of preventing murder, we shouldn't be in the business of potentially promoting racial discrimination.

In which way does this bill promote racial discrimination?  I fail to see the "racial discrimination tax credit" or "segregation regulation" but I'm sure that if I keep looking I'll find it.

Because a Bill doesn't specifically say it will do something, doesn't mean you can't see what the consequences of this Bill could be.

When you say someone can refuse to serve someone for ANY reason... I mean... seriously.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 20, 2011, 07:50:53 PM
While we should be in the business of preventing murder, we shouldn't be in the business of potentially promoting racial discrimination.

In which way does this bill promote racial discrimination?  I fail to see the "racial discrimination tax credit" or "segregation regulation" but I'm sure that if I keep looking I'll find it.

Because a Bill doesn't specifically say it will do something, doesn't mean you can't see what the consequences of this Bill could be.

Well, we know with 100% certainty that if this bill had been passed in Arizona last December this girl and 8 others would still be alive:

()

Do you think that she deserves to die to prevent the vanishingly unlikely proposition that Billy-Bob will forgo good business by not selling Jane a gun on account of her Jainism?  (And anyway, couldn't Jane just find someone other than Billy-Bob?  If it's so hard to buy a gun one wonders why liberals want to ban them so much).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 20, 2011, 08:01:02 PM
Well you know my view on availability of lethal weapons.

If people were serious about getting guns out of the hands of the unstable and criminal, there are more thorough ways to do it.

But since guns are here, and don't look like going anywhere... I do have significant concerns, by the way, since you resorted to emotional blackmail you concede my point that the promotion of racial discrimination is inherent in this Bill.

No person, let alone a child, deserves the horrible end they did in Arizona. By yet again, the gun 'rights' people try to deflect the issue to saying 'alright, we'll stop people who might appear unstable at the time..."

What about those that seem perfectly sane... then shoot a child?

Until people are serious about the prevalence and threat of weapons in the community, as well as living in the real world where responsibilities are just as important as rights, we can't have a reasonable debate on this.

I'm happy to see a Bill which addresses overall available of handguns, especially semi-automatic handguns... measure like this are a band-aid over a gaping hole.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 20, 2011, 08:18:12 PM
Well you know my view on availability of lethal weapons.

I'll introduce a bill to ban knives and automobiles.

Quote
If people were serious about getting guns out of the hands of the unstable and criminal, there are more thorough ways to do it.

What do you think about these unstable criminals?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV6Bq8xeQrU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV6Bq8xeQrU)

Quote
But since guns are here, and don't look like going anywhere... I do have significant concerns, by the way, since you resorted to emotional blackmail you concede my point that the promotion of racial discrimination is inherent in this Bill.

OOOH... "emotional blackmail."  Sounds very scary, and like something that Polnut has never done.  There is no "promotion of racial discrimination" (one remains confused by your obsession with racial discrimination to the exclusion of all others) in this bill at all.  You are introducing a bizarre hypothetical and saying that justifies letting people be killed (as they have been killed) in order to prevent said bizarre hypothetical.  I could have made the same bizarre hypothetical about Sbane's wind farm bill (how do we know that prime contracts wouldn't be awarded in a discriminatory manner, as they have in the past?), or your public transportation bill (how do we know that [the best] infrastructure won't be built only in heavily-white areas, as it has in the past?).  I'm sure you would argue that those are absurd hypotheticals, and that promoting environmentalism/public transportation stuff outweighs preventing those hypotheticals.  This bill is about preventing murder, which is a few lightyears beyond racial discrimination in the world of moral turpitude.

Indeed, I even brought the issue up in the debate over your public transportation bill:

Quote
Providing yet another way for unaccountable "planning boards" to arbitrarily deny approval to investments in housing development (a tactic historically, and often even today used to discriminate against minority small-business owners) . . .

I don't believe you ever provided a response.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 20, 2011, 08:29:53 PM
Cars and knifes have other purposes besides killing or maiming... guns don't.

Alright, take the racial discrimination element out...

There's the other issue... what about a person who appears perfectly calm... but is as unstable as the Arizona shooter... then goes and kills innocent people?

So what this Bill does, it relies on the gun seller, to know that a person is unstable, at the time of the gun sale. It does nothing to make the requirements to obtain a gun more thorough, and potentially weed out people who potentially unstable in general, not just at the time of the sale.

So it's fun to let those people carry on?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 20, 2011, 08:45:56 PM
Cars and knifes have other purposes besides killing or maiming... guns don't.

Hunting, admiring on the wall, protecting oneself from rapists and murderers trying to break into your house while the police take 35 minutes to arrive.

Quote
There's the other issue... what about a person who appears perfectly calm... but is as unstable as the Arizona shooter... then goes and kills innocent people?

So what this Bill does, it relies on the gun seller, to know that a person is unstable, at the time of the gun sale. It does nothing to make the requirements to obtain a gun more thorough, and potentially weed out people who potentially unstable in general, not just at the time of the sale.

So it's fun to let those people carry on?

Well, gun sellers obviously couldn't weed out everyone, and I'm sure less scrupulous ones wouldn't (but by removing the requirement that they sell to everyone who passes the background check gun retailers would now be subject to lawsuits for negligence - I have no doubt that the gun retailer lobby is against this bill...).  But they would've weeded out Loughner, and probably quite a few others as well.  But saying that firearms retailers should have to sell firearms to obviously psychotic people because other people might be psychotic but not obviously so is like saying that the highway patrol shouldn't be allowed to pull over obviously drunk drivers because other drivers might be drunk but manifest symptoms later on.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 22, 2011, 07:10:47 PM
Apologies - debate period has ended.


We will now move  to vote on this Bill.

Please vote Aye or Nay... this period will last 24 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on January 22, 2011, 08:52:27 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 22, 2011, 09:29:07 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 22, 2011, 11:01:02 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Psychic Octopus on January 23, 2011, 04:11:14 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 23, 2011, 07:03:52 AM
Nay



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on January 23, 2011, 11:24:23 AM
Abstain

This was certainly a hard vote for me. I agree with the goals of the bill, but I think it more or less legalizes discrimination by gun owners. If we had just empowered gun owners to not have to sell to those who seem mentally/emotionally unstable, the bill would have been more effective imho.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 24, 2011, 06:12:55 AM
Period for voting has ended.

Ayes: 3
Nays: 2
Abstentions: 1

The Bill passes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 24, 2011, 06:58:32 PM
I move that we consider Rep Sbane's Bill

Quote
Freedom to Enjoy Oneself in Public Bill

1)  Possession of open containers of alcohol, the consumption of alcohol, and public intoxication in public open space and when riding on public transportation shall no longer be prohibited. All laws prohibiting the above are hereby repealed.

2) This act shall not be construed to allow possession of open containers of alcohol, the consumption of alcohol, or public intoxication in public buildings or in private vehicles.

All in favour say 'aye', the ayes have it.

Rep Sbane please speak to your Bill, the period for debate will last until 48 hours from now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on January 25, 2011, 09:06:51 AM
Thank you Mr. Speaker.

This bill will make our Alcohol laws consistent with a good chunk of the developed world. There is no reason why one shouldn't be able to walk down the street and enjoy a beer, or enjoy alcoholic drinks when they visit the beach. The alcohol must still be enjoyed responsibly and harassing individuals or damaging property will not be tolerated. As long as you don't adversely impact others, you should have the right to drink at the place of your choosing (and there are a couple of common sense exceptions in the bill).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 25, 2011, 06:26:32 PM
I have no problem with taking public intoxication off the books, if the person becomes more aggressive there are specific offenses to handle that.

I'm somewhat hesitant to completely remove restrictions on carrying open containers of alcohol.

Where it is still in place, the laws regarding public drinking also have an element of public safety outside simply a person getting drunk and causing a fight... since most alcoholic drinks come in glass containers, it also to limit injuries from broken glass.
 
So I'm happy to support the public drunkenness element, but I believe there are still good reasons to limit containers of alcohol in public.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 26, 2011, 05:11:06 PM
-- Suspension of Assembly business--

Following the completion of the Debate time for the Bill currently before the Assembly, I  move that we convene an emergency session to compose a resolution condemning the terrorist attack in Nyman. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 26, 2011, 06:11:31 PM
The what in the what?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 26, 2011, 06:55:33 PM
Can we just assume that the assembly passes a resolution condemning the incident/expressing solidarity with the wounded etc., provided there are no objections?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 26, 2011, 07:05:20 PM
Can we just assume that the assembly passes a resolution condemning the incident/expressing solidarity with the wounded etc., provided there are no objections?

Period for debate on the previous Bill has ended.


Yes, I think that's a reasonable approach, but I believe we should actually have words.

I threw this together...


Quote
The Northeast Assembly, acting on behalf of the people of this region, condemns this act of terrorism. This violence serves no purpose other than inciting fear within the community, and has no place in Atlasia.

We express our best wishes to those injured, and our solidarity with those who are working to bring those responsible to justice.  


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 26, 2011, 11:44:47 PM
Oooook, does anyone have any concerns about this, otherwise I'm pass it by acclamation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 26, 2011, 11:48:16 PM
I object to the fact that I have no idea what we're talking about.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 26, 2011, 11:51:56 PM
Lol, read the game moderator's thread.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on January 27, 2011, 12:43:08 AM
I have no objections.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 27, 2011, 05:37:44 PM
OK - all in favour say 'aye', I think the ayes have it, passed by acclamation.


Moving back to Rep Sbane's Bill, I would like to put forward an amendment.

Quote
Freedom to Enjoy Oneself in Public Bill

1)  Possession of open containers of alcohol, The consumption of alcohol and Public intoxication in public open space and when riding on public transportation shall no longer be prohibited. All laws prohibiting the above are hereby repealed.

2) This act shall not be construed to allow possession of open containers of alcohol, the consumption of alcohol, or public intoxication in public buildings or in private vehicles.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on January 29, 2011, 01:55:09 AM
I'll accept your amendment as friendly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 29, 2011, 02:01:16 AM
I motion to amend the bill back to its original form.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on January 29, 2011, 03:16:36 AM
Oh boy. Maybe we should just have a vote on Speaker Polnut's amendment? It is not ideal in my view, but it is acceptable and better than nothing. If the assembly is with me, I am ready to stand behind my original bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on January 29, 2011, 09:07:55 AM
I oppose both the amendment and the bill itself.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 29, 2011, 03:04:36 PM
I motion to amend the bill back to its original form.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 29, 2011, 07:44:16 PM
Alright, I withdraw the amendment.

Let's move to vote on this in it's entirety

Aye or Nay, 24 hours to vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on January 29, 2011, 11:02:47 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on January 29, 2011, 11:03:19 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Psychic Octopus on January 30, 2011, 08:25:14 PM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 30, 2011, 08:33:42 PM
Abstain (apologies, had internet issues)



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 30, 2011, 11:42:03 PM
Alright... apologies, I have glandular fever (mono) so my brain is not firing on all cylinders.

Right, voting has closed.

Ayes: 1

Nays: 1

Abstentions: 2

The Bill fails. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 31, 2011, 06:51:41 PM
Sorry, I didn't have access to the internet this weekend.  Aye FTR.

Also, a tie doesn't mean the bill fails, it means it goes to the governor to break the tie.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on February 01, 2011, 12:39:11 AM
And since Wormy didn't have access to the Internet this weekend, he couldn't remind me to vote on the bill.

Dangit.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 01, 2011, 01:20:38 AM
OK.... that's an interesting insight on your relationship Morgan.

Actually, you're right, so, Governor.... go ahead.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on February 01, 2011, 05:16:44 PM
()

I, as Governor of the Northeast, hereby sign Freedom to Enjoy Oneself in Public Bill.

Governor Han


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 02, 2011, 06:59:22 PM
We will move to the next item...

Quote
The Un-Stealing Bill

All unimproved regional lands shall be immediately transferred to the original Indian tribes indigenous to said lands.

I move that this Bill be considered, all in favour say 'aye'... I think the ayes have it.

Can Rep Wormguy please speak to his Bill, and the debate period will last for 48 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 02, 2011, 09:03:15 PM
Thank you, speaker.

As we all know, the history of our country is not entirely composed of proud moments, least of which is the mass murder and cultural genocide of the people who were indigenous to the land prior to the introduction of European settlers.  The land that we stand on is stolen land, from the people who originally inhabited it and made it their home.  It is not possible to fully right this wrong - most of this region's land is inhabited, and it would be neither possible nor proper to return it to its rightful owners.  However, there are vast tracts of land held in trust by various governments here, local, regional, and federal, which have not been made into residential areas.

To this day, the original tribes native to those lands are not able to live on their ancestral lands, or use their ancestral hunting and fishing grounds, or visit their traditional places of worship.  It is simple to right a portion of the wrongs of the past; this assembly need only transfer those lands held in trust by the Northeast government to the native tribes they were stolen from.  Some might argue that regional government ownership of certain lands is absolutely crucial - if that is the case then they might be purchased for a fair price, or the native tribes might be convinced to give them to the regional government again if they truly are so crucial.  But it is absolutely neither right nor fair that our region continue to hold to the doctrine of "might makes right" regarding this issue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on February 02, 2011, 09:35:33 PM
I support this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on February 03, 2011, 04:08:53 PM
I am opposed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 03, 2011, 06:56:25 PM
I'm not entirely opposed, but I think the Bill goes too far.

I'm happy to support free access to ancestral lands.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 05, 2011, 03:31:11 AM
Alright, period for debate has closed.

Let's move to vote on this Bill... 24 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on February 05, 2011, 02:41:35 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on February 05, 2011, 03:30:03 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on February 05, 2011, 05:01:13 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 05, 2011, 11:12:44 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 06, 2011, 08:10:20 PM
Apologies all, I was ill last night so couldn't vote in time.

For the record, I would have voted Nay.

it's a 2-2 tie, Governor this is your call.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on February 06, 2011, 08:26:02 PM
()

I, as Governor of the Northeast, hereby sign The Un-Stealing Bill.

Governor Han


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 06, 2011, 09:00:56 PM
Can't wait to see the protests over this one...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on February 07, 2011, 12:00:13 AM
I was a bit surprised that the Northeast still has native tribes to give land back to.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 07, 2011, 12:13:40 AM
...and you still voted for it?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on February 07, 2011, 12:54:54 AM

I meant surprised before I voted on the bill.  And that comment was made in jest.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 07, 2011, 12:56:38 AM
There was no emoticon!!! :P



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on February 07, 2011, 01:04:55 AM

I'm starting to learn that I need an emoticon for others to know when I'm not being serious.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 09, 2011, 06:14:48 PM
We will now proceed to the next item...


Quote
The Terror Register Bill

1) The Assembly can, with a minimum of 75% of support, declare an organisation a terrorist organisation.

1a) The Assembly, can, by the same margin, declare any organisation of sponsor of terrorism.

2) The consequences will be that they cannot legally organise, recruit or meet anywhere in the region and in certain cases, by court order, assets directly connected can be seized and/or frozen.

2a) The consequences for sponsors are that any government support will be frozen or quarantined and in certain cases, by court order, assets directly connected to the terror organisation can be seized or frozen.

3) An organisation on the register, may petition to be removed from the register, with the support of a 75% minimum vote in the Assembly.

4) The Governor cannot override the Assembly.

I move that this be considered by the Assembly, all in favour say 'aye', the ayes have it.

The sponsor will now speak to the Bill, debate will last 48 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 10, 2011, 06:45:27 PM
We all know the horror of what happened in Nyman.

This Bill will provide a measure of assurance to our citizens that there will be consequences for those who support those who advocate the use of violence against us.

In order to ensure a degree of probity in this - the required vote to be placed on the register is deliberately high, so as to avoid the risk of politically motivated bans.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 10, 2011, 07:00:43 PM
I find this bill to be extremely constitutionally suspect, as this assembly cannot simply bypass the governor to declare something illegal.  That must be its own law.  Furthermore, if an organization is truly engaged in terrorist activity, then its members can be arrested and any assets seized because that activity is illegal.  Given that terrorist activities are already illegal, this bill merely serves as a means of harassing legitimate organizations, as such laws have been used for (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/we%E2%80%99re-all-terrorists-now/) in the far-off land of America.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 10, 2011, 08:29:50 PM
I'm happy to accept genuine amendments.

The ability to freeze or seize assets would only come after a terror attack, not allowing any significant intelligence to permit action before people are killed or injured.

Do you really think that 75% of the Assembly would vote to classify an organisation a terror supporter or a terror organ in its self, simply for the sake of it?

A terrorism register has been used effectively in other parts of the world, to starve funding and access to those who are directly supportive of terrorism.

If you'd prefer I'm happy to remove the section about the governor, with the usual procedures applying.

This Bill would create the register, and the mechanism through an act of the Assembly, would permit organisations to be placed and/removed. There is nothing here which is constitutionally 'questionable'.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 11, 2011, 09:20:56 PM
I am presenting an amended version to consider for an immediate vote.

Quote
The Terror Register Bill

1) The Assembly can, with a minimum of 75% of support, declare an organisation a terrorist organisation.

1a) The Assembly, can, by the same margin, declare any organisation of sponsor of terrorism.

2) The consequences will be that they cannot legally organise, recruit or meet anywhere in the region and in certain cases, by court order, assets directly connected can be seized and/or frozen.

2a) The consequences for sponsors are that any government support will be frozen or quarantined and in certain cases, by court order, assets directly connected to the terror organisation can be seized or frozen.

3) An organisation on the register, may petition to be removed from the register, with the support of a 75% minimum vote in the Assembly.

4) Any member of the Assembly may request a full briefing from regional law enforcement prior to any vote.

24 hours to vote.


--- Also, any member who is seeking re-election to the Assembly needs to make that known---


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on February 11, 2011, 09:40:19 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 11, 2011, 10:44:23 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 11, 2011, 11:27:06 PM
Nay

I see no reason why anything in this law is not already covered under conspiracy and/or racketeering laws.  It therefore can have no other purpose than harassment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on February 12, 2011, 03:19:45 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 13, 2011, 12:15:55 AM
24 Hours have passed... yet another 2-2 tie, Governor, this is yet another for you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 14, 2011, 09:44:50 PM
As the Governor has gone walkabout, we will move to the next order of business.

Quote
The Airport Renaming Bill

1. John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City is hereby renamed the Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. International Airport

2. LaGuardia International Airport in New York City is hereby renamed the Seth Low International Airport.

Can Rep Wormguy please speak to his Bill, debate will last 48 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 14, 2011, 10:08:16 PM
My debate:

Nyah nyah nyah.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on February 14, 2011, 10:10:40 PM
()

I, as Governor of the Northeast, hereby veto The Terror Register Bill.

Governor Han

Of course terrorism is something that we want to prevent at all costs. I'm concerned however, with the possible circumventing of due process of law that could occur with this bill. There are already laws in place that deal with terrorism, but this places undue power in the hands of politicians (and only 6 aye votes are needed in this case to declare an organization a terrorist organization; that isn't a whole lot of votes needed). Of course we must protect our citizens, but we must also protect the liberties and rights of our citizens as well. As I've said, this bill circumvents the concept of due process of law, and I'm not confident in placing decisions like this in the hands of politicians who seek to gain re-election (I'm not attacking anybody in this assembly, but this is the nature of politicians in general).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 14, 2011, 11:00:14 PM

As expected...

Not supporting.

Also Governor, that's a slightly overstated and melodramatic interpretation of the Bill, but as is your right as Governor, I respect your decision.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on February 15, 2011, 07:37:09 PM
I will not be supporting this bill either.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on February 15, 2011, 09:45:49 PM
Actually, that is a pretty sweet bill. I love HCL.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 15, 2011, 09:53:44 PM
Actually, that is a pretty sweet bill. I love HCL.

...the shocks never cease :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on February 16, 2011, 12:03:17 AM

What?

Him and his father were dedicated statesmen. He set a record in serving in the U.N., was a decorated war hero, actually stopped his political career to go overseas, etc. His name should definetly be on something.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 16, 2011, 06:15:06 AM
HCL was a good public servant, but the purpose of the Bill is in response to the silly Senate Bill...

A petty and silly Bill in response to a silly Bill is really a waste of time.

If someone were to ask me to name something new after HCL, then fine, but I'm not going to agree to something that is petty.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on February 16, 2011, 05:12:03 PM
We could always name one of them Ron Paul International Airport.  :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on February 16, 2011, 07:25:09 PM
How about we rename one of the airports after The Beatles? :D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 16, 2011, 09:55:04 PM
We could always name one of them Ron Paul International Airport.  :P

I'm never one to be a hack (otherwise t'would've been the Al Smith and Grover Cleveland airports...).  Also I think it's bad luck to name them after someone living...

How about we rename one of the airports after The Beatles? :D

I could certainly get behind that, but the Atlasian convention seems to be to name them after fictional politicians. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on February 17, 2011, 01:06:48 AM
Atlasian convention seems to be to name them after fictional politicians. :P

Libertas International Airport?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 17, 2011, 01:23:07 AM
Alright, time for the vote on this....24 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 17, 2011, 09:00:57 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on February 17, 2011, 11:27:05 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on February 17, 2011, 04:07:38 PM
Nope


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 17, 2011, 05:35:21 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 17, 2011, 05:42:16 PM
If this bill fails I can assure you my first bill of the next assembly will be something you'll find more objectionable. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 17, 2011, 06:04:12 PM
If this bill fails I can assure you my first bill of the next assembly will be something you'll find more objectionable. :)

I had no doubt


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 17, 2011, 07:08:45 PM
Do we want to carry on through the election weekend?

Or have the Assembly conclude business until the new Assembly is formed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 18, 2011, 01:59:03 AM
Voting for this Bill has now closed -
Ayes - 1
Nays - 3

The Bill fails.

As the next order of business I'd like to officially propose the business of this session of the Assembly has ended - and has risen, pending the outcome of the regional elections.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 21, 2011, 10:16:27 PM
()

I hereby return the gavel of the Speaker, and wish my successor to this office the best of luck.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 21, 2011, 10:28:11 PM
()

I hereby return the gavel of the Speaker, and wish my successor to this office the best of luck.

Thank you for your service :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 22, 2011, 01:42:42 PM
Can we open proceedings for the new legislature yet?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on February 22, 2011, 11:51:32 PM
I guess we need to elect a speaker first.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 23, 2011, 12:09:29 AM
I will run for Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 23, 2011, 06:45:58 AM
I second Wormy for speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Economist on February 23, 2011, 05:38:55 PM
I'd like to nominate Sbane for Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 23, 2011, 05:41:10 PM
Anyone else interested in running for speaker should speak up now, otherwise we will begin elections for speaker at around 9 PM EST today and elections will last 24 hours. Whoever wins will be elected speaker. Also, I second Sbane for speaker. We currently have two candidates for speaker: Wormy and Sbane. Again, speak up if you're interested.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on February 23, 2011, 05:51:40 PM
Anyone else interested in running for speaker should speak up now, otherwise we will begin elections for speaker at around 9 PM EST today and elections will last 24 hours. Whoever wins will be elected speaker. Also, I second Sbane for speaker. We currently have two candidates for speaker: Wormy and Sbane. Again, speak up if you're interested.

Do you have any authority to do this? :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 23, 2011, 05:55:27 PM
Anyone else interested in running for speaker should speak up now, otherwise we will begin elections for speaker at around 9 PM EST today and elections will last 24 hours. Whoever wins will be elected speaker. Also, I second Sbane for speaker. We currently have two candidates for speaker: Wormy and Sbane. Again, speak up if you're interested.

Do you have any authority to do this? :P

No sir :) But without a speaker, isn't technically an endless loophole with nobody running the elections? Somebody's gotta step up to the plate ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 23, 2011, 05:55:50 PM

You can't second two different people for speaker.

Anyone else interested in running for speaker should speak up now, otherwise we will begin elections for speaker at around 9 PM EST today and elections will last 24 hours. Whoever wins will be elected speaker. Also, I second Sbane for speaker. We currently have two candidates for speaker: Wormy and Sbane. Again, speak up if you're interested.

Do you have any authority to do this? :P

No, but TBH I don't really care.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 23, 2011, 05:58:25 PM

Not nominating, just seconding the motion ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 23, 2011, 06:18:57 PM

You don't need to second the motion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 23, 2011, 06:20:19 PM

Alright then. So anyway, I assume no one else is really interested in running for speaker?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 23, 2011, 06:26:57 PM

Alright then. So anyway, I assume no one else is really interested in running for speaker?

Well, only four of us have sworn in...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on February 23, 2011, 06:32:15 PM
Anyone else interested in running for speaker should speak up now, otherwise we will begin elections for speaker at around 9 PM EST today and elections will last 24 hours. Whoever wins will be elected speaker. Also, I second Sbane for speaker. We currently have two candidates for speaker: Wormy and Sbane. Again, speak up if you're interested.

Do you have any authority to do this? :P

No sir :) But without a speaker, isn't technically an endless loophole with nobody running the elections? Somebody's gotta step up to the plate ;)

Normally the Lieutenant Governor conducts the vote for Speaker. I'm not positive as to when the Lieutenant Governor swears-in, but I think it is right after the Northeast Elections.

If that is to be the case, Rowan can swear in for a few days, move the floor, conduct the vote, and then resign to be Northeast Senator. Following that, the Northeast Assembly will conduct a recommendation vote for a new Lieutenant Governor (though it has no bearing on the Governor's decision.)

If that is not the case and I am wrong, the Northeast Governor (Mint) can assume the responsibilities of the Northeast Lieutenant Governor and conduct the floor until a Speaker is selected.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 23, 2011, 06:32:16 PM
Who else do we need? FallenMorgan, Ghost_white, Rowan and Napoleon?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 23, 2011, 06:37:20 PM
Who else do we need? FallenMorgan, Ghost_white, Rowan and Napoleon?

FallenMorgan and maybe Napoleon are the only ones likely to swear in, for obvious reasons.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 23, 2011, 06:41:49 PM
Who else do we need? FallenMorgan, Ghost_white, Rowan and Napoleon?

FallenMorgan and maybe Napoleon are the only ones likely to swear in, for obvious reasons.

I talked to Napoleon recently and he didn't even know what the assembly does. He said he wrote himself in because he didn't know anyone on the ballot.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on February 23, 2011, 06:45:52 PM
While I am honored that The Economist and Jake have nominate me for Speaker, I must respectfully decline. I have only been in the Assembly for two months and am still getting the hang of things. Wormy has more experience and I have no doubts he will be a great Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 23, 2011, 07:30:15 PM
While I am honored that The Economist and Jake have nominate me for Speaker, I must respectfully decline. I have only been in the Assembly for two months and am still getting the hang of things. Wormy has more experience and I have no doubts he will be a great Speaker.

So, with Wormy running unopposed, can we conclude that it'd be best to just say Wormy is hereby elected Speaker and we begin?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on February 23, 2011, 07:36:21 PM
While I am honored that The Economist and Jake have nominate me for Speaker, I must respectfully decline. I have only been in the Assembly for two months and am still getting the hang of things. Wormy has more experience and I have no doubts he will be a great Speaker.

So, with Wormy running unopposed, can we conclude that it'd be best to just say Wormy is hereby elected Speaker and we begin?

I'd rather the Assembly not cast procedure to the wayside. It was a BFD to me when I was Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 23, 2011, 07:46:04 PM
While I am honored that The Economist and Jake have nominate me for Speaker, I must respectfully decline. I have only been in the Assembly for two months and am still getting the hang of things. Wormy has more experience and I have no doubts he will be a great Speaker.

So, with Wormy running unopposed, can we conclude that it'd be best to just say Wormy is hereby elected Speaker and we begin?

I'd rather the Assembly not cast procedure to the wayside. It was a BFD to me when I was Speaker.

Then we'll have the election as planned.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread (Elections for Speaker are now open.)
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on February 23, 2011, 07:55:01 PM
2011 Northeast Assembly Speaker Election Ballot

[ ] Wormyguy (Populares-MA)

[ ] Write-in:_______________

Please cast your vote for ONE (1) Member of the Northeast Assembly that you wish to be Speaker of the Assembly. If you choose to write-in someone, that person must approve the vote otherwise the vote will be rendered void. Do not edit your post 20 minutes after submitting your vote, otherwise it will be rendered void. Happy voting!

Hold the phone dude. You don't have any authority to do this.

I checked the Constitution, and the Gov/Lt Gov swear-in following the election. I have PMed Rowan outlining the situation to him and asking him to swear-in, and hopefully he obliges. Elsewise, Governor Ghost can conduct the vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread (Elections for Speaker are now open.)
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 23, 2011, 08:04:18 PM
2011 Northeast Assembly Speaker Election Ballot

[ ] Wormyguy (Populares-MA)

[ ] Write-in:_______________

Please cast your vote for ONE (1) Member of the Northeast Assembly that you wish to be Speaker of the Assembly. If you choose to write-in someone, that person must approve the vote otherwise the vote will be rendered void. Do not edit your post 20 minutes after submitting your vote, otherwise it will be rendered void. Happy voting!

Hold the phone dude. You don't have any authority to do this.

I checked the Constitution, and the Gov/Lt Gov swear-in following the election. I have PMed Rowan outlining the situation to him and asking him to swear-in, and hopefully he obliges. Elsewise, Governor Ghost can conduct the vote.

D: Craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaap :(


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread (Elections for Speaker are now open.)
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 23, 2011, 08:28:26 PM
2011 Northeast Assembly Speaker Election Ballot

[ ] Wormyguy (Populares-MA)

[ ] Write-in:_______________

Please cast your vote for ONE (1) Member of the Northeast Assembly that you wish to be Speaker of the Assembly. If you choose to write-in someone, that person must approve the vote otherwise the vote will be rendered void. Do not edit your post 20 minutes after submitting your vote, otherwise it will be rendered void. Happy voting!

Hold the phone dude. You don't have any authority to do this.

I checked the Constitution, and the Gov/Lt Gov swear-in following the election. I have PMed Rowan outlining the situation to him and asking him to swear-in, and hopefully he obliges. Elsewise, Governor Ghost can conduct the vote.

Yep, sorry eager beaver...

But I was checking the provisions just as Dallas wrote this...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 23, 2011, 08:32:07 PM
I guess I get a bit too excited to help sometimes :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on February 23, 2011, 09:06:23 PM
Time to elect a speaker, fellas:

[] Wormyguy(Populares)

[] Write-In

Please cast a vote for one candidate to be speaker of the Northeast. The vote will end in 48 hours. Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 23, 2011, 09:35:39 PM
[X] Wormyguy(Populares)

[] Write-In


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 23, 2011, 10:01:20 PM
Who else do we need? FallenMorgan, Ghost_white, Rowan and Napoleon?

FallenMorgan and maybe Napoleon are the only ones likely to swear in, for obvious reasons.

I talked to Napoleon recently and he didn't even know what the assembly does. He said he wrote himself in because he didn't know anyone on the ballot.

True enough, but you didn't show me where it said I got elected or tell me where I needed to go. I found it on my own though. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on February 24, 2011, 12:21:55 AM
x Wormyguy


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 24, 2011, 08:52:11 AM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Economist on February 24, 2011, 10:36:55 AM
[X] Wormyguy(Populares)

[] Write-In


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on February 24, 2011, 08:01:03 PM
X Wormyguy


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 25, 2011, 10:02:40 PM
Alrightie, the poll has closed and there is a clear consensus in favor of Wormy.

Mr. Speaker:

()

Let's get this underway :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 25, 2011, 10:38:32 PM
I'm flattered, but you can't close the poll...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 25, 2011, 10:42:12 PM
I wasn't closing the poll, it was closed anyway, it automatically closes after 48 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on February 26, 2011, 10:34:38 AM
Jake Matthews, while I appreciate your enthusiasm, there are procedures here.

That being said, as Lt. Governor of the Northeast I declare Wormyguy the duly elected speaker of the Northeast Assembly. Congratulations.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 26, 2011, 12:25:07 PM
Thank you, Lt. Governor!

With that, I'll introduce the first bill of the new legislative session (an amendment to the Northeast Constitution):

()


Quote
The Recall Amendment of 2011

1. The Recall Amendment is repealed.

2. a. If the Northeast Regional Senator misses four votes in one senate session (including "present" or "abstain" votes as votes that were not missed), the seat may be declared vacant and a special recall election held for the seat, provided at least one-fifth (1/5) of the registered voters in the Northeast Region sign a petition requesting a recall.

b. Recall petitions for Northeast Regional Senator must be started by a registered and valid voter in the Northeast.

c. The Northeast Regional Senator may run in a recall election for his or her own seat.

d. A recall election for Northeast Regional Senator shall be opened either by the Governor or the creator of the recall petition, and the poll must remain open for 48 hours.

e. The election shall be performed via approval voting.

f. If no candidate receives the approval of 50% + 1 of the voters, the recall fails and the Northeast Regional Senator retains his or her seat.

g. In the event of a tied election, a runoff, also using approval voting, shall be held between the tied candidates.

h. The candidate elected in the recall election shall take office immediately following the conclusion of the election.

3. a. If the Northeast Governor fails to sign or veto two (2) bills from the Northeast Assembly within the 10-day signing period in a row, or four non-consecutive bills in one gubernatorial term, the office of governor may be declared vacant and a special recall election held for the office, provided at least one-fifth (1/5) of the registered voters in the Northeast Region sign a petition requesting a recall.

b. Recall petitions for Northeast Governor must be started by a registered and valid voter in the Northeast.

c. The Northeast Governor may run in a recall election for his or her own seat.

d. A recall election for Northeast Governor shall be opened either by the Governor, or the creator of the recall petition, and the poll must remain open for 48 hours.

e. The election shall be performed via approval voting.

f. If no candidate receives the approval of 50% + 1 of the voters, the recall fails and the Northeast Governor retains his or her seat.

g. In the event of a tied election, a runoff, also using approval voting, shall be held between the tied candidates.

h. The candidate elected in the recall election shall take office immediately following the conclusion of the election.

Sponsor: Rep. wormyguy

The question is whether the amendment should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate shall continue until February 28, 2011, 12:24 PM EST, unless debate is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponsor, wormyguy, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 26, 2011, 12:58:35 PM
Recently, much has been made of possible "inactivity" on the part of the Governor or Regional Senator.  I believe that amending the constitution by allowing a recall election should the Governor or Senator become inactive, would resolve this issue and ensure that the Northeast remain an active region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 26, 2011, 01:15:59 PM
May I have the floor?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 26, 2011, 01:17:04 PM
When it's debate you always have the floor.  (In fact, you can even speak before the sponsor of the bill if you so feel like it).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 26, 2011, 01:22:06 PM
Colleagues, I believe that it is in our best interests to pass this bill. Campaign after campaign we worry about whether or not we will have an active leader elected to office. As Speaker Wormy said, we must create a more active Northeastern Government. Many a debate have been sparked in an attempt to fix the problem of inactivity, so here is our solution. I urge everyone to vote aye on this bill and strictly enforce it. Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on February 26, 2011, 03:30:32 PM
What if the Senator or Governor has declared a leave of absence?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 26, 2011, 03:45:52 PM
What if the Senator or Governor has declared a leave of absence?

That's a different story. But if a Governor or Senator is continually taking leaves of absences, then they probably shouldn't be an elected official.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on February 26, 2011, 09:36:46 PM
There's already a recall amendment...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 26, 2011, 09:37:39 PM
There's already a recall amendment...

To the previous constitution.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on February 26, 2011, 09:54:51 PM
Just to help you guys out, this is in the Constitution:

Article V
Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.

I kind of remember debate about repealing this back when I was in the NE Govt. so you might want to see if it's still in force. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on February 26, 2011, 10:09:41 PM
Actually, the New Northeast Constitution was ratified in '06 and the recall amendment was passed in '07.

Quote from:  https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Recall_Amendment

1. The Citizens of the Northeast Region may recall any regional official.

2. Any registered Northeast voter may open a recall petition on any regional official at any time.

3. If said petition shall receive the signatures of eight registered Northeast voters, it shall be brought before the electorate in an immediate vote.

4. The vote shall remain open for three days, and shall be held by the Chief Judicial Officer, unless it is the Chief Judicial Officer's own recall, in which case it shall be held by the Lieutenant Governor.

5. If, in said vote, a simple majority are in favor of the recall of said regional official, that official shall be stripped of the position.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 26, 2011, 10:12:22 PM
Hmm, seems you're right.  Anyways, I find that too vague (after an elected official is stripped of their position, what then?), so I'll amend my amendment (:P) to replace that one.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on February 27, 2011, 12:11:40 AM
Quote
The Recall Amendment of 2011

1. The Recall Amendment is repealed.

2. a. If the Northeast Regional Senator misses two (2) votes in the Atlasian senate in a row or, four non-consecutive votes in one senate session (including "present" or "abstain" votes as votes that were not missed), the seat may be declared vacant and a special recall election held for the seat, provided at least one-fifth (1/5) of the registered voters in the Northeast Region sign a petition requesting a recall.

b. Recall petitions for Northeast Regional Senator must be started by a registered and valid voter in the Northeast.

c. The Northeast Regional Senator may run in a recall election for his or her own seat.

d. A recall election for Northeast Regional Senator shall be opened either by the Governor or the creator of the recall petition, and the poll must remain open for 48 hours.

e. The election shall be performed via approval voting.

f. If no candidate receives the approval of 50% + 1 of the voters, the recall fails and the Northeast Regional Senator retains his or her seat.

g. In the event of a tied election, a runoff, also using approval voting, shall be held between the tied candidates.

h. The candidate elected in the recall election shall take office immediately following the conclusion of the election.

3. a. If the Northeast Governor fails to sign or veto two (2) bills from the Northeast Assembly within the 10-day signing period in a row, or four non-consecutive bills in one gubernatorial term, the office of governor may be declared vacant and a special recall election held for the office, provided at least one-fifth (1/5) of the registered voters in the Northeast Region sign a petition requesting a recall.

b. Recall petitions for Northeast Governor must be started by a registered and valid voter in the Northeast.

c. The Northeast Governor may run in a recall election for his or her own seat.

d. A recall election for Northeast Governor shall be opened either by the Governor, or the creator of the recall petition, and the poll must remain open for 48 hours.

e. The election shall be performed via approval voting.

f. If no candidate receives the approval of 50% + 1 of the voters, the recall fails and the Northeast Governor retains his or her seat.

g. In the event of a tied election, a runoff, also using approval voting, shall be held between the tied candidates.

h. The candidate elected in the recall election shall take office immediately following the conclusion of the election.


I would like to propose an amendment. My concern is that in the Senate, it is quite hard to keep track of what would count as consecutive votes. Unlike our Assembly, which deals with a bill at a time, the Senate works on multiple pieces of legislation at once. Some get passed quicker than others. Enforcing it would be a mess. Rather, by keeping the quite strict standard of four missed non-consecutive votes, I believe we will achieve the same results. Also notice that I have not messed around with provision 3. It will be much easier to keep track of what are consecutive signing/vetoing of bills in our assembly thread.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 27, 2011, 12:23:07 AM
Amendment accepted as friendly, though I'll also take out the phrase "non-consecutive."


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 28, 2011, 11:44:14 AM
Edit: Debate has closed, we will now enter voting procedure on this amendment.  Approval of an amendment requires a two-thirds vote of a majority of assemblymen.  (5 assemblymen, minimum is 2 in favor, 1 opposed).

Quote
The Recall Amendment of 2011

1. The Recall Amendment is repealed.

2. a. If the Northeast Regional Senator misses four votes in one senate session (including "present" or "abstain" votes as votes that were not missed), the seat may be declared vacant and a special recall election held for the seat, provided at least one-fifth (1/5) of the registered voters in the Northeast Region sign a petition requesting a recall.

b. Recall petitions for Northeast Regional Senator must be started by a registered and valid voter in the Northeast.

c. The Northeast Regional Senator may run in a recall election for his or her own seat.

d. A recall election for Northeast Regional Senator shall be opened either by the Governor or the creator of the recall petition, and the poll must remain open for 48 hours.

e. The election shall be performed via approval voting.

f. If no candidate receives the approval of 50% + 1 of the voters, the recall fails and the Northeast Regional Senator retains his or her seat.

g. In the event of a tied election, a runoff, also using approval voting, shall be held between the tied candidates.

h. The candidate elected in the recall election shall take office immediately following the conclusion of the election.

3. a. If the Northeast Governor fails to sign or veto two (2) bills from the Northeast Assembly within the 10-day signing period in a row, or four non-consecutive bills in one gubernatorial term, the office of governor may be declared vacant and a special recall election held for the office, provided at least one-fifth (1/5) of the registered voters in the Northeast Region sign a petition requesting a recall.

b. Recall petitions for Northeast Governor must be started by a registered and valid voter in the Northeast.

c. The Northeast Governor may run in a recall election for his or her own seat.

d. A recall election for Northeast Governor shall be opened either by the Governor, or the creator of the recall petition, and the poll must remain open for 48 hours.

e. The election shall be performed via approval voting.

f. If no candidate receives the approval of 50% + 1 of the voters, the recall fails and the Northeast Governor retains his or her seat.

g. In the event of a tied election, a runoff, also using approval voting, shall be held between the tied candidates.

h. The candidate elected in the recall election shall take office immediately following the conclusion of the election.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 28, 2011, 01:52:39 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 28, 2011, 03:47:40 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on February 28, 2011, 03:53:44 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on February 28, 2011, 06:16:41 PM
/e/


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 01, 2011, 12:24:21 PM
Voting is now over.

The amendment passes with 4 yeas, 0 nays, and 1 not voting.

I will now ask the governor to start a voting booth for this amendment.  The amendment requires 2/3rds approval from at least 1/3rd of registered voters in the Northeast (39 registered voters, so at least 13 would need to vote).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 01, 2011, 12:32:30 PM
We shall now move on to the next piece of legislation...

()


Quote
The Flat Tax Act

1. A flat tax of 5.5% of one's individual household income is hereby established.

2. This tax shall be paid every year on tax day.

3. April 15th is hereby established as the Northeast region's yearly tax day.

4. Taxes on purchases, land and other taxes of the sort are hereby lifted.

5. Taxes on alcohol, marijuana, cigarettes and other health hazards are exempt from what is outlined in section four.

6. The Northeast Government shall not create new taxes on anything other than income or health hazards.

7. The Northeast Government shall not create tax brackets that could allow for one income class to pay more taxes. Everyone shall pay the same percentage of tax on income per year.

8. The Northeast Government may only collect this tax once per year.

Sponsor: Rep. Jake Matthews

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate shall continue until March 3, 2011, 12:32 PM EST, unless debate is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponsor, Jake Matthews, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 01, 2011, 02:38:20 PM
Thank you Mr. Speaker.

My friends, during my campaign around the region, I met many people. I shared stories, laughs and even moments of sorrow. When I asked these people what they'd like to see changed in our region, the overwhelming response was our tax structure. Currently our tax structure is so confusing, not even I can figure it out. There's so many different brackets for taxation, it is too much. With the passage of this proposal, not only will we see a drastic change in our region's economic prosperity, but we will also see a greater increase in our constituents' happiness, which is what we should all desire.

I yield back the balance of my time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 01, 2011, 02:49:40 PM
I'll suggest we amend it so that the tax will be 5.5%, instead of 8%, given the current tax law (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Northeast_March_2005_Tax_Initiative); I wouldn't want Grover Norquist getting all pissy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 01, 2011, 02:58:53 PM
I think 5.5 is more reasonable. So, do we vote on the amendment itself and add it to the bill if it passes or will we just vote on the amended bill?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 01, 2011, 03:00:55 PM
I think 5.5 is more reasonable. So, do we vote on the amendment itself and add it to the bill if it passes or will we just vote on the amended bill?

If the sponsor of the bill accepts an amendment as friendly, then it doesn't need to be voted on.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 01, 2011, 03:01:46 PM
I'll accept the amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 01, 2011, 05:28:59 PM
Who are we to decide what is or isn't a health hazard?
I see you included marijuana, which is legal for medicinal purposes in many states and likely will be in Connecticut soon. It makes no sense to have prescribed medications legislated as a health hazard, itself a vague term with no restrictions on application. Is a mountain bike or an automobile a health hazard that we will be taxing? I can't in good faith vote in favor of a tax system that is discriminatory against the poorest among us and those who are in need of medical assistance. Consequently, I think that our tax codes should be aimed at helping these people rise up and/or have the ability to get their medications at fair market costs rather than having sin taxes that are quite arbitrary and undefined.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 01, 2011, 05:32:34 PM
I see you included marijuana, which is legal for medicinal purposes in many states and likely will be in Connecticut soon.

A non-sequitur, marijuana is legal for all purposes everywhere in Atlasia. ;)

Quote
I can't in good faith vote in favor of a tax system

With or without good faith, you can't vote without swearing in...



I agree with Napoleon about that section, btw.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 01, 2011, 05:38:12 PM
I swore in a few days I ago, I thought. I just copied sbane.
Thanks for letting me know the legal status of marijuana has been changed. I still contend that we should not be deciding which specific products should or should not be taxed, though I would be fine with general sales tax exemptions for necessities such as food. I would offer my own amendment but I lack the legal expertise in drafting statute free of loopholes or legal ambiguities.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 01, 2011, 05:52:31 PM
Who are we to decide what is or isn't a health hazard?
I see you included marijuana, which is legal for medicinal purposes in many states and likely will be in Connecticut soon. It makes no sense to have prescribed medications legislated as a health hazard, itself a vague term with no restrictions on application. Is a mountain bike or an automobile a health hazard that we will be taxing? I can't in good faith vote in favor of a tax system that is discriminatory against the poorest among us and those who are in need of medical assistance. Consequently, I think that our tax codes should be aimed at helping these people rise up and/or have the ability to get their medications at fair market costs rather than having sin taxes that are quite arbitrary and undefined.

Marijuana is already legal recreationally...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on March 01, 2011, 07:03:29 PM
Quote
The Flat Tax Act

1. A flat tax of 5.5% of one's individual household income is hereby established. The first $15,000 earned of one's income are exempt from this tax.

2. This tax shall be paid every year on tax day.

3. April 15th is hereby established as the Northeast region's yearly tax day.

4. Taxes on purchases, land and other taxes of the sort are hereby lifted.

5. Taxes on alcohol, marijuana, cigarettes and other health hazards are exempt from what is outlined in section four.

6. The Northeast Government shall not create new taxes on anything other than income or health hazards.

7. The Northeast Government shall not create tax brackets that could allow for one income class to pay more taxes. Everyone shall pay the same percentage of tax on income per year.

8. The Northeast Government may only collect this tax once per year.

I would like to propose an amendment. First of all I think we need to add an exemption to the flat tax to help the poorest amongst us. I would prefer a progressive tax, with few brackets, but this is still better than the bill as currently written. I would also like to disagree with Jake's point that extra brackets are what make tax filing a chore. The brackets are a minor inconvenience, but it is the scores of different deductions out there that really gets people frustrated since you have to figure out your eligibility for each deduction. That is what makes tax filing confusing and time consuming for most people. Although there are a bunch of these deduction at the federal level, I don't think they exist at our regional level. If they do, I would be in support of a real tax simplification bill where all such deductions are repealed.

Furthermore, there is no need to ban sales and property taxes. Property taxes are what really concern me, since they are a local matter and the main source of revenue for our municipalities. Will the region now be supplying all of our municipalities with tax revenue?

I also struck out provision 7 as my edit of provision 1 would violate it. I don't think it is fair for someone who earns $20k a year, and somehow puts a roof over his head and food on his plate, to pay the same tax rate as someone who makes $100k. Yes, confiscatory tax rates should be avoided and are nothing but rank class warfare. But at the other end, you have to be practical and realize not everyone can pay the same amount of taxes as everybody else. I do believe my exemption for the first $15k of income is a common sense measure to help the poor, and is most certainly not class warfare.

I should also add that income tax revenue tends to be quite volatile, as opposed to sales tax revenue. I don't think it would be a good idea to get rid of the sales tax entirely.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 01, 2011, 07:13:13 PM
I'm sorry Sbane, but I'm not going to accept that amendment. Looks like we have to vote on it. Mr. Speaker, may we please begin a vote on the amendment?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on March 01, 2011, 07:21:54 PM
Could you clarify something for me, Jake? When you say no other taxes will be established other than the income tax, do you mean by the region or are you going to force the municipalities to do the same? Where do you suppose municipalities will get their money? How will the schools be paid for?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 01, 2011, 07:37:34 PM
Could you clarify something for me, Jake? When you say no other taxes will be established other than the income tax, do you mean by the region or are you going to force the municipalities to do the same? Where do you suppose municipalities will get their money? How will the schools be paid for?

Just for the region, the municipalities will conduct their own ways of taxation.

As for schools, I personally support school choice but I would never propose or support legislation to defund public schools.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on March 01, 2011, 07:47:10 PM
Could you clarify something for me, Jake? When you say no other taxes will be established other than the income tax, do you mean by the region or are you going to force the municipalities to do the same? Where do you suppose municipalities will get their money? How will the schools be paid for?

Just for the region, the municipalities will conduct their own ways of taxation.

As for schools, I personally support school choice but I would never propose or support legislation to defund public schools.

All right, that is good to hear. I still think we shouldn't get rid of sales taxes, so I will be voting for my amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 01, 2011, 07:54:45 PM
Could you clarify something for me, Jake? When you say no other taxes will be established other than the income tax, do you mean by the region or are you going to force the municipalities to do the same? Where do you suppose municipalities will get their money? How will the schools be paid for?

Just for the region, the municipalities will conduct their own ways of taxation.

As for schools, I personally support school choice but I would never propose or support legislation to defund public schools.

All right, that is good to hear. I still think we shouldn't get rid of sales taxes, so I will be voting for my amendment.

Sales taxes are useless, it's paying another few dollars and cents when money's already tight.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 01, 2011, 08:12:24 PM
Could you clarify something for me, Jake? When you say no other taxes will be established other than the income tax, do you mean by the region or are you going to force the municipalities to do the same? Where do you suppose municipalities will get their money? How will the schools be paid for?

Just for the region, the municipalities will conduct their own ways of taxation.

As for schools, I personally support school choice but I would never propose or support legislation to defund public schools.

All right, that is good to hear. I still think we shouldn't get rid of sales taxes, so I will be voting for my amendment.

Sales taxes are useless, it's paying another few dollars and cents when money's already tight.

The same can be said for any form of taxation. Our job is still find the most effective way to balance revenue with expenditures without placing more of a burden than necessary on citizens. I will support sbane's amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 01, 2011, 08:21:15 PM
Could you clarify something for me, Jake? When you say no other taxes will be established other than the income tax, do you mean by the region or are you going to force the municipalities to do the same? Where do you suppose municipalities will get their money? How will the schools be paid for?

Just for the region, the municipalities will conduct their own ways of taxation.

As for schools, I personally support school choice but I would never propose or support legislation to defund public schools.

All right, that is good to hear. I still think we shouldn't get rid of sales taxes, so I will be voting for my amendment.

Sales taxes are useless, it's paying another few dollars and cents when money's already tight.

The same can be said for any form of taxation. Our job is still find the most effective way to balance revenue with expenditures without placing more of a burden than necessary on citizens. I will support sbane's amendment.

We as a region need income, I don't deny that. But when you come down to it, increasing taxes or keeping taxes the same does not put more money in the pockets of the people. The people are the main source of money for the Government, yes, but when the people have no money to spend, the economy goes under, businesses go bankrupt and then we'll be back here in a few months passing legislation to bailout said failing companies. So, yes, we will get the money, but we'll be too preoccupied spending it on non-Government projects.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 01, 2011, 10:46:14 PM
Not for nothing, but we already have a Flat Tax.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Northeast_March_2005_Tax_Initiative

Quote
Income Tax

   1. All individual state income taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a regionwide 5.5% flat tax.

Sales Tax

   1. All individual state sales taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a regionwide 7.1% sales tax.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 03, 2011, 02:09:14 PM
Representatives will now have 24 hours to vote on this legislation, as well as a simultaneous vote on Rep. Sbane's amendment to add the language "The first $15,000 earned of one's income are exempt from this tax." to clause 1 and strike clauses 4 thru 7.  Please indicate which vote is for the bill, and which is for the amendment.

The Flat Tax Act

1. A flat tax of 5.5% of one's individual household income is hereby established.

2. This tax shall be paid every year on tax day.

3. April 15th is hereby established as the Northeast region's yearly tax day.

4. Taxes on purchases, land and other taxes of the sort are hereby lifted.

5. Taxes on alcohol, marijuana, cigarettes and other health hazards are exempt from what is outlined in section four.

6. The Northeast Government shall not create new taxes on anything other than income or health hazards.

7. The Northeast Government shall not create tax brackets that could allow for one income class to pay more taxes. Everyone shall pay the same percentage of tax on income per year.

8. The Northeast Government may only collect this tax once per year.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 03, 2011, 02:11:14 PM
Bill: Aye

Amendment: Abstain

While I agree with including an exemption up to a certain income level, and eliminating the "health hazards" language, I cannot agree to strike the language abolishing the regional sales tax, and therefore I cannot vote aye on this amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on March 03, 2011, 03:32:55 PM
Aye on the amendment.

Nay on the original bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 03, 2011, 03:46:30 PM
Bill: Aye

Amendment: Nay

I'd like to propose an amendment to my own bill.

I'd like to strike out the language about health hazard taxation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 03, 2011, 03:50:26 PM
Okay, since you've proposed your amendment in the middle of voting, we'll have to finish voting on the bill, then vote on your amendment if the bill passes.  If the bill does not pass, we will then vote on the amended bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Economist on March 03, 2011, 03:56:22 PM
 Bill: Aye

Amendment: Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 03, 2011, 03:56:56 PM
Okay, since you've proposed your amendment in the middle of voting, we'll have to finish voting on the bill, then vote on your amendment if the bill passes.  If the bill does not pass, we will then vote on the amended bill.

Okay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 03, 2011, 06:13:30 PM
Aye on the amendment.

Nay on the original bill.

My vote would have been conditional, but since the vote is simultaneous I see no way to make it so.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 04, 2011, 02:06:41 PM
Bill:

3 ayes, 2 nays, 1 not voting

This bill passes and will go to the governor's desk following voting on Rep. Jake Matthews's amendment.

Unfriendly amendment (of those voting on the bill):

2 ayes, 1 nay, 2 abstaining

This amendment fails, having not received majority support from those voting on the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 04, 2011, 02:08:23 PM
We will now vote on Rep. Jake Matthews's amendment to strike clause 5 and the words "or health hazards" from clause 6.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 04, 2011, 02:09:39 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 04, 2011, 04:13:42 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on March 04, 2011, 04:36:23 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 04, 2011, 05:28:44 PM
Unfriendly amendment (of those voting on the bill):

2 ayes, 1 nay, 2 abstaining

This amendment fails, having not received majority support from those voting on the bill.

Could someone please explain how an abstention affects the outcome of a vote? I wasn't aware that this was standard for any real legislature.

Aye on the new amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 04, 2011, 05:42:24 PM
Unfriendly amendment (of those voting on the bill):

2 ayes, 1 nay, 2 abstaining

This amendment fails, having not received majority support from those voting on the bill.

Could someone please explain how an abstention affects the outcome of a vote? I wasn't aware that this was standard for any real legislature.

If there are, say, ten members of a legislature and 2 of them vote "aye", 2 vote "nay" and 6 abstain, there is not a majority either way.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 04, 2011, 05:43:20 PM
Unfriendly amendment (of those voting on the bill):

2 ayes, 1 nay, 2 abstaining

This amendment fails, having not received majority support from those voting on the bill.

Could someone please explain how an abstention affects the outcome of a vote? I wasn't aware that this was standard for any real legislature.

If there are, say, ten members of a legislature and 2 of them vote "aye", 2 vote "nay" and 6 abstain, there is not a majority either way.

In this particular case it was 2-1, which is (obviously) a 2-1 majority among those expressing preference.

I guess what I'm asking is what kind of rule is preventing this body from operating the same way as the voting of most legislative bodies, assuming the quorum is met.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 04, 2011, 05:49:49 PM
Could someone please explain how an abstention affects the outcome of a vote? I wasn't aware that this was standard for any real legislature.

Aye on the new amendment.

After reviewing the SOAP, it appears that the amendment did in fact pass, since abstentions are counted as non-votes.  I will point out that that is nonstandard parliamentary procedure, under normal parliamentary procedure an amendment requires approval from a majority (such that abstentions and nay votes are equivalent).  The same goes for bills in general, although I already knew that abstentions weren't counted for that under the SOAP.  With the proviso that I would have voted "nay" had I known this to be the case, I'll now rule JM's amendment dilatory, and that this bill has been passed with the amendment.  It's fairly useless now, since it now makes no substantive change to NE tax law.  Anyhoo, onto the next order of business.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 04, 2011, 05:54:44 PM
I didn't even notice this one...


()


Quote
The GTO Remembrance Act

1) Every January 26th shall hereby be declared "GTO Remembrance Day" and shall be officially considered a holiday. All Government offices will fly the Atlasian flag at half mast on this day as a tribute to the tragedy.

2) Schools, post offices and other public buildings that display a flag outside shall be recommended, but not forced, to fly the flag at half mast as well.

If passed, I suggest that this bill also be introduced in the Senate so it could become national law.

Sponsor: Rep. Jake Matthews

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate shall continue until March 6, 2011, 5:55 PM EST, unless debate is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponsor, Jake Matthews, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 04, 2011, 05:56:55 PM
Using the powers vested in me as Assembly Dictator, I'm going to rule this one noncontroversial and to have passed by acclamation unless someone objects in the next 24 hours.  Onto the next piece of substantive legislation...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 04, 2011, 05:59:34 PM
()


Quote
Making Competitive Elections Amendment:
   

   
    Article V, vii shall be amended from:
    vii) The number of Reps to be elected corresponds to the entire part of the quotient C/6, with C being the number of citizens in the Northeast Region as of the third Friday at 12:00:00am EST of the month of the election.
   
    to
   
    vii) The Northeast Assembly shall be composed of five members, each of whom shall be registered voters residing in the Northeast Region.

Sponsor: Rep. The Economist

The question is whether the amendment should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate shall continue until March 6, 2011, 5:59 PM, unless debate is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponsor, The Economist, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 04, 2011, 06:24:59 PM
I'm going to make a quick statement about the bill currently at debate.

Friends,

I don't believe the passage of this amendment does any good for us as a region. With our population growing by the month, having 5 members might be too little an amount of representation. I suggest we all vote Nay on the amendment and continue to use the current C/6 Quotient.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 05, 2011, 02:15:43 AM
I'm going to make a quick statement about the bill currently at debate.

Friends,

I don't believe the passage of this amendment does any good for us as a region. With our population growing by the month, having 5 members might be too little an amount of representation. I suggest we all vote Nay on the amendment and continue to use the current C/6 Quotient.

Let me just speak as somebody who has been around the block in the ole' Northeast.

I have memories of (on more than one occasion) PMing people who had written themselves in as a joke, going "You won. Going to swear in?" to which they responded "I won what?" If I recall correctly, this was how Polnut had first gotten to Assembly (though Lief may have written him in aswell.)

At this juncture, elections are little more than a formality, making the Assembly nearly indistinguishable from the Althing or the Pacific Legislature. Even in the heydey of the Northeast, Assembly elections were only regarded as slightly competitive.

I would urge the Assembly to instead pass a bill limiting it to six or even seven Representatives, but unless the populace as a whole starts to get more active, the status quo will not do.

Although I must advise the Assembly: This amendment has already been tried twice and failed to reach the quorom in the Voting Booth. So, if you're going to pass this, be damn sure you have enough voters (IIRC the threashold was 20 last time) voting on this. Even if some of them are nays, you merely need 20 votes to exist.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 05, 2011, 06:36:59 AM
If I may butt in here...

I did end up here initially through a weird confluence of events.

But personally however we get there, it's how you treat that privilege. I never put myself in as a joke, I was fully prepared to serve. However, my surprise was based on the idea that I would have gotten enough votes to actually secure a place, not because I didn't take the idea seriously... k :P

I for the record support reducing the size of the Assembly. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 05, 2011, 08:32:31 AM
Dallas has made a great point. I haven't been here nearly as long as he has, so I'd like to propose an amendment.

From:
"vii) The Northeast Assembly shall be composed of five members, each of whom shall be registered voters residing in the Northeast Region."

To:
"vii) The Northeast Assembly shall be composed of five members, each of whom shall be registered voters residing in the Northeast Region. However, if the population grows beyond or below a specific threshold, the Northeast Assembly shall possess the ability to amend this amendment to either increase or decrease the amount of Representatives in the Northeast Assembly."



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on March 05, 2011, 10:50:15 AM
Jumps into the debate...

The best part of this game are the elections. That being said, the elections for the Northeast Assembly are extremely predictable.

Jake, I know you think 5 is a small number, but in the last election, there were only  5 or so candidates. When's the last time the Northeast has had more candidates actually running than there were seats for? I don't think there ever has been.

At this point, the only arguement I could see for having such a large Assembly is so that as many people as possible can be involved. If that's what the majority of you want, then why don't you just give everyone in the Northeast the power to vote in the Assembly and do away with the elections?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 05, 2011, 10:56:11 AM
Jumps into the debate...

The best part of this game are the elections. That being said, the elections for the Northeast Assembly are extremely predictable.

Jake, I know you think 5 is a small number, but in the last election, there were only  5 or so candidates. When's the last time the Northeast has had more candidates actually running than there were seats for? I don't think there ever has been.

At this point, the only arguement I could see for having such a large Assembly is so that as many people as possible can be involved. If that's what the majority of you want, then why don't you just give everyone in the Northeast the power to vote in the Assembly and do away with the elections?

Alright, 5 seems fair enough. I amended my amendment :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on March 05, 2011, 11:58:34 AM
I support reducing the size of the Assembly, FWIW.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 05, 2011, 12:18:24 PM
Mr. Speaker, should we begin voting on my amendment or will we not be doing so?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 05, 2011, 12:36:09 PM
Mr. Speaker, should we begin voting on my amendment or will we not be doing so?

We need to wait for The Economist to say whether he will accept it as friendly or not.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 05, 2011, 12:40:19 PM
If I may butt in here...

I did end up here initially through a weird confluence of events.

But personally however we get there, it's how you treat that privilege. I never put myself in as a joke, I was fully prepared to serve. However, my surprise was based on the idea that I would have gotten enough votes to actually secure a place, not because I didn't take the idea seriously... k :P


Well, I more had Gramps and Earl in mind when I said that than you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 05, 2011, 12:43:14 PM
Mr. Speaker, should we begin voting on my amendment or will we not be doing so?

We need to wait for The Economist to say whether he will accept it as friendly or not.

He hasn't been online to even participate in the debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 05, 2011, 12:44:35 PM
Mr. Speaker, should we begin voting on my amendment or will we not be doing so?

We need to wait for The Economist to say whether he will accept it as friendly or not.

He hasn't been online to even participate in the debate.

Unfortunately, that is the case...

Nevertheless, procedure can't just be dumped by the wayside.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 05, 2011, 06:32:42 PM
With no objections, I'm ruling that the GTO Remembrance Act has passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Economist on March 05, 2011, 10:20:01 PM
I won't accept the amendment as friendly, just because what was added on is completely useless.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 05, 2011, 10:25:17 PM
I won't accept the amendment as friendly, just because what was added on is completely useless.

Yeah, now that I look back on it, the amendment is redundant. I withdraw my amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 06, 2011, 04:29:09 PM
()

We shall now vote on the Making Competitive Elections Amendment.  Voting shall continue until March 7, 2011, 4:29 PM EST.

Quote
Making Competitive Elections Amendment:
   

   
    Article V, vii shall be amended from:
    vii) The number of Reps to be elected corresponds to the entire part of the quotient C/6, with C being the number of citizens in the Northeast Region as of the third Friday at 12:00:00am EST of the month of the election.
   
    to
   
    vii) The Northeast Assembly shall be composed of five members, each of whom shall be registered voters residing in the Northeast Region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 06, 2011, 04:33:53 PM
Nay.

I believe that our large assembly is an asset to the region.  New members can get a start and a feel for politics as soon as the next assembly election.  A small assembly protects the same incumbents over and over again, and prevents new members from having a say.  While some might say that it is a system similar to the Pacific or Midwest, this is not in fact the case, as the small obstacle of actually having to run a campaign for the seat at least ensures that everyone voting is genuinely interested in performing the duties of Assemblyman, as opposed to merely being a zombie told to vote one way or another by party bosses.  I think it would be a grave error for our region to change its constitution in this manner.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 06, 2011, 06:16:20 PM
Abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on March 06, 2011, 10:41:15 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Economist on March 06, 2011, 10:43:37 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 07, 2011, 05:28:26 PM
This amendment fails, 2 nays, 1 aye, 1 abstaining, 2 not voting.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 08, 2011, 03:19:15 PM

()


Quote
Corporate Accountability Act of 2011

Section 1) All businesses that broadcast a commercial on television, radio or the internet will be held accountable for all statements made in said advertisement.

Section 2) "Held accountable" shall be defined as:

  • Broadcasting accurate and truthful information
  • Using accurate consumer accounts, not exaggerated in any fashion

            Section 2, Subsection A) "Truthful information" shall be defined as not exaggerating the product's capabilities. For instance, if a company is selling a cereal, they do not possess the right to claim that the cereal could "make you live 10 years longer" unless it is scientifically proven that the cereal possesses such ability.

Section 3) If a company is found guilty of lying about a product by the Northeast Government, they shall be fined a sum of $1,500 (One thousand, five hundred dollars) on the first offense. If found guilty a second time, the fine shall increase to $2,500 (Two thousand, five hundred dollars.) if a company is found guilty a third time, the fine shall be $15,000 (Fifteen thousand dollars) as well as a trial conducted by the Northeast Government in which if a company is found guilty of false advertisement, they shall be suspended from advertisement and will not be allowed to broadcast an advertisement for 15 (Fifteen) months.

Section 4) If a citizen or citizens of the Northeast find that they are the victims of false advertisement, they shall immediately report the complaint to the Northeast Government in which the situation will be dealt with from thereon.

Section 5) Any citizen found guilty of making a false claim shall face a 2 (Two) month jail sentence as well as 7 (Seven) months of probation.

Section 6) A citizen may sue a company without reporting the complaint to the Northeast Government, but it is likely that the trial will be delayed while the Government reviews the complaint.
 
               Section 6, Subsection A) If a citizen has no proof that they are a victim of false advertisement, their claim shall be rendered null and void.

Sponsor: Rep. Jake Matthews

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate shall continue until March 10, 2011, 3:19 PM EST, unless debate is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponsor, Jake Matthews, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 08, 2011, 04:06:50 PM
Friends,

For far too long we have seen businesses, large and small, take advantage and victimize consumers by falsely advertising their products. I have seen advertisements for hand towels that can supposedly hold twice their weight in liquid, yet when I bought the product, it failed to do so. I found out later that you need to apply a specific amount of pressure for it to work. That is one of the many examples of a corporation falsely advertising their product. This bill simply lays out rules that need to be followed in the advertisement industry and lay out repercussions if any of the rules are broken. I ask for your "aye" vote in an attempt to improve the consumer-business relationship and bring honesty back into advertising.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 08, 2011, 04:22:48 PM
I respectfully disagree with the sponsor of this bill.  If a person feels they have been falsely advertised to in a particularly egregious manner, they may already sue the advertiser for recompense, or file a complaint with a private organization like the Better Business Bureau.  Furthermore, nearly all retailers have return or money-back policies for unsatisfied customers.  Making "false advertisement" a criminal offense is wholly absurd, and this bill is sure to create a huge number of spurious complaints that would waste millions of dollars worth of regional court time and litigation fees ("I bought this treadmill, but I didn't lose any weight!"  "It wasn't the best movie of the year!").  The example that the sponsor gives is telling; the possibilities of a product do not always match the typical outcomes (not everyone gets fit on the treadmill or likes the movie), but that doesn't mean that it ought to be a criminal offense to advertise possibilities.  In the end, the best option simply is to allow each company to build a reputation.  If a company skirts the line with their advertising, and builds a poor reputation with consumers, then not as many people will patronize them in the future.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 08, 2011, 04:27:57 PM
Well, I may not have made it explicitally clear that "false advertisement" shall apply to when a product does not work, like making a claim that "I didn't lose any weight on this treadmill!" Is not going to be heard in a court, but if the person bought the treadmill and it short circuited and electrocuted them, that will be heard. Even if a company offers a money back guarantee, that applies to if one is disatisfied with the product, but if one is disatisfied and also feels that the product caused them legitimate harm (injury of sorts) or if does not fulfill it's proper usage as advertised, they may file a complaint with the Government. Yes, there will be court costs, but it makes for a safer product and more truth in advertisement.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 10, 2011, 02:25:45 PM
Is this

Quote
For instance, if a company is selling a cereal, they do not possess the right to claim that the cereal could "make you live 10 years longer" unless it is scientifically proven that the cereal possesses such ability.
really suitable for "legislation"?

On another note, the penalties established are very minimal and I'd assume that they'd be meaningless to any kind of large company wealthy enough to advertise it's products on airwaves or such.

Wormyguy also makes a compelling argument, I support the notion of consumer protection but laws like this only complicate things, lead to more class action lawsuits, and make it really difficult for people to advertise. What would happen to Super Bowl commercials?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 10, 2011, 03:57:44 PM
Is this

Quote
For instance, if a company is selling a cereal, they do not possess the right to claim that the cereal could "make you live 10 years longer" unless it is scientifically proven that the cereal possesses such ability.[/b]
really suitable for "legislation"?

On another note, the penalties established are very minimal and I'd assume that they'd be meaningless to any kind of large company wealthy enough to advertise it's products on airwaves or such.

Wormyguy also makes a compelling argument, I support the notion of consumer protection but laws like this only complicate things, lead to more class action lawsuits, and make it really difficult for people to advertise. What would happen to Super Bowl commercials?

To your first point, possibly. I was attempting to emphasize my point. Also, I do understand that the penalties are minimal, but I intend to add an amendment, I just need to figure out what they should be. Do you have any ideas? As for your point about superbowl commercials, I understand that the intent is to be enternaining and an advertisement can be such until the product is lied about or overexaggerated.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 10, 2011, 05:36:11 PM
Rather than including unnecessary examples of hypothetical situations in legislation, perhaps you can provide examples of these false advertisements that require our urgent attention? :)

I just find this to be wholly unnecessary and opening the door for a bunch of legal complications that serve no beneficial purpose to the consumer.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 10, 2011, 06:08:25 PM
Rather than including unnecessary examples of hypothetical situations in legislation, perhaps you can provide examples of these false advertisements that require our urgent attention? :)

I just find this to be wholly unnecessary and opening the door for a bunch of legal complications that serve no beneficial purpose to the consumer.

No beneficial purpose to the consumer? They're going to be able to feel safer when buying a product that they saw on TV, that's a benifit if you ask me. As for your point about legal complications, I can't make a rational rebuttal statement to that, but I personally think it is necessary for us to attempt to provide specific laws in the game of advertisement.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on March 10, 2011, 06:22:59 PM
     If a non-Northeasterner may interject, section 3 seems to me to be possibly mandating double jeopardy. The way it reads, it sounds like it's saying that if a corporation is found guilty of false advertising a third time, they will immediately be put on trial again. Make of that what you will.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 10, 2011, 06:29:17 PM
     If a non-Northeasterner may interject, section 3 seems to me to be possibly mandating double jeopardy. The way it reads, it sounds like it's saying that if a corporation is found guilty of false advertising a third time, they will immediately be put on trial again. Make of that what you will.

The intention of section three was to say that, if a company is found guilty a third time of false advertisement, a trial shall be conducted in which they will be banned from advertising for 15 months if found guilty, as well as be fined $15,000. So to recap, if found guilty of false advertisement by the Northeast Government twice, a company will have fines levied against them, but if found guilty a third time, there will be a trial in which in the event of a company being found guilty by said court, they will not be allowed to release a TV, Radio, etc. advertisement as well as be fined $15,000.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 10, 2011, 07:52:02 PM
Rather than including unnecessary examples of hypothetical situations in legislation, perhaps you can provide examples of these false advertisements that require our urgent attention? :)

I just find this to be wholly unnecessary and opening the door for a bunch of legal complications that serve no beneficial purpose to the consumer.

No beneficial purpose to the consumer? They're going to be able to feel safer when buying a product that they saw on TV, that's a benifit if you ask me. As for your point about legal complications, I can't make a rational rebuttal statement to that, but I personally think it is necessary for us to attempt to provide specific laws in the game of advertisement.



Let me clarify. Do you have any examples of a product being advertised falsely that hasn't been rectified by the market?

I will be voting no on this bill in any form unless it is modified substantially.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 10, 2011, 08:04:02 PM
Rather than including unnecessary examples of hypothetical situations in legislation, perhaps you can provide examples of these false advertisements that require our urgent attention? :)

I just find this to be wholly unnecessary and opening the door for a bunch of legal complications that serve no beneficial purpose to the consumer.

No beneficial purpose to the consumer? They're going to be able to feel safer when buying a product that they saw on TV, that's a benifit if you ask me. As for your point about legal complications, I can't make a rational rebuttal statement to that, but I personally think it is necessary for us to attempt to provide specific laws in the game of advertisement.



Let me clarify. Do you have any examples of a product being advertised falsely that hasn't been rectified by the market?

I will be voting no on this bill in any form unless it is modified substantially.

I have seen very poor reviews of the Shamwow. In every video I watched, review I read and demonstration I did, it dripped after "absorbing the liquid (sometimes not even absorbing all the liquid.) it would drip (which it was not supposed to do.) I have seen countless products be falsely advertised without rectification. But as for the actual intent of the bill, there have been cribs recalled for having lead in them (which means inspection was not done right.) as well as electronics short circuiting and many, many other examples. The purpose of this bill is to make sure inspection is done right and products are rightfully advertised so there is no need for a refund. One shouldn't just demand a refund if their child dies in an unsafe crib. They should hold the crib's manufacturer responsible.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 10, 2011, 08:12:55 PM
Why not tighten the inspection process in that case? That seems to be where your problem lies, not the advertising.

Seeing videos of ShamWows not working apparently was enough to make sure you didn't spend your money on one, if the information is that free and available I can't feel sorry for someone who buys ShamWows and gets disappointed, nor is it my business to determine whether a product is quality or not. It's not like there aren't other towels available.

Most of the examples you are citing have little to do with advertising, and even if they did, the penalties you propose aren't enough to make an impact. This bill should be withdrawn.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 10, 2011, 08:17:17 PM
Why not tighten the inspection process in that case? That seems to be where your problem lies, not the advertising.

Seeing videos of ShamWows not working apparently was enough to make sure you didn't spend your money on one, if the information is that free and available I can't feel sorry for someone who buys ShamWows and gets disappointed, nor is it my business to determine whether a product is quality or not. It's not like there aren't other towels available.

Most of the examples you are citing have little to do with advertising, and even if they did, the penalties you propose aren't enough to make an impact. This bill should be withdrawn.

*sigh* At this point, I'm fighting a battle I know I'll lose.


I withdraw the Corporate Accountability Act of 2011


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 10, 2011, 09:19:22 PM
Okay, I'll begin debate on the next piece of legislation at a more reasonable hour, although I'll forewarn JM that partial-birth abortion is already banned in the Northeast.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 10, 2011, 09:48:11 PM
Okay, I'll begin debate on the next piece of legislation at a more reasonable hour, although I'll forewarn JM that partial-birth abortion is already banned in the Northeast.

Oh, is it? The wiki isn't updated :/ alright, I withdraw that one too. I guess we'll move on to the Death Penalty Abolition act.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 10, 2011, 09:58:04 PM
Okay, I'll begin debate on the next piece of legislation at a more reasonable hour, although I'll forewarn JM that partial-birth abortion is already banned in the Northeast.

Oh, is it? The wiki isn't updated :/ alright, I withdraw that one too. I guess we'll move on to the Death Penalty Abolition act.

IIRC this was very early on in the history of the NE region.  Ask Dallas about it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 10, 2011, 10:25:08 PM
Okay, I'll begin debate on the next piece of legislation at a more reasonable hour, although I'll forewarn JM that partial-birth abortion is already banned in the Northeast.

Oh, is it? The wiki isn't updated :/ alright, I withdraw that one too. I guess we'll move on to the Death Penalty Abolition act.

IIRC this was very early on in the history of the NE region.  Ask Dallas about it.

I'm going to check the wiki again.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 10, 2011, 11:22:46 PM
Quote from:  Section III, Article 3, New Northeast Constitution
iii) Right to Life

All persons have the right to control their lives from moment they are viable, to the moment when they die, or choose to die. They are bound with inalienable liberties, to live their life as they choose, in condition that it does not conflict with others attempt to do the same. The government must maintain peace, order and good governance to maintain these rights.

This right may be abridged under the following conditions: a) A Viable Fetus Endangers its Mother's life providing aborting said fetus can save the Mother's life

b) A Viable Fetus is the product of Rape and/or Incest, in other words, unduly reducing the mother's freedom because of an act she did not willingly take part in.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 10, 2011, 11:24:56 PM
Ah yes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on March 11, 2011, 12:03:50 AM
Meh


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 12, 2011, 06:39:37 PM
()


Quote
Death Penalty Abolition/Criminal Rights Establishment Act of 2011

1) The Death Penalty is hereby abolished in the Northeast Region.

2) Criminals that are currently awaiting a death sentence shall instead be sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole.

3) The abolition of the use of the death penalty shall also apply to the abolition of torture mechanisms to acquire information relating to a crime.

4) If a Government official or police officer is found to be violating the no torture law, they shall immediately be dismissed from their position.

5) Furthermore, criminals shall have the right to remain silent when arrested, as well as rights to personal property that shall not be searched without a search warrant signed by a licensed law official.

6) Criminals shall also have the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

7) A criminal shall keep these inaliable rights under any circumstance.

8) Criminals shall not have to face a suspension of their rights in wartime or a time of invasion.

9) Unless their is a proper warrant, police may not invade a person's private property for any reason whatsoever unless to make an arrest that had been reported to the police via a 911 call.

Sponsor: Rep. Jake Matthews

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate shall continue until March 14, 2011, 6:39 PM ESR, unless debate is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponsor, Jake Matthews, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 12, 2011, 06:48:39 PM
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Fellow Northeasterners,

I believe it is high time we stop using torture and killing as a means of promoting so-called "justice". Here is an excerpt from the new Northeast Constitution, ratified in February of 2006:

Quote from: Northeast Constitution
"All persons have the right to control their lives from moment they are viable, to the moment when they die, or choose to die. They are bound with inalienable liberties, to live their life as they choose, in condition that it does not conflict with others attempt to do the same. The government must maintain peace, order and good governance to maintain these rights."

I believe this passage applies to the lives of criminals just as much as it would apply to the life of a non-criminal. A criminal is still a person, with inalienable rights. We as a region must take a leap forward an abolish this archaic practice once and for all. Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 13, 2011, 04:24:39 PM
Are we really going to refer to them as criminals?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 13, 2011, 04:28:49 PM
Are we really going to refer to them as criminals?

If a person is arrested for a crime and is convicted, then yes, they are a criminal.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 13, 2011, 04:32:51 PM
Are we really going to refer to them as criminals?

If a person is arrested for a crime and is convicted, then yes, they are a criminal.


5) Furthermore, criminals shall have the right to remain silent when arrested, as well as rights to personal property that shall not be searched without a search warrant signed by a licensed law official.

6) Criminals shall also have the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

7) A criminal shall keep these inaliable rights under any circumstance.

All of this seems to be before any kind of conviction takes place.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 13, 2011, 04:45:54 PM
Are we really going to refer to them as criminals?

If a person is arrested for a crime and is convicted, then yes, they are a criminal.


5) Furthermore, criminals shall have the right to remain silent when arrested, as well as rights to personal property that shall not be searched without a search warrant signed by a licensed law official.

6) Criminals shall also have the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

7) A criminal shall keep these inaliable rights under any circumstance.

All of this seems to be before any kind of conviction takes place.

Okay, I'll amend the bill.

5) Furthermore, a person accused of a crime shall have the right to remain silent when arrested, as well as rights to personal property that shall not be searched without a search warrant signed by a licensed law official.

6) A person accused of a crime shall also have the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

7) A person accused of a crime shall keep these inaliable rights under any circumstance.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 13, 2011, 04:48:57 PM
I believe the word you're looking for is "inalienable."

I also have a fair bit of trepidation about provisions 3 thru 9, for the reason that it would seem to imply that those rights are not inherently contained within the Atlasian constitution, but instead must be granted by this assembly.  That would also imply that those rights could be rescinded by repealing this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on March 13, 2011, 04:50:37 PM
Quote
Death Penalty Abolition/Criminal Rights Establishment Act of 2011

1) The Death Penalty is hereby abolished in the Northeast Region.

2) Criminals that are currently awaiting a death sentence shall instead be sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole.

3) The abolition of the use of the death penalty shall also apply to the abolition of torture mechanisms to acquire information relating to a crime.
4) If a Government official or police officer is found to be violating the no torture law, they shall immediately be dismissed from their position.
5) Furthermore, criminals suspectsshall have the right to remain silent when arrested, as well as rights to personal property that shall not be searched without a search warrant signed by a licensed law official.

6) CriminalsSuspects shall also have the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

7) A criminalsuspect shall keep these inaliable rights under any circumstance.

8) CriminalsSuspects shall not have to face a suspension of their rights in wartime or a time of invasion.

9) Unless their is a proper warrant, police may not invade a person's private property for any reason whatsoever unless to make an arrest that had been reported to the police via a 911 call.

Do we not have protection against cruel and unusual punishments in our constitution? If not then disregard my striking out provisions 3 and 4. Or else those provisions are unnecessary.
 Regardless of what is in the constitution, we should change “criminal” to “suspect” for this bill.

Edit: Wormy is right, all the provisions from 3 to 9 I would think are already in the constitution. And if not, we should pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing those rights, not a repealable act of the Assmebly. And I see you already changed the wording for "Criminal" so you can disregard that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 13, 2011, 04:50:39 PM
Section 9 reads like something that would be frequently abused by authorities.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 13, 2011, 05:18:32 PM
Section 9 reads like something that would be frequently abused by authorities.

wouldn't said abuse lead to a discharge of an officer though?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 13, 2011, 05:20:30 PM
Quote
Death Penalty Abolition/Criminal Rights Establishment Act of 2011

1) The Death Penalty is hereby abolished in the Northeast Region.

2) Criminals that are currently awaiting a death sentence shall instead be sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole.

3) The abolition of the use of the death penalty shall also apply to the abolition of torture mechanisms to acquire information relating to a crime.
4) If a Government official or police officer is found to be violating the no torture law, they shall immediately be dismissed from their position.
5) Furthermore, criminals suspectsshall have the right to remain silent when arrested, as well as rights to personal property that shall not be searched without a search warrant signed by a licensed law official.

6) CriminalsSuspects shall also have the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

7) A criminalsuspect shall keep these inaliable rights under any circumstance.

8) CriminalsSuspects shall not have to face a suspension of their rights in wartime or a time of invasion.

9) Unless their is a proper warrant, police may not invade a person's private property for any reason whatsoever unless to make an arrest that had been reported to the police via a 911 call.

Do we not have protection against cruel and unusual punishments in our constitution? If not then disregard my striking out provisions 3 and 4. Or else those provisions are unnecessary.
 Regardless of what is in the constitution, we should change “criminal” to “suspect” for this bill.

Edit: Wormy is right, all the provisions from 3 to 9 I would think are already in the constitution. And if not, we should pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing those rights, not a repealable act of the Assmebly. And I see you already changed the wording for "Criminal" so you can disregard that.

Okay. I'll propse provisions 1 and 2 as an amendment to the NE Constitution.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 13, 2011, 05:26:20 PM
I think we should remove section 9.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 13, 2011, 05:42:23 PM
I think we should remove section 9.

"Okay. I'll propse provisions 1 and 2 as an amendment to the NE Constitution."



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 13, 2011, 08:29:44 PM
I'm pretty sure there's already a federal abolition of the Death Penalty.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 13, 2011, 08:35:10 PM
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr >:(


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 13, 2011, 08:36:08 PM

Well, I suppose you could make a case that this should be passed incase the death penalty ban is turned back to the regions.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 14, 2011, 05:44:07 PM
Debate is now closed, we shall now vote on this bill (since it hasn't been formally amended or withdrawn...)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 14, 2011, 05:47:02 PM
*sigh* I guess it's too late to withdraw it.

Just let it fail by vote.

Abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 14, 2011, 07:14:23 PM
Abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The Economist on March 14, 2011, 09:09:30 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 15, 2011, 01:13:40 AM
Nay

Can anyone lead to me the rent laws of this region?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on March 15, 2011, 10:49:05 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 15, 2011, 02:42:51 PM
Can anyone lead to me the rent laws of this region?

I am not sure there are any unless they were passed prior to the Northeast Assembly's inception.



Also, just a heads-up on that sex education bill, Jake:

Quote from: Section B, Bipartisan Safe Sex Education Act
1. Completion of at least one semester of sexual health is required for all high school students in order to graduate

You might want to amend Section B of the Bipartisan Safe Sex Education Act in addition to your new bill so the two don't come into conflict.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on March 15, 2011, 04:32:37 PM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 19, 2011, 01:28:21 PM
()


Quote
Payback Act of 2011

1) Members of the Northeast Assembly shall take a $40,000 (Fourty thousand dollar) pay cut, effective 90 (ninety) days after the passage of this act.

2) The Northeast Governor shall take a $30,000 (Thirty thousand dollar) pay cut, effective 90 (ninety) days after the passage of this act.

3) Northeast regional Senators shall receive a $40,000 (Fourty thousand dollar) pay cut, effective 90 (ninety) days after the passage of this act.

4) All the money collected from Northeast politicians' salary cuts shall be redistributed to the citizens of the Northeast.

5) The money shall be evenly distributed amongst the taxpayers and will be returned labeled as a tax return.

Sponsor: Rep. Jake Matthews

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate shall continue until March 21, 2011, 2:28 PM EST, unless debate is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponsor, Jake Matthews, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 19, 2011, 01:54:29 PM
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Friends,

We are all here because we share a common goal of creating a better Northeast Region. I personally believe that we as legislators do not deserve higher yearly salaries than the average Joe or Jane who actually work long hours that demand hard physical labor. Our job is to debate mindlessly until we are blue in the face in an attempt to make citizen's lives easier. I believe it is time to offer up a reward to our hard working citizens via the Payback Act.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 19, 2011, 01:59:26 PM
While I agree with the basic idea of cutting legislative salaries, the administrative costs of redesigning tax returns and creating a new tax deduction would dwarf the savings from cutting said salaries.  I think it would be best just to simply cut legislative salaries.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 19, 2011, 02:25:05 PM
While I agree with the basic idea of cutting legislative salaries, the administrative costs of redesigning tax returns and creating a new tax deduction would dwarf the savings from cutting said salaries.  I think it would be best just to simply cut legislative salaries.

But then what would we do with the money that we cut from salaries?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 19, 2011, 02:44:25 PM
While I agree with the basic idea of cutting legislative salaries, the administrative costs of redesigning tax returns and creating a new tax deduction would dwarf the savings from cutting said salaries.  I think it would be best just to simply cut legislative salaries.

But then what would we do with the money that we cut from salaries?

Reduce deficit/increase surplus?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 19, 2011, 02:55:23 PM
While I agree with the basic idea of cutting legislative salaries, the administrative costs of redesigning tax returns and creating a new tax deduction would dwarf the savings from cutting said salaries.  I think it would be best just to simply cut legislative salaries.

But then what would we do with the money that we cut from salaries?

Reduce deficit/increase surplus?

Alright. I'd like to strike out section 5 and amend section 4 to read:

Quote
All money collected from politician's salary cuts shall be used to reduce deficit and increase a surplus.

The title of the bill is hereby changed to the NE Legislative Salary Cuts Act of 2011


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 19, 2011, 09:20:01 PM
Friends,

Our speaker has left Atlasia. In his absence, we must call upon Governor Ghost_white to hold an election for a new speaker. I'd like to ask anyone who is interested in becoming speaker to say so.

I would like to express my interest in filling the vacated position.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on March 19, 2011, 11:39:40 PM
While I agree with the basic idea of cutting legislative salaries, the administrative costs of redesigning tax returns and creating a new tax deduction would dwarf the savings from cutting said salaries.  I think it would be best just to simply cut legislative salaries.

I agree with our late speaker here.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on March 19, 2011, 11:40:12 PM
Friends,

Our speaker has left Atlasia. In his absence, we must call upon Governor Ghost_white to hold an election for a new speaker. I'd like to ask anyone who is interested in becoming speaker to say so.

I would like to express my interest in filling the vacated position.

I will support you as long as you know what the hell you are doing. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 19, 2011, 11:42:02 PM
Friends,

Our speaker has left Atlasia. In his absence, we must call upon Governor Ghost_white to hold an election for a new speaker. I'd like to ask anyone who is interested in becoming speaker to say so.

I would like to express my interest in filling the vacated position.

Um, I fully intend to serve out my term, I'm just not running for reelection.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 20, 2011, 08:06:10 AM
Friends,

Our speaker has left Atlasia. In his absence, we must call upon Governor Ghost_white to hold an election for a new speaker. I'd like to ask anyone who is interested in becoming speaker to say so.

I would like to express my interest in filling the vacated position.

Um, I fully intend to serve out my term, I'm just not running for reelection.

:D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 20, 2011, 08:15:52 PM
Just sayin', you guys should hold a recommendation vote on the Lieutenant Governorship, since I believe it is still vacant.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 20, 2011, 08:17:35 PM
Just sayin', you guys should hold a recommendation vote on the Lieutenant Governorship, since I believe it is still vacant.

Would one have to volunteer to be recommended to such a position or would there be a flat out recommendation?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 20, 2011, 08:36:43 PM
Just sayin', you guys should hold a recommendation vote on the Lieutenant Governorship, since I believe it is still vacant.

Would one have to volunteer to be recommended to such a position or would there be a flat out recommendation?

I suppose you could just flat out make a recommendation, but it's completely non-binding and the Governor gets to appoint whoever he wants. It's just a formality.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 20, 2011, 08:45:24 PM
Just sayin', you guys should hold a recommendation vote on the Lieutenant Governorship, since I believe it is still vacant.

Would one have to volunteer to be recommended to such a position or would there be a flat out recommendation?

I suppose you could just flat out make a recommendation, but it's completely non-binding and the Governor gets to appoint whoever he wants. It's just a formality.

Mkay. I recommend either Hantheguitarman or Eraserhead to be our Lt. Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 20, 2011, 09:36:57 PM
Just sayin', you guys should hold a recommendation vote on the Lieutenant Governorship, since I believe it is still vacant.

Would one have to volunteer to be recommended to such a position or would there be a flat out recommendation?

I suppose you could just flat out make a recommendation, but it's completely non-binding and the Governor gets to appoint whoever he wants. It's just a formality.

Mkay. I recommend either Hantheguitarman or Eraserhead to be our Lt. Governor.

I know Han well enough to vouch that he will not serve. The same can probably said for Eraserhead.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 21, 2011, 10:19:26 AM
What about Smid or Marokai? I'm not sure if Marokai is even registered in the NE anymore. I know that Homelycooking just registered and he's learning the game, so if he's interested...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 21, 2011, 02:15:44 PM
We never brought our previous work to a final vote. Can we just let this die already before moving on?

I'll make my feelings on the Lt. Governor known in a few minutes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 21, 2011, 03:06:04 PM
I'll make my feelings on the Lt. Governor known in a few minutes.

Regardless of your feelings on the Lieutenant Governorship (which are likely similar to my own) the office needs to be occupied.

Naturally, the Assembly should first do whatever bill is at hand right now - I was just reminding everybody that the office is currently vacant and needs to be filled. Cinyc may be willing to do it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 21, 2011, 03:16:04 PM
I vote Aye on the NE Legislative Salary Cuts Act of 2011


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 21, 2011, 03:16:58 PM
I vote Nay, and I think it would be best to have a left-wing Lt. Governor since we have a right-wing Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 21, 2011, 03:18:10 PM
I vote Nay, and I think it would be best to have a left-wing Lt. Governor since we have a right-wing Governor.

Marokai would be perfect for the job then.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 21, 2011, 03:25:58 PM
I was thinking of homelycooking, but Marokai would be great too, I think.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 21, 2011, 03:32:57 PM
I was thinking of homelycooking, but Marokai would be great too, I think.

Homelycooking is perfect in my mind. He's new to Atlasia and this is an office that would really help him learn about our political system. However, Marokai has experience in politics.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 21, 2011, 03:34:51 PM
Ideally my amendment will pass and this issue will disappear.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 21, 2011, 04:16:13 PM
()

We will now vote on the NE Assembly Salary Cuts Act of 2011.

Quote
NE Assembly Salary Cuts Act of 2011

1) Members of the Northeast Assembly shall take a $40,000 (Fourty thousand dollar) pay cut, effective 90 (ninety) days after the passage of this act.

2) The Northeast Governor shall take a $30,000 (Thirty thousand dollar) pay cut, effective 90 (ninety) days after the passage of this act.

3) Northeast regional Senators shall receive a $40,000 (Fourty thousand dollar) pay cut, effective 90 (ninety) days after the passage of this act.

4) All the money collected from Northeast politicians' salary cuts shall be used to decrease the budget deficit or increase the budget surplus


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on March 21, 2011, 04:31:04 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on March 21, 2011, 04:33:53 PM
Frivolous.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 21, 2011, 04:34:44 PM

How so?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 21, 2011, 05:29:09 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 21, 2011, 06:31:27 PM
I guess I'll throw my hat in for Lt. Governor if someone wants to point me towards a general guide of what the hell the job consists of. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 21, 2011, 06:41:38 PM
I guess I'll throw my hat in for Lt. Governor if someone wants to point me towards a general guide of what the hell the job consists of. :P

"xiii) The Lieutenant Governor of the Northeast Region shall be charged with the responsibilities of the Legislative Assembly of the region. He or she shall ensure that the Legislative Assembly has the ability to propose legislation that they are able to be debated on, and voted on during appropriate periods. In the temporary absence of the Lieutenant Governor, than the Governor may take up these responsibilities. "


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on March 21, 2011, 06:43:56 PM
He or she shall ensure that the Legislative Assembly has the ability to propose legislation that they are able to be debated on, and voted on during appropriate periods.

Not to be crude, but what the hell does this mean?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 21, 2011, 06:45:31 PM
He or she shall ensure that the Legislative Assembly has the ability to propose legislation that they are able to be debated on, and voted on during appropriate periods.

Not to be crude, but what the hell does this mean?

Making sure that debate goes steadily, voted on at the correct time, making sure not just one person is proposing legislation :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 21, 2011, 06:46:27 PM
He or she shall ensure that the Legislative Assembly has the ability to propose legislation that they are able to be debated on, and voted on during appropriate periods.

Not to be crude, but what the hell does this mean?

I had the same thought so don't feel bad. :P It seems like it's basically some sort of supervisory position than one that actually exercises any powers.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on March 21, 2011, 06:56:58 PM
He or she shall ensure that the Legislative Assembly has the ability to propose legislation that they are able to be debated on, and voted on during appropriate periods.

Not to be crude, but what the hell does this mean?

I had the same thought so don't feel bad. :P It seems like it's basically some sort of supervisory position than one that actually exercises any powers.

When did you move here? And I think I'm illegally the current Lt. Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 21, 2011, 07:06:54 PM
I think you've indirectly forfeited the position, Rowan.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 21, 2011, 07:09:46 PM
I think you've indirectly forfeited the position, Rowan.

I would think that he would have resigned by default upon becoming a Senator.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 21, 2011, 07:57:33 PM
He or she shall ensure that the Legislative Assembly has the ability to propose legislation that they are able to be debated on, and voted on during appropriate periods.

Not to be crude, but what the hell does this mean?

I had the same thought so don't feel bad. :P It seems like it's basically some sort of supervisory position than one that actually exercises any powers.

When did you move here? And I think I'm illegally the current Lt. Governor.

About a month ago or so.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 22, 2011, 11:27:55 AM
The bill passes with 2 ayes, no nays, and 3 abstentions by not voting.

Let's be a little better about this in the future, shall we?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 23, 2011, 04:32:32 PM
Shall we continue with Assembly procedure?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 23, 2011, 04:50:24 PM
()


Quote
Sex Ed Optionality Act

1) Schools in the Northeast region that offer sexual education courses are hereby required to send home a letter to parents explaining that the school will be offering sexual education courses and the parents will then have the ability to opt their child out of the class.

2) Parents shall have the right to pull their child out of a sex ed class in the middle of the course if they feel the child is not mature enough to take the class.

Sponsor: Rep. Jake Matthews

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate shall continue until March 25, 2011, 3:32 PM EST, unless debate is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponsor, Jake Matthews, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 25, 2011, 04:06:53 PM
Debate on this bill has ended, we shall now hold a vote on it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 25, 2011, 04:08:10 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 25, 2011, 04:48:17 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 25, 2011, 08:50:15 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 25, 2011, 08:52:21 PM
Actually, I'm switching my vote to nay unless the measure is amended to refer solely to public schools.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 25, 2011, 08:57:16 PM
Actually, I'm switching my vote to nay unless the measure is amended to refer solely to public schools.

Or better yet mandate it but exempt private schools.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on March 27, 2011, 05:52:35 AM
I will vote Nay on this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 27, 2011, 09:24:35 AM
Actually, I'm switching my vote to nay unless the measure is amended to refer solely to public schools.

Amended as such.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 28, 2011, 06:18:22 PM
Are we ever going to fill the Lieutenant Governor position? That had to have been discussed at least a week ago and we still have taken no formal action.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 28, 2011, 06:32:18 PM
I don't think anyone wants to be lieutenant governor...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 28, 2011, 06:39:32 PM
Homelycooking has informed me that he is willing to serve, but would like to see the position eventually abolished. I'd be perfectly happy with that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 28, 2011, 06:47:43 PM
Can we skip to Napoleon's small government legislation over all of my stuff? I want that to pass in my first term.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 28, 2011, 07:15:25 PM
Can we skip to Napoleon's small government legislation over all of my stuff? I want that to pass in my first term.

The SOAP specifically mentions that one specific Representative's legislation can't keep on being brought up and other ones must have a "turn."

Also, homelycooking would be a superb choice.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 28, 2011, 07:28:07 PM
That last measure fails, btw.  Any amendments should've been offered before voting period began (my fault for not speaking up earlier, I know), and in any case voting was already over.

I shall skip to Napoleon's legislation, which actually must be a constitutional amendment from the looks of it.  Remember that 2/3rds of a majority of the assembly must vote for an amendment.

()


Quote
The Small Government Act of 2011

ARTICLE IV - EXECUTIVE BRANCH is amended to read as follows:

i) The executive authority of the Northeast Region shall be vested first and foremost in the Governor of the Northeast Region.

ii) The Governor must be elected democratically by the people of the Northeast Region.

iii)Elections are to be held every October, February and June for Governor.

iv) All citizens of the Northeast Region shall have one vote for Governor. A polling booth shall be created by the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region. He or she will open the booth on the third Friday at 12:00:00am Eastern Standard Time of every October, February and June and will close said both on the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm Eastern Standard Time. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote during this time. The Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region must accept any absentee ballot conducted one week prior to the opening of the polls.

v) Candidates for Governor will be given until the second Friday of the month in which he or she wishes to run in an election thereof to announce his candidacy. This is to be done by officially notifying the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region.

vi) When the polls close, the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region shall be given twenty-four hours to count the votes and declare a winner. The candidate with the most votes for the office of Governor shall be made Governor. The newly elected Governor is to be officially sworn in on the Tuesday following the election and shall immediately assume office at that point. In the case of a tie, all tied candidates are to run in a run-off election the following week to determine a winner.

vii) There may only be one Governorat any point in time. Once a new Governor is sworn in, the former one forfeits his or her office.

viii) If the office of Governor is to become vacant at some point while he or she is in office, than the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly is to be immediately sworn in as Acting Governor of the Northeast Region, while maintaining his or her role as presiding officer of the Legislative Assembly.

ix) A Governor may be impeached at any time while they are in office by the will of two thirds of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.

x) The Governor has the power to make political appointments and to be the official representative of the Region to the rest of Atlas Forum with the recommendation of the General Assembly of the Northeast Region. The Primary responsibility of the Governor shall be to work with the regional Senators and the Forum President to ensure that the rights, liberties, and interests of the people of the Northeast Region are protected.

xi) The Governor has veto power over any piece of legislation that the Northeast Assembly shall successfully vote in favour. The Governor may not have the power to veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. The Governor is required to sign all pieces of legislation he supports into law after it passes a successful vote in the Legislative Assembly within one week of its passing. Once he or she has signed the legislation, it immediately becomes law unless otherwise stated in the legislation itself. If the Governor does not sign the successful legislation after one week, than it becomes law immediately.

xii) The Governor is obligated to present the Legislative Assembly a budget every January, if he or she is in office at that time. The budget of all government activities is to be voted on by the Assembly in the same January. The Governor is obligated that the budget does not provide for any deficits excepting times of emergency or war, a condition the Legislative Assembly must successfully endorse.

xiii) In the temporary absence of the Governor, then the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly may be allowed to temporarily conduct the duties of the Governor.

xiv) The chain of command for the Governorship of the Northeast Region shall be as follows: Governor, , Chief Judicial Officer, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Longest continuously serving Representative of the Northeast Region, followed by the next longest and the next and so on. The chain of command shall be used to fill sudden vacancies in the office of Governor.

Article V is amended to read as follows:

xiv) The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast acts as the President of the Northeast Legislative Assembly. He officially opens and closes the sessions, organizes votes on legislation and notifies the Reps of the results of any official vote. If a vote results in a perfect tie. In this case, the Governor shall be allowed to vote to break said tie.

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor’s veto. If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by more than a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor’s signature. An override vote resulting in an exactly two-thirds majority shall be considered failed.

Article VI is amended to read as follows:

iv) No persons shall hold the positions of Governor and Chief Judicial Officer at the same time.

Sponsor: Rep. Napoleon

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate shall continue until March 30, 2011, 8:28 PM EST, unless debate is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponsor, Napoleon, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 28, 2011, 07:31:28 PM
Simultaneously, I'll also hold a recommendation vote for Lt. Governor over the next 24 hours.  Suggest candidates, ranked by order of preference.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 28, 2011, 07:33:42 PM
On the Lt. Governor Position:

[1] Homelycooking
[2] Marokai
[3] Napoleon (for teh lulz :P)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on March 28, 2011, 07:38:51 PM
On the Lt. Governor Position:

[1] Homelycooking
[2] Marokai
[3] Napoleon (for teh lulz :P)

None of those people have yet been nominated.

The formal thing to do would first be to hold a 24 hour recommendation period, then a vote with all nominations on the ballot.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 28, 2011, 07:40:41 PM
I'll nominate Homelycooking, in that case. Though I appreciate the support, I will have to decline any nomination for the position I would rather abolish. Thank you though. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 28, 2011, 07:46:19 PM
On the Lt. Governor Position:

[1] Homelycooking
[2] Marokai
[3] Napoleon (for teh lulz :P)

None of those people have yet been nominated.

The formal thing to do would first be to hold a 24 hour recommendation period, then a vote with all nominations on the ballot.

This is the 24-hour recommendation period.  It's not a formal vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 28, 2011, 08:07:51 PM
I recommend Homelycooking, then.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 09, 2011, 09:33:37 PM
*Cough*


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on April 09, 2011, 09:42:15 PM
Yes I know...

Due to my near total loss of interest in Atlasia and subsequent neglect of my duties, I'm resigning as Speaker, and asking unanimous consent for Jake Matthews to be appointed Speaker in my place.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 10, 2011, 09:22:02 AM
Yes I know...

Due to my near total loss of interest in Atlasia and subsequent neglect of my duties, I'm resigning as Speaker, and asking unanimous consent for Jake Matthews to be appointed Speaker in my place.

I hope I read this right...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on April 10, 2011, 09:28:02 AM
It's hard to be speaker of a body that doesn't even want to participate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 10, 2011, 12:05:49 PM
It's hard to be speaker of a body that doesn't even want to participate.

I hear ya :/ Wormy, Napoleon, Sbane and myself are the only active legislators...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on April 10, 2011, 12:43:56 PM
Jake seems pretty enthusiastic so I'll support him for speaker. Anyone else interested? We can have a vote in that case.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 10, 2011, 12:55:13 PM
Just a quick speech to my colleagues...

Friends,

I'd be honored to serve as your speaker. I thank wormyguy for his tenure as speaker and I thank him for all he's taught me about Atlasian politics. It is painful to watch an old friend of mine leave this job behind, but I would be ever so grateful to be the one to receive the baton in our relay race to make the Northeast Region the best in Atlasia.

God bless.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 11, 2011, 12:34:24 AM
Just a quick speech to my colleagues...

Friends,

I'd be honored to serve as your speaker. I thank wormyguy for his tenure as speaker and I thank him for all he's taught me about Atlasian politics. It is painful to watch an old friend of mine leave this job behind, but I would be ever so grateful to be the one to receive the baton in our relay race to make the Northeast Region the best in Atlasia.

God bless.


Hopefully you can forget all that and return to the promise you had before :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 11, 2011, 03:42:54 AM
At this point we just need someone to do the job properly. I really don't care who.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 11, 2011, 06:20:50 AM
Just a quick speech to my colleagues...

Friends,

I'd be honored to serve as your speaker. I thank wormyguy for his tenure as speaker and I thank him for all he's taught me about Atlasian politics. It is painful to watch an old friend of mine leave this job behind, but I would be ever so grateful to be the one to receive the baton in our relay race to make the Northeast Region the best in Atlasia.

God bless.


Hopefully you can forget all that and return to the promise you had before :P

:P :P :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 12, 2011, 07:35:04 PM
Friends, I accept the position of Speaker of this assembly with much gratitude.

Now, back to proceedings.

We must vote on my amendment to the Sex Ed Optionality to apply only to public schools.

I vote Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 12, 2011, 07:40:46 PM
Nay, but I don't think we were working on this at all. I know we weren't.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: California8429 on April 12, 2011, 07:42:22 PM
You guys are cutting down the Assembly seats for next election right?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 12, 2011, 07:43:32 PM
Nay, but I don't think we were working on this at all. I know we weren't.

Meh, we might as well vote on the amended bill and work on your bill next.

You guys are cutting down the Assembly seats for next election right?

It's been tossed around, but we haven't put it into proposed legislation yet. I plan to do so.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on April 12, 2011, 07:51:25 PM
Sure, aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 12, 2011, 07:51:36 PM
Since nobody seemed to notice this earlier...

If the Assembly is going to pass a constitutional amendment lowering Assembly seats, make sure you reach the quorom. This has already been passed with overwhelming support twice and merely did not reach enough total votes in the Voting Booth.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 12, 2011, 07:56:44 PM
The legislation isn't on the floor is it? I thought it failed. We should either stick to procedure or go back to waiting.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 12, 2011, 08:08:07 PM
The legislation isn't on the floor is it? I thought it failed. We should either stick to procedure or go back to waiting.

So we're on your legislation now?

I believe so and debate has expired. Let us please vote on Napoleon's "Small Government Act"

The Small Government Act of 2011

ARTICLE IV - EXECUTIVE BRANCH is amended to read as follows:

i) The executive authority of the Northeast Region shall be vested first and foremost in the Governor of the Northeast Region.

ii) The Governor must be elected democratically by the people of the Northeast Region.

iii)Elections are to be held every October, February and June for Governor.

iv) All citizens of the Northeast Region shall have one vote for Governor. A polling booth shall be created by the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region. He or she will open the booth on the third Friday at 12:00:00am Eastern Standard Time of every October, February and June and will close said both on the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm Eastern Standard Time. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote during this time. The Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region must accept any absentee ballot conducted one week prior to the opening of the polls.

v) Candidates for Governor will be given until the second Friday of the month in which he or she wishes to run in an election thereof to announce his candidacy. This is to be done by officially notifying the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region.

vi) When the polls close, the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region shall be given twenty-four hours to count the votes and declare a winner. The candidate with the most votes for the office of Governor shall be made Governor. The newly elected Governor is to be officially sworn in on the Tuesday following the election and shall immediately assume office at that point. In the case of a tie, all tied candidates are to run in a run-off election the following week to determine a winner.

vii) There may only be one Governorat any point in time. Once a new Governor is sworn in, the former one forfeits his or her office.

viii) If the office of Governor is to become vacant at some point while he or she is in office, than the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly is to be immediately sworn in as Acting Governor of the Northeast Region, while maintaining his or her role as presiding officer of the Legislative Assembly.

ix) A Governor may be impeached at any time while they are in office by the will of two thirds of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.

x) The Governor has the power to make political appointments and to be the official representative of the Region to the rest of Atlas Forum with the recommendation of the General Assembly of the Northeast Region. The Primary responsibility of the Governor shall be to work with the regional Senators and the Forum President to ensure that the rights, liberties, and interests of the people of the Northeast Region are protected.

xi) The Governor has veto power over any piece of legislation that the Northeast Assembly shall successfully vote in favour. The Governor may not have the power to veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. The Governor is required to sign all pieces of legislation he supports into law after it passes a successful vote in the Legislative Assembly within one week of its passing. Once he or she has signed the legislation, it immediately becomes law unless otherwise stated in the legislation itself. If the Governor does not sign the successful legislation after one week, than it becomes law immediately.

xii) The Governor is obligated to present the Legislative Assembly a budget every January, if he or she is in office at that time. The budget of all government activities is to be voted on by the Assembly in the same January. The Governor is obligated that the budget does not provide for any deficits excepting times of emergency or war, a condition the Legislative Assembly must successfully endorse.

xiii) In the temporary absence of the Governor, then the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly may be allowed to temporarily conduct the duties of the Governor.

xiv) The chain of command for the Governorship of the Northeast Region shall be as follows: Governor, , Chief Judicial Officer, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Longest continuously serving Representative of the Northeast Region, followed by the next longest and the next and so on. The chain of command shall be used to fill sudden vacancies in the office of Governor.

Article V is amended to read as follows:

xiv) The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast acts as the President of the Northeast Legislative Assembly. He officially opens and closes the sessions, organizes votes on legislation and notifies the Reps of the results of any official vote. If a vote results in a perfect tie. In this case, the Governor shall be allowed to vote to break said tie.

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor’s veto. If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by more than a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor’s signature. An override vote resulting in an exactly two-thirds majority shall be considered failed.

Article VI is amended to read as follows:

iv) No persons shall hold the positions of Governor and Chief Judicial Officer at the same time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 12, 2011, 08:08:29 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on April 12, 2011, 08:09:13 PM
That particular legislation is a constitutional amendment (it would have to be), although it's improperly labeled.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 12, 2011, 08:18:07 PM
We never finished the LT. Governor recommendation but aye on this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 13, 2011, 05:58:41 AM
That particular legislation is a constitutional amendment (it would have to be), although it's improperly labeled.

Exactly, so it would have to go to the voting booth when and if passed in the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on April 13, 2011, 02:52:40 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 13, 2011, 02:56:31 PM
We never finished the LT. Governor recommendation but aye on this.

We won't need a Lt. Governor if this passes and is approved by the citizens of the NE :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on April 13, 2011, 04:44:30 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 13, 2011, 05:13:39 PM
The bill passes. Because this is a constitutional amendment, it will go to the Governor and if approved, the voting booth. Now for the next order of business...

()

Northeast Election Reform Act of 2011

1) Any person who casts a vote in a local election, whether for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Assemblyperson or any elected official of the Northeast Region, may not delete their post after voting has closed, nor while election results are being tallied, nor after election results are certified.

2) If one deletes their vote up to 30 (thirty) minutes after certification of votes, their vote shall be rendered null and void.

3) If there is no proof that one did not vote in any election, it shall be considered that they did not vote.

4) If a screen shot of a person's vote is produced up to 1 (one) hour after the supposed deletion of said vote, the vote shall still count.

Sponser: Jake Matthews

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate shall continue until April 15th, 7:15 PM EST unless debate is extended or extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponser, Jake Matthews, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 13, 2011, 05:14:30 PM
Colleagues,

After the giant fiasco that occured after the March Special Elections, this legislation is all but desperately needed.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 13, 2011, 06:00:42 PM
We never finished the LT. Governor recommendation but aye on this.

We won't need a Lt. Governor if this passes and is approved by the citizens of the NE :P

Regardless of the Representatives' personal biases or machinations, it is this body's duty to hold a recommendation vote. (This, coming from somebody who would probably vote to abolish the position.)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 13, 2011, 06:21:35 PM
Alright. Theoretically, since it is our duty to recommend a new Lt. Governor, let's settle this.

I recommend Homelycooking.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on April 14, 2011, 11:26:30 AM
I second Jake. Though we should ask him whether he actually wants to be Lt. Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 14, 2011, 02:47:43 PM
I second Jake. Though we should ask him whether he actually wants to be Lt. Governor.

He's expressed interest, though he's running for Assembly and will most likely be elected tomorrow.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 15, 2011, 06:01:22 AM
Okay, since there's no debate going on, I'll end it here. The Amendment passes.

Also, it's time to vote on who our Lt. Governor should be so we can open elections today.

Lt. Governor:

[ ] Homelycooking
[ ] Write-in


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 15, 2011, 06:03:12 AM
Lt. Governor:

[X] Homelycooking
[ ] Write-in


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on April 15, 2011, 08:56:20 AM
Okay, since there's no debate going on, I'll end it here. The Amendment passes.

No it doesn't, amendments require an outright majority of assembly members to vote on them in order to pass, and only 3/6 voted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 15, 2011, 11:56:13 AM
Okay, since there's no debate going on, I'll end it here. The Amendment passes.

No it doesn't, amendments require an outright majority of assembly members to vote on them in order to pass, and only 3/6 voted.

By my counts, Napoleon, Sbane, You and myself all voted (4/6) which makes for a majority.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 16, 2011, 10:51:54 AM
I have already PMed a few in private about this, but I ask that the Northeast begin drafting a Northeast Constitutional Convention upon certification of the Assembly results.

I will do more research and provide help if necessary.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on April 16, 2011, 12:03:31 PM
I have already PMed a few in private about this, but I ask that the Northeast begin drafting a Northeast Constitutional Convention upon certification of the Assembly results.

We may run into the same problem all over again here. The governor is the only one who can certify election results, so nothing can happen until (or if) he does so.

...unless we can convince the Senate to certify the results in his place out of a reasonable expectation that the Governor's action will not be timely.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: courts on April 16, 2011, 12:35:10 PM
I will personally certify the election results in two days.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on April 16, 2011, 12:38:04 PM
Excellent. Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 16, 2011, 02:09:04 PM
I don't think a Constitutional Convention is necessary.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 16, 2011, 02:09:47 PM
I don't think a Constitutional Convention is necessary.

I think it is.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 16, 2011, 02:11:35 PM

It wouldn't make voters elect capable people. That's the real problem.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 16, 2011, 02:12:42 PM

It wouldn't make voters elect capable people. That's the real problem.

Meh, I don't see how that's true. The Convention needs to happen so we can modernize our Constitution - it is in desperate need of some reform.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 16, 2011, 02:17:55 PM
You don't see how that's true? Um, what? And we have a pprocess for amendments in place so you can try to change what you want.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 16, 2011, 02:51:25 PM
You don't see how that's true? Um, what? And we have a pprocess for amendments in place so you can try to change what you want.

Yeah, but the Convention will help the amending process to be much smoother. Instead of having to write the amendment, vote on it, send it to the Governor, have the people vote on it, we just create the new Constitution and have the people vote on it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 17, 2011, 12:20:31 AM
You don't see how that's true? Um, what? And we have a pprocess for amendments in place so you can try to change what you want.

The problem is that we actually pass amendments that merely do not reach a quorom. Last time we attempted to reduce the size of the Assembly to five, it passed with 77% of support from the Northeast, but we fell three votes short of the quorom.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 17, 2011, 12:29:59 AM
Would a convention legitimately solve that problem?  If not, I can't support one.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 17, 2011, 12:31:16 AM
Would a convention legitimately solve that problem?  If not, I can't support one.

Well, if we were able to eliminate the quorom requirement then it would.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 17, 2011, 08:47:27 PM
Alright you guys have convinced me but we need to discuss how one would be set up and hopefully get some more signatures on the recall petition.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 18, 2011, 07:35:15 AM
I amend the Northeast Election Reform Act to include the following language:

"Only documented citizens of the Northeast Region may run for regional office (Governor, Senate, Assembly."


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 18, 2011, 07:38:02 AM
So let's vote on the amended bill:

Northeast Election Reform Act of 2011

1) Any person who casts a vote in a local election, whether for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Assemblyperson or any elected official of the Northeast Region, may not delete their post after voting has closed, nor while election results are being tallied, nor after election results are certified.

2) If one deletes their vote up to 30 (thirty) minutes after certification of votes, their vote shall be rendered null and void.

3) If there is no proof that one did not vote in any election, it shall be considered that they did not vote.

4) If a screen shot of a person's vote is produced up to 1 (one) hour after the supposed deletion of said vote, the vote shall still count.

5) Only documented citizens of the Northeast Region may run for regional office (Governor, Senate, Assembly.)

I vote Aye on the Amendment and the bill. This probably won't be passed until tomorrow when the new Assembly is supposed to swear in.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 18, 2011, 11:14:10 AM
Nay, too technical and screen shotty.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on April 18, 2011, 11:42:16 AM
Yeah, we would have to take screen shots of all elections from now on. That would be ridiculous. After the votes are certified, that's it. Those results are what count, even if someone deletes their post afterwards.

The only reason this is even an issue is due to some highly unethical behavior. In my view this shouldn't be a recurring issue, and if it is, then this game is in trouble.

Edit: Can we pass provision 5 as a separate amendment please? That one is definitely needed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 18, 2011, 01:33:43 PM
Okay, we'll just scrap this bill and vote on solely provision five as a seperate piece of legislation.

I vote Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on April 18, 2011, 01:52:28 PM
Aye on just provision 5.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 18, 2011, 01:55:32 PM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on April 18, 2011, 03:43:51 PM
Napoleon, sbane, Jake;

When does your old term end, and when does the new one begin? I'm looking forward to getting down to work. Also, do I need to be sworn in, and by whom?



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 18, 2011, 03:48:07 PM
Per the Constitution, swearing in on Tuesdays following the election is customary for the positions of Lieutenant Governor and Governor. I didn't find anything regarding Assembly elections but I believe precedent is to do the same. There is a swearing in thread somewhere. I'm looking forward to it. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 18, 2011, 03:51:48 PM
Each term in the Assembly lasts two months :)

Those who are elected to regional positions in the Northeast swear in  here. (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=36934.msg2854136#new)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on April 19, 2011, 07:43:52 AM
OK, I've sworn in and am ready to get to work. Do we need to elect a new speaker?

What legislation remains from the previous term to be voted on?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 19, 2011, 08:30:03 AM
OK, I've sworn in and am ready to get to work. Do we need to elect a new speaker?

What legislation remains from the previous term to be voted on?

We will recommend and then vote on a speaker.

There is plenty of legislation left over from last term, don't worry ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 19, 2011, 12:10:12 PM
After discussing it with some top level advisors, I will seek the position of Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 19, 2011, 12:14:27 PM
After discussing it with some top level advisors, I will seek the position of Speaker.

I recommend Napoleon to be our Speaker and I will not challenge him.

As our current Speaker, I suggest we continue to recommend candidates for Speaker, but rap this up soon.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on April 19, 2011, 12:16:38 PM
I would enthusiastically support Napoleon for speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 19, 2011, 12:24:07 PM
Jake aren't you Lt. Governor?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 19, 2011, 12:25:33 PM

Temporarily. Just to open the booths and what not.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 19, 2011, 12:31:26 PM

You'll become Governor if the recall is successful. I don't think there's going to be another election.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 19, 2011, 12:35:07 PM

You'll become Governor if the recall is successful. I don't think there's going to be another election.

There will have to be an election for Governor. Ghost_white and Giovanni (bleh) announced their candidacies.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 19, 2011, 12:38:29 PM
We should have an older member confirm that so we don't screw up.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 19, 2011, 12:41:40 PM
We should have an older member confirm that so we don't screw up.

Well, if we don't have the election, we may be challenged.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 19, 2011, 12:44:21 PM
We should have an older member confirm that so we don't screw up.

Well, if we don't have the election, we may be challenged.

I'm saying don't resign. If Ghostwhite is recalled there would be no Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on April 19, 2011, 12:55:08 PM
I recommend wormyguy for speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on April 19, 2011, 02:35:21 PM

I do not accept; if elected, I will not serve.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on April 19, 2011, 02:45:26 PM
We should have an older member confirm that so we don't screw up.

Well, if we don't have the election, we may be challenged.

I'm saying don't resign. If Ghostwhite is recalled there would be no Governor.

I think you're right, Napoleon. Nowhere in the Constitution (or in the Recall Amendment) does it say that a new election must be held immediately following the Governor's removal from office (yet another bit of bad legislation that we'll have to fix) I suppose, however, that if Jake were to resign the governorship immediately after he assumes it due to the Governor's recall, he could force a new election, since having no governor, lieutenant governor or CJO would necessitate a new election. Of course, that brings up the ever-present question of who would run the election.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 19, 2011, 02:50:55 PM
I think Napoleon was referring to me not resigning as Lt. Governor just yet.

Anyway, I think we should elect a new Speaker:

[ ] Napoleon (JCP-CT)
[ ] Write-in:___________________

Please vote for one candidate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 19, 2011, 02:51:34 PM
[X] Napoleon (JCP-CT)
[ ] Write-in:___________________


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on April 19, 2011, 03:16:38 PM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 19, 2011, 03:18:46 PM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on April 19, 2011, 05:59:00 PM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 19, 2011, 06:01:06 PM
Since four of the six elected Assemblymen voted for Napoleon as our Speaker, we have reached a majority and Napoleon is hereby elected Speaker of the adjourned Northeast Assembly. Congratulations.

Oh, by the way. You're gonna need this:

()

Use it wisely ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 19, 2011, 06:14:36 PM
I know I was unopposed, but I am humbled and honored to have the confidence of my peers. Keep in mind that like many of us, I am still getting the hang of things. I welcome your advice, even your criticism. I hope to use this position to maintain an active and productive Assembly. My office is always open along with my inbox.

Around 9 pm, I will get a start on procedural duties. I'm going to learn the rules to a T in the meantime and look forward to seeing universal participation. As First Consul, the SOAP shall serve as our own Napoleonic code.

Okay, done with the lame jokes. ;D

So "ordered"


()


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 19, 2011, 07:10:03 PM
We will begin an hour early.
Fyi, I will be using Polnut's format as a model, to keep everything as organized as possible. it's easy to get lost in here.

Quote
Statutory "Spring Cleaning" Act of 2011

1. The Assembly hereby creates a temporary Statutory Review Commission (hereafter referred to as SRC) comprised of one current Representative of the Northeast.
2. The SRC's member shall be appointed by the Assembly by simple majority vote.
3. The SRC shall be entrusted with preparing a report to the Assembly regarding the following:
a. The establishment of a centralized list of all statute signed into law since January 1, 2004;
b. The relevance, clarity and integrity of all said statute;
c. Whether certain laws in said statute contradict others, or are unconstitutional; and
d. Recommendations for future legislation or amendment of existing legislation intended to rectify problems relating to sections 3b and 3c above.
4. The SRC's commission to carry out section 3 above shall expire after the fifteenth calendar day after the SRC commissioner's appointment, on which the SRC shall present its report to the Assembly.
5. The Assembly shall then take action upon the SRC report by accepting and implementing, rejecting or qualifying the recommendations made by the SRC.

I move that this be considered by the Assembly, all in favour say 'aye', the ayes have it.

The sponsor, Representative homelycooking, will now speak to the Bill, debate will last 48 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 19, 2011, 07:18:46 PM
I've found nothing that prevents me from doing this, as it's not legislation. Therefore, I call a nominating period for the position of Lieutenant Governor.

I nominate Jake Matthews.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on April 19, 2011, 07:39:43 PM
Gentlemen,

My Statutory "Spring Cleaning" Act is intended to begin a new chapter in our region's history. From the past seven years of legislative action, we have inherited a massive compendium of statute that is difficult to access, poorly written in some cases, and completely unaccountable to the people of this region. My act will establish a commission that will review, organize and publish in a clear, comprehensive format all of the Northeast's laws and recommend possible changes to those laws so as to fix potential conflicts with the Constitution and with the other portions of statute. It is the first piece of legislation I have introduced as assemblyman, since I think we need to clean up the mess that has been made before we add any more legislation to an already gigantic statute.

Furthermore, Speaker Napoleon has recommended that the Commission be enlarged as the Assembly sees fit so as to permit a collaborative effort to reorganize lawmaking in the Northeast. I would support such amendment given that other assemblymen are willing to participate as well. Otherwise, I urge a quick passage of this bill so that work on this project can begin as soon as possible to get the Northeast back on the road to legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens.

hc


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on April 19, 2011, 07:41:13 PM

I second the nomination.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 19, 2011, 07:44:05 PM
Here's the amended version I'm offering.


1. The Assembly hereby creates a temporary Statutory Review Commission (hereafter referred to as SRC) comprised of one to four current Representative(s) of the Northeast.

2. The SRC's member(s) shall be appointed by the Assembly by simple majority vote.

3. The SRC shall be entrusted with preparing a report to the Assembly regarding the following:
a. The establishment of a centralized list of all statute signed into law since January 1, 2004;
b. The relevance, clarity and integrity of all said statute;
c. Whether certain laws in said statute contradict others, or are unconstitutional; and
d. Recommendations for future legislation or amendment of existing legislation intended to rectify problems relating to sections 3b and 3c above.

4. The SRC shall establish a set of guidelines that assign specific duties to each commissioner.

5. The SRC's commission to carry out section 3 above shall expire after the fifteenth calendar day after the SRC commissioner's appointment, unless additional time is granted by a majority vote of the Assembly, on which the SRC shall present its report to the Assembly.

6. The Assembly shall then take action upon the SRC report by accepting and implementing, rejecting or qualifying the recommendations made by the SRC.

7. The SRC’s report will be used to update the Northeast Wiki, to be added by a Northeast citizen with Wiki access privileges.


This project will help us learn the laws of our region and simplify just about everything for future "generations".


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on April 19, 2011, 09:02:09 PM
Here's the amended version I'm offering.


1. The Assembly hereby creates a temporary Statutory Review Commission (hereafter referred to as SRC) comprised of one to four current Representative(s) of the Northeast.

2. The SRC's member(s) shall be appointed by the Assembly by simple majority vote.

3. The SRC shall be entrusted with preparing a report to the Assembly regarding the following:
a. The establishment of a centralized list of all statute signed into law since January 1, 2004;
b. The relevance, clarity and integrity of all said statute;
c. Whether certain laws in said statute contradict others, or are unconstitutional; and
d. Recommendations for future legislation or amendment of existing legislation intended to rectify problems relating to sections 3b and 3c above.

4. The SRC shall establish a set of guidelines that assign specific duties to each commissioner.

5. The SRC's commission to carry out section 3 above shall expire after the fifteenth calendar day after the SRC commissioner's appointment, unless additional time is granted by a majority vote of the Assembly, on which the SRC shall present its report to the Assembly.

6. The Assembly shall then take action upon the SRC report by accepting and implementing, rejecting or qualifying the recommendations made by the SRC.

7. The SRC’s report will be used to update the Northeast Wiki, to be added by a Northeast citizen with Wiki access privileges.


This project will help us learn the laws of our region and simplify just about everything for future "generations".

I completely support this amended version.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 19, 2011, 10:14:21 PM

You weren't re-elected :/


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on April 19, 2011, 10:20:17 PM

He would've been if he'd accepted his write ins before me ... which I'd have preferred.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on April 19, 2011, 10:31:12 PM

Oh well.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on April 20, 2011, 01:07:52 PM
I nominate Fallen Morgan for LT. Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 20, 2011, 02:29:54 PM
We will now hold a vote on recommending a Lieutenant Governor.

[ ] Jake Matthews (POP)

[ ] Fallen Morgan (POP)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 20, 2011, 02:31:18 PM
Anyone open to the idea of allowing former Representatives on the commission. Vice President Dallasfan has indicated a desire to be considered.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on April 20, 2011, 02:57:54 PM
Anyone open to the idea of allowing former Representatives on the commission. Vice President Dallasfan has indicated a desire to be considered.

Yes, that sounds like an excellent idea.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on April 20, 2011, 03:35:40 PM
Anyone open to the idea of allowing former Representatives on the commission. Vice President Dallasfan has indicated a desire to be considered.

Quote
1. The Assembly hereby creates a temporary Statutory Review Commission (hereafter referred to as SRC) comprised of one to four current or former Representative(s) of the Northeast.

2. The SRC's member(s) shall be appointed by the Assembly by simple majority vote.

3. The SRC shall be entrusted with preparing a report to the Assembly regarding the following:
a. The establishment of a centralized list of all statute signed into law since January 1, 2004;
b. The relevance, clarity and integrity of all said statute;
c. Whether certain laws in said statute contradict others, or are unconstitutional; and
d. Recommendations for future legislation or amendment of existing legislation intended to rectify problems relating to sections 3b and 3c above.

4. The SRC shall establish a set of guidelines that assign specific duties to each commissioner.

5. The SRC's commission to carry out section 3 above shall expire after the fifteenth calendar day after the SRC commissioner's appointment, unless additional time is granted by a majority vote of the Assembly, on which the SRC shall present its report to the Assembly.

6. The Assembly shall then take action upon the SRC report by accepting and implementing, rejecting or qualifying the recommendations made by the SRC.

7. The SRC’s report will be used to update the Northeast Wiki, to be added by a Northeast citizen with Wiki access privileges.


This project will help us learn the laws of our region and simplify just about everything for future "generations".


I would support this amended version.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on April 20, 2011, 03:37:48 PM
We will now hold a vote on recommending a Lieutenant Governor.

[X] Jake Matthews (POP)

[ ] Fallen Morgan (POP)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 20, 2011, 03:41:06 PM
We will now hold a vote on recommending a Lieutenant Governor.

[X] Jake Matthews (POP)

[ ] Fallen Morgan (POP)

I like the amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on April 20, 2011, 03:41:27 PM
[] Jake Matthews (POP)

[X] Fallen Morgan (POP)

Nothing against Jake, I just want a full assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 20, 2011, 03:50:27 PM
Jake's no longer with us btw.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on April 20, 2011, 03:55:32 PM

He never swore in, thus he never resigned and can still swear in and become an assembly member.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on April 20, 2011, 03:58:12 PM

He never swore in, thus he never resigned and can still swear in and become an assembly member.

He did


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on April 20, 2011, 03:59:13 PM

He never swore in, thus he never resigned and can still swear in and become an assembly member.

He did

Yes but to Lt. Gov, not assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 20, 2011, 04:06:17 PM
Is there any precedent here?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 20, 2011, 04:59:16 PM
I swore in on Monday as an Assembly person "in case I forgot" for Tuesday and then swore in as Lt. Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 21, 2011, 05:40:32 PM
The vote is closed. Jake Matthews is recommended with 2 votes to Fallen Morgan's 1.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 21, 2011, 05:43:15 PM
The vote is closed. Jake Matthews is recommended with 2 votes to Fallen Morgan's 1.

Wee-haw :)

The Governor will have to confirm this, the only problem is that as of Noon tomorrow, voting for the recall ends and as of right now, the recall effort is on track to succeed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 21, 2011, 05:46:23 PM
Simply, he should act with haste.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on April 21, 2011, 06:06:21 PM

And if he doesn't? Do we just wait until the replacement gubernatorial election?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 21, 2011, 06:08:18 PM

And if he doesn't? Do we just wait until the replacement gubernatorial election?

I'm not sure what would happen. I made sure to get this out of the way before we hit the 72 hour mark to avoid that (to the best of my ability - I can't make Ghostwhite act).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on April 21, 2011, 07:33:27 PM
When can we hold a vote on my bill?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 21, 2011, 07:38:53 PM
Quote
1. The Assembly hereby creates a temporary Statutory Review Commission (hereafter referred to as SRC) comprised of one to four current or former Representative(s) of the Northeast.

2. The SRC's member(s) shall be appointed by the Assembly by simple majority vote.

3. The SRC shall be entrusted with preparing a report to the Assembly regarding the following:
a. The establishment of a centralized list of all statute signed into law since January 1, 2004;
b. The relevance, clarity and integrity of all said statute;
c. Whether certain laws in said statute contradict others, or are unconstitutional; and
d. Recommendations for future legislation or amendment of existing legislation intended to rectify problems relating to sections 3b and 3c above.

4. The SRC shall establish a set of guidelines that assign specific duties to each commissioner.

5. The SRC's commission to carry out section 3 above shall expire after the fifteenth calendar day after the SRC commissioner's appointment, unless additional time is granted by a majority vote of the Assembly, on which the SRC shall present its report to the Assembly.

6. The Assembly shall then take action upon the SRC report by accepting and implementing, rejecting or qualifying the recommendations made by the SRC.

7. The SRC’s report will be used to update the Northeast Wiki, to be added by a Northeast citizen with Wiki access privileges.

We will now proceed to a final vote on this bill. Representatives, you have 24 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 21, 2011, 07:41:27 PM
Aye!!


I had to wait 48 hours, according to SOAP. We should look for ways to keep the Assembly organized while making SOAP more fluid but I intend to stick by the rules to the best of my ability.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on April 21, 2011, 08:07:38 PM
Aye.

I'm worried about creating new regional bodies when we can't even get enough people to run for assembly, but I suppose it can't possibly hurt.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on April 21, 2011, 08:29:01 PM
Aye

I'm worried about creating new regional bodies when we can't even get enough people to run for assembly, but I suppose it can't possibly hurt.

I appreciate that hesitancy, but the members of this new commission would all be parliamentarians anyway.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on April 22, 2011, 08:38:13 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 22, 2011, 12:05:09 PM
I'm worried about creating new regional bodies when we can't even get enough people to run for assembly, but I suppose it can't possibly hurt.

Under my interpretation of this law, this body would merely be a task force, and not violate the 'dual office holding' clause.

Also, Jake Matthews is now Governor and should swear in.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Yelnoc on April 22, 2011, 03:32:48 PM
I hate to break in like this, but I'm doing so investigative journalism for The Independent and could use you guys' help.  Does anyone know who the "longest serving citizen of the Northeast" is?  Said service can alternate between offices (assuming they are all based in the Northeast- this includes Regional Senator) but must be in an unbroken chain, so to speak.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 22, 2011, 08:34:13 PM
The Statutory "Spring Cleaning" Act of 2011 has passed 4-0.

()

We will now hold a nominating period for CJO recommendations.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 22, 2011, 08:58:25 PM
We will simultaneously hold a nomination period for the Statutory Review Commission.

I nominate homelycooking and Dallasfan65 for SRC consideration.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 22, 2011, 10:16:18 PM
Actually after giving this further consideration, a case could be made that this does in fact violate the dual office holding clause since the commission is a legal entity formed by the Northeast, as opposed to an executive task force which is informal.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 22, 2011, 10:20:20 PM
I'm not buying it, especially since it is only temporary.  All legislatures form special committees and things of such nature. This commission has no legislative, executive, or judicial political power.

I imagine that is obvious sine it was originally only going to be comprised of sitting Representatives.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on April 22, 2011, 10:22:13 PM
I'm not buying it, especially since it is only temporary.  All legislatures form special committees and things of such nature. This commission has no legislative, executive, or judicial political power.

Well, as long as it isn't considered an actual 'office' I have no objections to serving, and hope the Assembly will confirm me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 23, 2011, 12:42:57 AM
The Northeast Wiki is in sorry shape.  

I've been making some minor edits to the officeholder section, but under the SOAP and Wiki Emergency Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly#Wiki_Emergency_Act), it's the Lt. Governor's job to update the Wiki, unless he names someone else.  I don't have the time to do much else, so if our newly appointed Lt. Governor doesn't have a wiki account or time to update the Wiki, I suggest he name a volunteer who does.  In particular, the Assembly (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Northeast_Assembly) and Assembly legislation (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly) pages haven't been updated since last August and June, respectively.  If we can't easily find our laws, they're pretty much useless.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 23, 2011, 02:08:15 AM
Would a convention legitimately solve that problem?  If not, I can't support one.

Well, if we were able to eliminate the quorom requirement then it would.

The quorum requirement itself isn't the problem, especially since it has been watered down to one-third.  In order to have the best chance of passing, Constitutional Amendments ought to be passed and signed into law by the governor after the Second Friday of January, March, May, July or September  in order to be put on the ballot in a regional election that most likely coincides with a federal election.  Amendments proposed earlier in those months or after the second Friday in February, etc. end up getting voted on in an irregular third-Friday election, which almost always has lower turnout.  No constitutional amendment gets put to an immediate vote because we thought it would be easier to get a quorum in a more regularly scheduled election.

We really have nobody to blame but ourselves if we can't get 14 out of 40 citizens to vote for a constitutional amendment.  I've always said that it is up to proponents of constitutional amendments to publicize it and give good reasons why a change is necessary.  There was a legitimate debate over whether to fix the size of the Assembly.  Some folks simply didn't agree it was necessary.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on April 23, 2011, 04:04:36 AM
The Northeast Wiki is in sorry shape. 

I've been making some minor edits to the officeholder section, but under the SOAP and Wiki Emergency Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly#Wiki_Emergency_Act), it's the Lt. Governor's job to update the Wiki, unless he names someone else.  I don't have the time to do much else, so if our newly appointed Lt. Governor doesn't have a wiki account or time to update the Wiki, I suggest he name a volunteer who does.  In particular, the Assembly (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Northeast_Assembly) and Assembly legislation (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly) pages haven't been updated since last August and June, respectively.  If we can't easily find our laws, they're pretty much useless.

Remember the good old times when I constantly updated everything ? :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on April 23, 2011, 08:45:27 AM
I'm not buying it, especially since it is only temporary.  All legislatures form special committees and things of such nature. This commission has no legislative, executive, or judicial political power.

Well, as long as it isn't considered an actual 'office' I have no objections to serving, and hope the Assembly will confirm me.

The SRC's report does not have the force of law. It is merely produced as expert recommendation of a course of action to be taken by the Assembly, which is at liberty to approve or reject specific recommendations of the SRC.

It may be necessary to make an appeal to the Senate to declare some sort of state of emergency in the Northeast, since it appears that democracy is in an exceptionally weak state if a quorum cannot be had to change the Constitution and if voters must be rounded up and urged to vote instead of doing so of their own will. Furthermore, the recent crisis has revealed that the rule of law in the Northeast is not to be trusted, as is the case with the Recall Amendment. I argue that nothing more can be done until we determine whether the statute of the Northeast is legitimate and valid.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 23, 2011, 04:05:10 PM
I'll nominate myself as well. Anyone else?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on April 23, 2011, 05:02:41 PM
The SRC's report does not have the force of law. It is merely produced as expert recommendation of a course of action to be taken by the Assembly, which is at liberty to approve or reject specific recommendations of the SRC.

It may be necessary to make an appeal to the Senate to declare some sort of state of emergency in the Northeast, since it appears that democracy is in an exceptionally weak state if a quorum cannot be had to change the Constitution and if voters must be rounded up and urged to vote instead of doing so of their own will. Furthermore, the recent crisis has revealed that the rule of law in the Northeast is not to be trusted, as is the case with the Recall Amendment. I argue that nothing more can be done until we determine whether the statute of the Northeast is legitimate and valid.

Never mind about that State of Emergency bit. cinyc has made me much less afraid about the laws' legitimacy. I still say though that the SRC has to get started as soon as possible. I'd be thrilled to be working with Napoleon and Dallasfan on such an important matter.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Hatman 🍁 on April 24, 2011, 07:04:19 AM
I hadn't realized I won a seat, folks. Where do I sign in? Here?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 24, 2011, 11:10:05 AM
I hadn't realized I won a seat, folks. Where do I sign in? Here?

Swearing in thread on the government board.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 24, 2011, 11:16:33 AM
I'm also putting myself forward if there's any way I can be of use.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 24, 2011, 01:46:35 PM
I hadn't realized I won a seat, folks. Where do I sign in? Here?

The swearing-in thread is here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=36934


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on April 24, 2011, 04:35:54 PM
I'm also putting myself forward if there's any way I can be of use.

I will nominate Polnut, then. The legislation limits the commission to four people, so the four could be myself, Dallasfan, Napoleon and Polnut: a fantastic group!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 24, 2011, 06:58:43 PM
We will now vote on SRC nominees.

Polnut- Aye
Homelycooking- Aye
Dallasfan- Aye
Napoleon- Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on April 24, 2011, 07:43:38 PM
Polnut- Aye
Homelycooking- Aye
Dallasfan- Aye
Napoleon- Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on April 24, 2011, 08:40:35 PM
Polnut- Aye
Homelycooking- Aye
Dallasfan- Aye
Napoleon- Aye



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on April 24, 2011, 08:42:34 PM
Aye to all 4.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 25, 2011, 07:35:12 PM
All four nominees are confirmed. Commissioners, please sign into the thread.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 25, 2011, 09:15:12 PM
The Small Government Act of 2011

ARTICLE IV - EXECUTIVE BRANCH is amended to read as follows:

i) The executive authority of the Northeast Region shall be vested first and foremost in the Governor of the Northeast Region.

ii) The Governor must be elected democratically by the people of the Northeast Region.

iii)Elections are to be held every October, February and June for Governor.

iv) All citizens of the Northeast Region shall have one vote for Governor. A polling booth shall be created by the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region. He or she will open the booth on the third Friday at 12:00:00am Eastern Standard Time of every October, February and June and will close said both on the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm Eastern Standard Time. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote during this time. The Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region must accept any absentee ballot conducted one week prior to the opening of the polls.

v) Candidates for Governor will be given until the second Friday of the month in which he or she wishes to run in an election thereof to announce his candidacy. This is to be done by officially notifying the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region.

vi) When the polls close, the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region shall be given twenty-four hours to count the votes and declare a winner. The candidate with the most votes for the office of Governor shall be made Governor. The newly elected Governor is to be officially sworn in on the Tuesday following the election and shall immediately assume office at that point. In the case of a tie, all tied candidates are to run in a run-off election the following week to determine a winner.

vii) There may only be one Governorat any point in time. Once a new Governor is sworn in, the former one forfeits his or her office.

viii) If the office of Governor is to become vacant at some point while he or she is in office, than the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly is to be immediately sworn in as Acting Governor of the Northeast Region, while maintaining his or her role as presiding officer of the Legislative Assembly.

ix) A Governor may be impeached at any time while they are in office by the will of two thirds of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.

x) The Governor has the power to make political appointments and to be the official representative of the Region to the rest of Atlas Forum with the recommendation of the General Assembly of the Northeast Region. The Primary responsibility of the Governor shall be to work with the regional Senators and the Forum President to ensure that the rights, liberties, and interests of the people of the Northeast Region are protected.

xi) The Governor has veto power over any piece of legislation that the Northeast Assembly shall successfully vote in favour. The Governor may not have the power to veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. The Governor is required to sign all pieces of legislation he supports into law after it passes a successful vote in the Legislative Assembly within one week of its passing. Once he or she has signed the legislation, it immediately becomes law unless otherwise stated in the legislation itself. If the Governor does not sign the successful legislation after one week, than it becomes law immediately.

xii) The Governor is obligated to present the Legislative Assembly a budget every January, if he or she is in office at that time. The budget of all government activities is to be voted on by the Assembly in the same January. The Governor is obligated that the budget does not provide for any deficits excepting times of emergency or war, a condition the Legislative Assembly must successfully endorse.

xiii) In the temporary absence of the Governor, then the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly may be allowed to temporarily conduct the duties of the Governor.

xiv) The chain of command for the Governorship of the Northeast Region shall be as follows: Governor, , Chief Judicial Officer, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Longest continuously serving Representative of the Northeast Region, followed by the next longest and the next and so on. The chain of command shall be used to fill sudden vacancies in the office of Governor.

Article V is amended to read as follows:

xiv) The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast acts as the President of the Northeast Legislative Assembly. He officially opens and closes the sessions, organizes votes on legislation and notifies the Reps of the results of any official vote. If a vote results in a perfect tie. In this case, the Governor shall be allowed to vote to break said tie.

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor’s veto. If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by more than a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor’s signature. An override vote resulting in an exactly two-thirds majority shall be considered failed.

Article VI is amended to read as follows:

iv) No persons shall hold the positions of Governor and Chief Judicial Officer at the same time.


Now we'll begin debate on this proposed amendment. 48 hours, everyone.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on April 25, 2011, 10:06:54 PM
The idea of eliminating the Lieutenant Governor position is one I have always supported, and I think this amendment does a good job of it. I do think, however, that language should be inserted that specifies for a special election to be held if the Governor's absence or inactivity is longer than, say, one week. The amount of time during which the Speaker would be wearing both legislative and executive "hats" ought to be severely constrained.

Under your amendment, can a Governor in absence reclaim his office from an Acting Governor if he returns? Also, you write that "there can only be one Governor at one time". Is the Governor removed from office if he announces a period of leave? Does the Acting Governor count as Governor during that time?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 25, 2011, 10:09:03 PM
Good idea, I'll get to work on a re-draft. We could include the recall amendment here too but I think it'd be better to have the people vote on them separately.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on April 26, 2011, 08:14:59 PM
Two things:

1) Note that if this proposed amendment is passed and signed by the Governor before May 13, it will be put for a vote in a May special election, which usually has lower turnout than a regular June election.

2) If you're amending the relevant provisions anyway, it might make sense to formalize procedures where someone else can open a voting booth if the CJO fails to do so or that position is vacant.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 28, 2011, 11:08:18 PM
I'm going to extend this another 24, I've beena bit busy. Sorry guys.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 30, 2011, 01:04:19 PM
Quote
ARTICLE IV - EXECUTIVE BRANCH is amended to read as follows:

i) The executive authority of the Northeast Region shall be vested first and foremost in the Governor of the Northeast Region.

ii) The Governor must be elected democratically by the people of the Northeast Region.

iii)Elections are to be held every October, February and June for Governor.

iv) All citizens of the Northeast Region shall have one vote for Governor. A polling booth shall be created by the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region. He or she will open the booth on the third Friday at 12:00:00am Eastern Standard Time of every October, February and June and will close said both on the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm Eastern Standard Time. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote during this time. The Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region must accept any absentee ballot conducted one week prior to the opening of the polls.

v) Candidates for Governor will be given until the second Friday of the month in which he or she wishes to run in an election thereof to announce his candidacy. This is to be done by officially notifying the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region.

vi) When the polls close, the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region shall be given twenty-four hours to count the votes and declare a winner. The candidate with the most votes for the office of Governor shall be made Governor. The newly elected Governor is to be officially sworn in on the Tuesday following the election and shall immediately assume office at that point. In the case of a tie, all tied candidates are to run in a run-off election the following week to determine a winner.

vii) There may only be one Governor at any point in time. Once a new Governor is sworn in, the former one forfeits his or her office. A temporary acting Governor may not swear in, and shall not be considered a replacement for the Governor.

viii) If the office of Governor is to become vacant at some point while he or she is in office, than the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly is to be immediately sworn in as Acting Governor of the Northeast Region, while maintaining his or her role as presiding officer of the Legislative Assembly.

ix) A Governor may be impeached at any time while they are in office by the will of two thirds of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.

x) The Governor has the power to make political appointments and to be the official representative of the Region to the rest of Atlas Forum with the recommendation of the General Assembly of the Northeast Region. The Primary responsibility of the Governor shall be to work with the regional Senators and the Forum President to ensure that the rights, liberties, and interests of the people of the Northeast Region are protected.

xi) The Governor has veto power over any piece of legislation that the Northeast Assembly shall successfully vote in favor. The Governor may not have the power to veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. The Governor is required to sign all pieces of legislation he supports into law after it passes a successful vote in the Legislative Assembly within one week of its passing. Once he or she has signed the legislation, it immediately becomes law unless otherwise stated in the legislation itself. If the Governor does not sign the successful legislation after one week, than it becomes law immediately.

xii) The Governor is obligated to present the Legislative Assembly a budget every January, if he or she is in office at that time. The budget of all government activities is to be voted on by the Assembly in the same January. The Governor is obligated that the budget does not provide for any deficits excepting times of emergency or war, a condition the Legislative Assembly must successfully endorse.

xiii) In the temporary absence of the Governor, then the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly may be allowed to temporarily conduct the duties of the Governor as acting Governor. Temporary absence may last up to seven days unless specifically determined by the Governor. If seven days of undeclared absence pass, a special election shall be held to replace the Governor for the remainder of the term. The special election must take place no less than 5 days following the seven day absence and the booth shall be opened by the Chief Judicial Officer at 12:00 AM EST on the nearest Friday, provided that Friday is at least 5 days since the vacancy occurred and shall close on that Sunday at 11:59 PM EST.

xiv) The chain of command for the Governorship of the Northeast Region shall be as follows: Governor, , Chief Judicial Officer, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Longest continuously serving Representative of the Northeast Region, followed by the next longest and the next and so on. The chain of command shall be used to fill sudden vacancies in the office of Governor.

Article V is amended to read as follows:

xiv) The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast acts as the President of the Northeast Legislative Assembly. He officially opens and closes the sessions, organizes votes on legislation and notifies the Reps of the results of any official vote. If a vote results in a perfect tie. In this case, the Governor shall be allowed to vote to break said tie.

xv) The Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor’s veto. If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by more than a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor’s signature. An override vote resulting in an exactly two-thirds majority shall be considered failed.

Article VI is amended to read as follows:

iv) No persons shall hold the positions of Governor and Chief Judicial Officer at the same time.


Representatives, you have 24 hours to vote on the amendments I made.

This is not a final vote!!!!!!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on April 30, 2011, 01:44:28 PM
Sorry for being a bit dense, but could you perhaps bold or highlight the areas in which you made changes?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 30, 2011, 02:06:22 PM
Sorry for being a bit dense, but could you perhaps bold or highlight the areas in which you made changes?

Sections 8 and 13, next time ill do that to begin with.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on April 30, 2011, 02:22:39 PM
I'm a bit wary of having the assembly speaker be next in line after the governor - you're making it into a partisan position in that case, which I'm not very big on.  I think it would be better to have the CJO be next in line.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 30, 2011, 02:41:18 PM
I'm a bit wary of having the assembly speaker be next in line after the governor - you're making it into a partisan position in that case, which I'm not very big on.  I think it would be better to have the CJO be next in line.

I'd rather the CJO stay away from partisan politics than the Speaker, an elected Representative then chosen by his or her peers.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on April 30, 2011, 02:45:04 PM
Whatever the case, I don't think a partisan speaker is a good idea.  I'd rather that the assembly choose a (consenting) replacement from among its members, or that the office be left vacant prior to a special election being held.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 30, 2011, 02:56:07 PM
Whatever the case, I don't think a partisan speaker is a good idea.  I'd rather that the assembly choose a (consenting) replacement from among its members, or that the office be left vacant prior to a special election being held.

We could limit acting Governor powers to only amendments, elections, and emergency executive actions. No legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on April 30, 2011, 03:02:44 PM
Whatever the case, I don't think a partisan speaker is a good idea.  I'd rather that the assembly choose a (consenting) replacement from among its members, or that the office be left vacant prior to a special election being held.

We could limit acting Governor powers to only amendments, elections, and emergency executive actions. No legislation.

Sounds like a reasonable compromise.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on April 30, 2011, 03:17:26 PM
What determines whether a governor is absent, assuming that he hasn't declared his leave? Is it a failure to post in certain forums, to respond to messages, to visit the forum in general? In other words, how do we determine when the 7 days begin, when they end, and when they may have been interrupted? Also, does the passage of those 7 days of "inactivity" constitute a "sudden vacancy"?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 30, 2011, 03:22:40 PM
What determines whether a governor is absent, assuming that he hasn't declared his leave? Is it a failure to post in certain forums, to respond to messages, to visit the forum in general? In other words, how do we determine when the 7 days begin, when they end, and when they may have been interrupted? Also, does the passage of those 7 days of "inactivity" constitute a "sudden vacancy"?

We need to decide that right now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 01, 2011, 01:50:48 PM
I am tabling this for now. We need to consider a Constitutional Convention, it's getting a bit ridiculous.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 01, 2011, 06:35:41 PM
Vital Civic Information Act

1. The Government of the Northeast shall keep a complete and accurate record at all times of the names of current members of the Assembly, the names of the region's executive and judicial officers, the dates of any forthcoming general or special elections and any other information which the government sees fit to make its citizens aware of.

2. The information to be made public by this act shall be published within three days of the passage of this Act.

3. Any future changes to the above information must be made within three days of an event necessitating a change, such as a new officer/legislator's ascendance to or removal from his respective office or the calling of a new special election.

4. Any member of the Legislature, or of the Executive or Judicial Branches, may make any necessary changes to the above information.

5. The above information shall be made public through at least one of the following media:
a. A new thread in the Regional Governments subforum of the Atlas Fantasy Government forum; or
b. The appropriate pages in the Atlasia Wiki.

6. If any inappropriate information, such as any egregious self-promotional, offensive or irrelevant text is made public through the media specified in 5 a or b, the Chief Judicial Officer is hereby authorized to remove it, at his discretion, upon the recommendation of any Northeast Citizen.
I move that this be considered by the Assembly, all in favour say 'aye', the ayes have it.

The sponsor, Representative homelycooking, will now speak to the Bill, debate will last 48 hours.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 01, 2011, 08:19:01 PM
My purpose in writing this bill was obvious: I think our citizens ought to be able to go to a thread or a Wiki page and find out who their elected officials are. When I first arrived in the Northeast, I had to ask to find out who some of my representatives were. I don't want that to be the case for any resident in the future, and so I urge passage of this act so that we have a statutory mandate for information availability and civic communication in the Northeast.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 01, 2011, 09:56:09 PM
This has my full support. We should consider linking new citizens to this information when they join.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on May 02, 2011, 02:38:34 PM
Well, we do have a Wiki page (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Northeast_Region), listing government officials.  That it hadn't been routinely updated over the past year or so is the bigger issue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on May 02, 2011, 02:46:03 PM
FYI-
This morning, Jake Matthews resigned from the Lt. Governorship (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=36934.msg2887277#msg2887277) and swore in as a member of the Northeast Assembly.  Under Article IV, Section vii of the New Northeast Constitution (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/New_Northeast_Constitution#ARTICLE_IV_-_EXECUTIVE_BRANCH), the Assembly must recommend someone to fill the vacant Lt. Governor's seat before the Governor can name a replacement.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 02, 2011, 04:52:20 PM
Well, we do have a Wiki page (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Northeast_Region), listing government officials.  That it hadn't been routinely updated over the past year or so is the bigger issue.

My problem with the Wiki is that there are a number of pages referencing current or past NE officials, and it's difficult to make sure that all of them are correct and up to date. A new thread might be more useful, considering that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 02, 2011, 04:57:21 PM
We will hold a nomination period for Lt. Governor concurrently, as not to delay the resolution for a Constitutional Convention.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on May 02, 2011, 05:02:17 PM
I'll nominate Representative Homelycooking for Lt. Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 02, 2011, 05:06:16 PM

The CJO has stated that you are not a member of the Assembly. I planned to nominate you, since you are out of a job apparently.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on May 03, 2011, 03:00:03 AM

The CJO has stated that you are not a member of the Assembly. I planned to nominate you, since you are out of a job apparently.

Well, technically, the CJO has stated that the Governor did not certify Wormguy a member of this Assembly, but if anyone disagrees with that certification and has a valid legal argument, they are more than welcome to file a lawsuit in my court - as with any certification.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 04, 2011, 07:10:18 PM

Vital Civic Information Act

1. The Government of the Northeast shall keep a complete and accurate record at all times of the names of current members of the Assembly, the names of the region's executive and judicial officers, the dates of any forthcoming general or special elections and any other information which the government sees fit to make its citizens aware of.

2. The information to be made public by this act shall be published within three days of the passage of this Act.

3. Any future changes to the above information must be made within three days of an event necessitating a change, such as a new officer/legislator's ascendance to or removal from his respective office or the calling of a new special election.

4. Any member of the Legislature, or of the Executive or Judicial Branches, may make any necessary changes to the above information.

5. The above information shall be made public through at least one of the following media:
a. A new thread in the Regional Governments subforum of the Atlas Fantasy Government forum; or
b. The appropriate pages in the Atlasia Wiki.

6. If any inappropriate information, such as any egregious self-promotional, offensive or irrelevant text is made public through the media specified in 5 a or b, the Chief Judicial Officer is hereby authorized to remove it, at his discretion, upon the recommendation of any Northeast Citizen.

A final vote is called for this legislation. Representatives you have 24 hours to vote.

We will simultaneously recommend a Lt. Governor.

[ ] wormyguy
[ ] Write-in: _____________


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 05, 2011, 10:02:27 AM
On the bill: Aye.
For lieutenant governor: Wormyguy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on May 05, 2011, 01:14:43 PM
On the bill: Aye.
For lieutenant governor: Wormyguy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 05, 2011, 01:16:02 PM
On the bill: Aye.
For lieutenant governor: Wormyguy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 05, 2011, 03:02:35 PM
On the bill: Aye.

For Lt. Governor:
[1] Wormyguy
[2] Osama bin Laden
[3] The guy that killed Osama bin Laden
[4] Bobby McFerrin


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Hatman 🍁 on May 05, 2011, 07:45:12 PM
Aye
EarlAW


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on May 07, 2011, 03:00:55 PM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 07, 2011, 08:34:08 PM
Assemblymen:

On behalf of the SRC, I humbly request that the SRC's commission be extended to the 20th day following the passage of the bill, or this Thursday. The commission has been hard at work, but we need additional time to finish our review and assemble the final report.

hc/lcf, Chairman of the Statutory Review Commission


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 08, 2011, 12:41:25 AM
Sorry I've been absent and probably will remain so until Monday. Wormyguy is recommended and this bill has passed as well.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 08, 2011, 08:27:57 PM
Shall the SRC be given until the 20th day?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 08, 2011, 09:30:21 PM
Shall the SRC be given until the 20th day?

[X] Yes
[ ] No


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 09, 2011, 09:20:58 AM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on May 09, 2011, 10:28:02 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 09, 2011, 10:29:23 PM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on May 11, 2011, 05:38:34 AM
Shall the SRC be given until the 20th day?

  • Yes
[ ] No


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 11, 2011, 02:25:18 PM
So the SRC has more time and completed its task. Before we start voting on the report,  which may take a few days to debate, I'd like to put this on the floor.

Resolution for a Constitutional Convention


The Assembly of the Northeast hereby authorizes a Constitutional Convention to prepare a document by the 10th of June, to replace or modify the existing Constitution in accordance with current amending procedure.

I also motion to shorten debate to 24 hours. We shall now vote on the motion, aye or nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 11, 2011, 03:19:08 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 11, 2011, 07:46:29 PM

To be clear, Napoleon, the SRC hasn't finished its job yet. We'll be finished when the report gets approved by its members.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 11, 2011, 07:51:40 PM

To be clear, Napoleon, the SRC hasn't finished its job yet. We'll be finished when the report gets approved by its members.


Aye and you're right, my mistake.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 12, 2011, 03:04:20 PM
The motion has passed so we shall proceed to a final vote.

AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 12, 2011, 09:23:02 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on May 12, 2011, 10:16:42 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 13, 2011, 03:14:36 PM
The Northeast Assembly has authorized a Constitutional convention.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 13, 2011, 04:36:59 PM
Resolution Thanking Rowan Brandon

The Northeast Assembly hereby thanks Senator Rowan Brandon for his invaluable service to the Region and we on this day declare him Atlasia's greatest senator in modern history. The Assembly also hopes that his service to Region and Nation will continue as the nation's President.

We will now begin debate on this bill. The sponsor, Giovanni, has the floor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 13, 2011, 04:37:44 PM
Very inappropriate and undeserved.  Motion to table.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 13, 2011, 04:39:23 PM
Very inappropriate and undeserved.  Motion to table.

Seconded.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 13, 2011, 04:40:26 PM
We will now hold a vote on tabling this frivolous bill.

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 13, 2011, 04:43:57 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 13, 2011, 07:23:02 PM
Aye. Let's move on to more pressing matters.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 14, 2011, 04:44:01 PM
This bill is banished to the tabled-zone.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 14, 2011, 04:47:24 PM
The time has come for us to review and vote on the report by the SRC.

Report of the Statutory Review Commission

The Statutory Review Commission of the Northeast, having concluded its review of the statute, recommends the following changes to Northeast law:

1. Section IV of the Northeastern Healthcare Act is amended to include:

Quote
- The provisions of this act shall not be construed to limit the award of compensatory damages.

- The loser of the said lawsuit is hereby required to pay the legal fees of the winning party up to a reasonable maximum.

2. Article B, Section 2 of the Northeast Medical Savings Account Act is hereby repealed.

3. The Northeast Pornography and Age of Consent Act is amended to include:

Quote
1.  Section 3, Clause 1 is deleted and replaced with the following "All those persons of 16 years of age or older, not incarcerated for crimes, shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons of 16 years of age or older."
2. "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 17 years or younger is guilty of statutory rape." is amended to read "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person younger than the age of 16 is guilty of statutory rape."

4. The Children's Healthcare Act is hereby repealed.

5. Sections 1, 2 and 3 of The Smoking Age Standardization Act are amended as follows:

Quote
SECTION 1.  Smoking age.  Except as provided in Section 3, no person under 18 years of age may do any of the following:
a. Buy or attempt to buy any cigarette or tobacco product.
b. Falsely represent his or her age for the purpose of receiving any cigarette or tobacco product.
c. Possess any cigarette or tobacco product.

SECTION 2.  Sale to persons under 18.  Except as provided in Section 3, no person may do any of the following:
a. Knowingly sell or otherwise distribute cigarettes to a person under the age of 18.
b. During the course of a sale of tobacco products, fail to perform a reasonable check of identification on persons appearing to be under the age of 28.

SECTION 3.  Exception.  A person under the age of 18 may purchase or possess cigarettes of tobacco products for the sole purpose of resale in the course of employment of a business registered under the tax code of the Northeast.


6. Section 4 of the Predatory Lending Prohibition Act is amended as follows:

Quote
SECTION 4.  Penalties.  The penalty for violation of any section of this act on the part of the lender shall be $10,000 per offense.

7. Section 1 of the Fair Property Valuation Act is hereby repealed.

8. The Northeast Speed Limit Standardization Act is hereby repealed.

9. The Northeast Region Legislation Standardization Act is hereby repealed.

10. The Preferential Voting Act is amended as follows:

Quote
Whereas preferential voting is more representative of the will of the voters than the current first-past-the-post plurality voting method used by the Northeast,

Be it resolved that future elections in the Northeast for Governor and Lieutenant Governor shall be done by preferential voting, wherein, if no candidate has a majority of first preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first preference votes is eliminated and his/her votes redistributed, until a candidate has reached a majority of votes or there is a tie between all remaining candidates, in which a case a run-off shall be held one week from the date of the opening of the polls in the regular election.

11. Subsections 1 and 2 of Section 1 of the The Campaigning for Invalidation of Votes Initiative are amended as follows:

Quote
1. It shall be a crime against the Northeast Region for any Northeast citizen to instruct or encourage a voter who has already cast his or her ballot in an election for a regional office to take an action that would have the effect of invalidating the ballot.
2. The above provision applies to any election for Northeast Governor or Lieutenant Governor, any vote on a Proposition, Initiative, Recall, Regional Constitutional Amendment or other regional referendum, election or plebiscite.

12. The Nullification Resolution is hereby repealed.

13. Section 2 of the Proposition on the Officialization of the Separation of Religion and State is amended as follows:

Quote
While education based upon religious law, dictates or dogma is hereby forbidden in all schools funded by the Regional government, any private educational institution not receiving funds from the Government shall not be subject to any controls regarding the religious nature of its curriculum.

14. Section 5 of the Northeast Assembly Speaker Act is amended as follows:

Quote
5. If the office of the Speaker becomes vacant for any reason, the Northeast Assembly shall elect a new Speaker from among its members by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly within three days of the vacancy arising, until which time no legislation may be brought to the floor.


15. Subsections a and c of Section 1 (Proposed Legislation Thread) of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure are hereby repealed and subsection e of Section 2 (Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor) of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure is hereby repealed.

16.  Section 2 (Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor) of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure is amended to replace all references to the Lieutenant Governor with references to the Speaker of the Assembly.

17. Section 2 (Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor) of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure is specifically amended as follows:

Quote
Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), the Speaker shall place legislation from the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread on the Northeast Assembly floor (on behalf and stating the name of the sponsor) in chronological order, starting with the earliest piece of proposed legislation.

18. The Northeast Tax Initiative of March 2005 is hereby repealed.

19. The following amendment shall be made to the Northeastern Green Jobs Act:

Quote
5. A “green job”, for the purposes of this legislation, is defined as any full time employment in a business producing renewable energy, consumer or industrial products at least 50% more energy efficient than the market average, retrofits or installations intended to increase energy efficiency, or suppliers thereto.

20. The Self Defense Act is hereby repealed.

21. The Wiki Emergency Act is hereby repealed.

22. The Northeast Order of Precedence Act is amended as follows:

Quote
1. The Northeast Region shall use following order for ceremonial purposes:
a. Governor;
b. Lieutenant Governor;
c. Chief Judicial Officer;
d. Speaker of the Assembly;
e. Current Representatives by length of service

23. Section 2 of the Vacancy Filling Act is amended as follows:

Quote
2. The special election must take place on the nearest Friday falling on or after the third day following the vacancy. The booth for the special election shall open at 12:00 AM EST on that Friday and shall close on the following Sunday at 11:59 PM EST, and shall be administered by the appropriate official.


We, the undersigned commissioners, do hereby endorse these recommendations and urge the Assembly to adopt them forthwith.

Signed this 11th day of May 2011,

x homelycooking, Commissioner
x Dallasfan65, Commissioner
x Polnut, Commissioner
x Napoleon, Commissioner


We will have 48 hours of debate, which will be extended if deemed necessary. I expect full participation, Representatives.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 14, 2011, 04:53:19 PM
Right off the bat I'd like to state my disapproval of #3. We shouldn't undo the liberalization of sex laws in this region.
I also think #14 needs to be a 24 hour nomination period followed by a vote rather than a three day waiting period.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 14, 2011, 09:35:03 PM
Right off the bat I'd like to state my disapproval of #3. We shouldn't undo the liberalization of sex laws in this region.
I also think #14 needs to be a 24 hour nomination period followed by a vote rather than a three day waiting period.

In 24 hours, a "majority of all Assembly members" may not be present for a vote. Perhaps we should replace time-restricted language with "until such time as a majority of the membership of the Assembly comes to a consensus regarding its choice for speaker"?

Agreed on number 3. While I agree with the changes that it makes, the SRC report is not the place for it. Since it is not an issue of quality or clarity, it ought to be considered as separate legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 14, 2011, 09:36:37 PM
I mean a 24 hour nomination period, which would be followed by a 24 hour vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 14, 2011, 09:42:36 PM
I mean a 24 hour nomination period, which would be followed by a 24 hour vote.

So you would suggest changing three to two in #14?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 15, 2011, 10:06:36 PM
I mean a 24 hour nomination period, which would be followed by a 24 hour vote.

So you would suggest changing three to two in #14?

I suggest changing it to an immediate 24 hour nomination period, followed by a 24 hour vote, just to make the procedure clear.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 15, 2011, 10:28:26 PM
Fair enough. I have no problem with that. But what if a majority of the Assembly does not show up for a vote/nomination? No other business of the Assembly is allowed, perhaps, until the new speaker is elected?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 15, 2011, 10:43:44 PM
Presumably the Lt. Governor would run things until a Speaker is properly elected.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 18, 2011, 07:10:18 AM
Anything else guys?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 19, 2011, 05:45:44 PM
Is this ready for final vote? Is anyone going to say anything?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 19, 2011, 05:54:53 PM
I think it is, including the amendment to #14 and the removal of #3. Unless anyone else has any concerns (though myself, Napoleon and Jake have been the only active members on the floor for about the past two weeks now), let's get this done.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 19, 2011, 07:38:03 PM
Alright, time for a final vote!

Report of the Statutory Review Commission

The Statutory Review Commission of the Northeast, having concluded its review of the statute, recommends the following changes to Northeast law:

1. Section IV of the Northeastern Healthcare Act is amended to include:

Quote
- The provisions of this act shall not be construed to limit the award of compensatory damages.

- The loser of the said lawsuit is hereby required to pay the legal fees of the winning party up to a reasonable maximum.

2. Article B, Section 2 of the Northeast Medical Savings Account Act is hereby repealed.

3. The Children's Healthcare Act is hereby repealed.

4. Sections 1, 2 and 3 of The Smoking Age Standardization Act are amended as follows:

Quote
SECTION 1.  Smoking age.  Except as provided in Section 3, no person under 18 years of age may do any of the following:
a. Buy or attempt to buy any cigarette or tobacco product.
b. Falsely represent his or her age for the purpose of receiving any cigarette or tobacco product.
c. Possess any cigarette or tobacco product.

SECTION 2.  Sale to persons under 18.  Except as provided in Section 3, no person may do any of the following:
a. Knowingly sell or otherwise distribute cigarettes to a person under the age of 18.
b. During the course of a sale of tobacco products, fail to perform a reasonable check of identification on persons appearing to be under the age of 28.

SECTION 3.  Exception.  A person under the age of 18 may purchase or possess cigarettes of tobacco products for the sole purpose of resale in the course of employment of a business registered under the tax code of the Northeast.


5. Section 4 of the Predatory Lending Prohibition Act is amended as follows:

Quote
SECTION 4.  Penalties.  The penalty for violation of any section of this act on the part of the lender shall be $10,000 per offense.

6. Section 1 of the Fair Property Valuation Act is hereby repealed.

7. The Northeast Speed Limit Standardization Act is hereby repealed.

8. The Northeast Region Legislation Standardization Act is hereby repealed.

9. The Preferential Voting Act is amended as follows:

Quote
Whereas preferential voting is more representative of the will of the voters than the current first-past-the-post plurality voting method used by the Northeast,

Be it resolved that future elections in the Northeast for Governor and Lieutenant Governor shall be done by preferential voting, wherein, if no candidate has a majority of first preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first preference votes is eliminated and his/her votes redistributed, until a candidate has reached a majority of votes or there is a tie between all remaining candidates, in which a case a run-off shall be held one week from the date of the opening of the polls in the regular election.

10. Subsections 1 and 2 of Section 1 of the The Campaigning for Invalidation of Votes Initiative are amended as follows:

Quote
1. It shall be a crime against the Northeast Region for any Northeast citizen to instruct or encourage a voter who has already cast his or her ballot in an election for a regional office to take an action that would have the effect of invalidating the ballot.
2. The above provision applies to any election for Northeast Governor or Lieutenant Governor, any vote on a Proposition, Initiative, Recall, Regional Constitutional Amendment or other regional referendum, election or plebiscite.

11. The Nullification Resolution is hereby repealed.

12. Section 2 of the Proposition on the Officialization of the Separation of Religion and State is amended as follows:

Quote
While education based upon religious law, dictates or dogma is hereby forbidden in all schools funded by the Regional government, any private educational institution not receiving funds from the Government shall not be subject to any controls regarding the religious nature of its curriculum.

13. Section 5 of the Northeast Assembly Speaker Act is amended as follows:

Quote
5. If the office of the Speaker becomes vacant for any reason, the Northeast Assembly shall elect a new Speaker from among its members by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly with an immediate nomination period followed by a vote, until which time no legislation may be brought to the floor.


14. Subsections a and c of Section 1 (Proposed Legislation Thread) of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure are hereby repealed and subsection e of Section 2 (Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor) of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure is hereby repealed.

15.  Section 2 (Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor) of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure is amended to replace all references to the Lieutenant Governor with references to the Speaker of the Assembly.

16. Section 2 (Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor) of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure is specifically amended as follows:

Quote
Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), the Speaker shall place legislation from the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread on the Northeast Assembly floor (on behalf and stating the name of the sponsor) in chronological order, starting with the earliest piece of proposed legislation.

17. The Northeast Tax Initiative of March 2005 is hereby repealed.

18. The following amendment shall be made to the Northeastern Green Jobs Act:

Quote
5. A “green job”, for the purposes of this legislation, is defined as any full time employment in a business producing renewable energy, consumer or industrial products at least 50% more energy efficient than the market average, retrofits or installations intended to increase energy efficiency, or suppliers thereto.

19. The Self Defense Act is hereby repealed.

20. The Wiki Emergency Act is hereby repealed.

21. The Northeast Order of Precedence Act is amended as follows:

Quote
1. The Northeast Region shall use following order for ceremonial purposes:
a. Governor;
b. Lieutenant Governor;
c. Chief Judicial Officer;
d. Speaker of the Assembly;
e. Current Representatives by length of service

22. Section 2 of the Vacancy Filling Act is amended as follows:

Quote
2. The special election must take place on the nearest Friday falling on or after the third day following the vacancy. The booth for the special election shall open at 12:00 AM EST on that Friday and shall close on the following Sunday at 11:59 PM EST, and shall be administered by the appropriate official.


We, the undersigned commissioners, do hereby endorse these recommendations and urge the Assembly to adopt them forthwith.

Signed this 11th day of May 2011,

x homelycooking, Commissioner
x Dallasfan65, Commissioner
x Polnut, Commissioner
x Napoleon, Commissioner


We will have 48 hours of debate, which will be extended if deemed necessary. I expect full participation, Representatives.
[/quote]


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 19, 2011, 07:38:37 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 20, 2011, 07:50:15 PM
With one vote in favor, out of one total, this legislation hasgpassed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 20, 2011, 08:11:58 PM
We can't even get half of the Assembly to discuss or take action on the biggest endeavor to come before this body this year? Shameful.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 20, 2011, 08:16:13 PM
We can't even get half of the Assembly to discuss or take action on the biggest endeavor to come before this body this year? Shameful.

My greatest apologies for not voting :(


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 20, 2011, 08:47:23 PM
We can't even get half of the Assembly to discuss or take action on the biggest endeavor to come before this body this year? Shameful.

My greatest apologies for not voting :(

I wasn't referring to you. I was talking about sbane, Giovanni and Hatman, who haven't done or said anything in the capacity of Assemblyman for almost two weeks now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 20, 2011, 09:12:21 PM
We can't even get half of the Assembly to discuss or take action on the biggest endeavor to come before this body this year? Shameful.

My greatest apologies for not voting :(

I wasn't referring to you. I was talking about sbane, Giovanni and Hatman, who haven't done or said anything in the capacity of Assemblyman for almost two weeks now.

True dat. But honestly, Giovanni's presence, or lackthereof, doesn't affect him any more/less than a generic non-NE Citizen.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 21, 2011, 01:59:06 PM
Northeast Parks and Recreation Use Act

1. This act shall be applied only to those lands and facilities operated and maintained by the state and/or regional governments.

2. Citizens and legal residents of the Northeast shall not be required to pay any fee for use of state and/or regional parks or recreational facilities.

3. Citizens and legal residents of the Northeast are eligible for free admission to state parks and recreational facilities not operated or maintained by the regional government irrespective of their state of residence.

4. Nonresidents of the Northeast may be required to pay a fee for use of state and/or regional parks or recreational facilities where applicable.


We will have 48 hours for debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 21, 2011, 02:13:03 PM
Napoleon, was it your intention to exclude local jurisdictions from the purview of this bill? Nothing would prevent a town from charging admission to its local park - did you want to protect municipalities' ability to do this?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 21, 2011, 02:18:13 PM
Napoleon, was it your intention to exclude local jurisdictions from the purview of this bill? Nothing would prevent a town from charging admission to its local park - did you want to protect municipalities' ability to do this?
There are instances where private events are sometimes held in public municipal Parks, I wasn't surest if this practice should be eliminated or not.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 21, 2011, 03:41:38 PM
I'm all for keeping the language as it is, with the exemption for local authorities. I just wanted to know if that was your intention.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 21, 2011, 03:47:35 PM
I think it'd be great if we expanded the bill with a provision to improve our regional parks and help reduce litter in local parks if we could.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 21, 2011, 04:24:26 PM
I think it'd be great if we expanded the bill with a provision to improve our regional parks and help reduce litter in local parks if we could.
Draft an amendment, that would be a good idea.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Hatman 🍁 on May 21, 2011, 05:14:09 PM
Alright, time for a final vote!

Report of the Statutory Review Commission

The Statutory Review Commission of the Northeast, having concluded its review of the statute, recommends the following changes to Northeast law:

1. Section IV of the Northeastern Healthcare Act is amended to include:

Quote
- The provisions of this act shall not be construed to limit the award of compensatory damages.

- The loser of the said lawsuit is hereby required to pay the legal fees of the winning party up to a reasonable maximum.

2. Article B, Section 2 of the Northeast Medical Savings Account Act is hereby repealed.

3. The Children's Healthcare Act is hereby repealed.

4. Sections 1, 2 and 3 of The Smoking Age Standardization Act are amended as follows:

Quote
SECTION 1.  Smoking age.  Except as provided in Section 3, no person under 18 years of age may do any of the following:
a. Buy or attempt to buy any cigarette or tobacco product.
b. Falsely represent his or her age for the purpose of receiving any cigarette or tobacco product.
c. Possess any cigarette or tobacco product.

SECTION 2.  Sale to persons under 18.  Except as provided in Section 3, no person may do any of the following:
a. Knowingly sell or otherwise distribute cigarettes to a person under the age of 18.
b. During the course of a sale of tobacco products, fail to perform a reasonable check of identification on persons appearing to be under the age of 28.

SECTION 3.  Exception.  A person under the age of 18 may purchase or possess cigarettes of tobacco products for the sole purpose of resale in the course of employment of a business registered under the tax code of the Northeast.


5. Section 4 of the Predatory Lending Prohibition Act is amended as follows:

Quote
SECTION 4.  Penalties.  The penalty for violation of any section of this act on the part of the lender shall be $10,000 per offense.

6. Section 1 of the Fair Property Valuation Act is hereby repealed.

7. The Northeast Speed Limit Standardization Act is hereby repealed.

8. The Northeast Region Legislation Standardization Act is hereby repealed.

9. The Preferential Voting Act is amended as follows:

Quote
Whereas preferential voting is more representative of the will of the voters than the current first-past-the-post plurality voting method used by the Northeast,

Be it resolved that future elections in the Northeast for Governor and Lieutenant Governor shall be done by preferential voting, wherein, if no candidate has a majority of first preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first preference votes is eliminated and his/her votes redistributed, until a candidate has reached a majority of votes or there is a tie between all remaining candidates, in which a case a run-off shall be held one week from the date of the opening of the polls in the regular election.

10. Subsections 1 and 2 of Section 1 of the The Campaigning for Invalidation of Votes Initiative are amended as follows:

Quote
1. It shall be a crime against the Northeast Region for any Northeast citizen to instruct or encourage a voter who has already cast his or her ballot in an election for a regional office to take an action that would have the effect of invalidating the ballot.
2. The above provision applies to any election for Northeast Governor or Lieutenant Governor, any vote on a Proposition, Initiative, Recall, Regional Constitutional Amendment or other regional referendum, election or plebiscite.

11. The Nullification Resolution is hereby repealed.

12. Section 2 of the Proposition on the Officialization of the Separation of Religion and State is amended as follows:

Quote
While education based upon religious law, dictates or dogma is hereby forbidden in all schools funded by the Regional government, any private educational institution not receiving funds from the Government shall not be subject to any controls regarding the religious nature of its curriculum.

13. Section 5 of the Northeast Assembly Speaker Act is amended as follows:

Quote
5. If the office of the Speaker becomes vacant for any reason, the Northeast Assembly shall elect a new Speaker from among its members by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly with an immediate nomination period followed by a vote, until which time no legislation may be brought to the floor.


14. Subsections a and c of Section 1 (Proposed Legislation Thread) of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure are hereby repealed and subsection e of Section 2 (Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor) of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure is hereby repealed.

15.  Section 2 (Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor) of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure is amended to replace all references to the Lieutenant Governor with references to the Speaker of the Assembly.

16. Section 2 (Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor) of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure is specifically amended as follows:

Quote
Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), the Speaker shall place legislation from the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread on the Northeast Assembly floor (on behalf and stating the name of the sponsor) in chronological order, starting with the earliest piece of proposed legislation.

17. The Northeast Tax Initiative of March 2005 is hereby repealed.

18. The following amendment shall be made to the Northeastern Green Jobs Act:

Quote
5. A “green job”, for the purposes of this legislation, is defined as any full time employment in a business producing renewable energy, consumer or industrial products at least 50% more energy efficient than the market average, retrofits or installations intended to increase energy efficiency, or suppliers thereto.

19. The Self Defense Act is hereby repealed.

20. The Wiki Emergency Act is hereby repealed.

21. The Northeast Order of Precedence Act is amended as follows:

Quote
1. The Northeast Region shall use following order for ceremonial purposes:
a. Governor;
b. Lieutenant Governor;
c. Chief Judicial Officer;
d. Speaker of the Assembly;
e. Current Representatives by length of service

22. Section 2 of the Vacancy Filling Act is amended as follows:

Quote
2. The special election must take place on the nearest Friday falling on or after the third day following the vacancy. The booth for the special election shall open at 12:00 AM EST on that Friday and shall close on the following Sunday at 11:59 PM EST, and shall be administered by the appropriate official.


We, the undersigned commissioners, do hereby endorse these recommendations and urge the Assembly to adopt them forthwith.

Signed this 11th day of May 2011,

x homelycooking, Commissioner
x Dallasfan65, Commissioner
x Polnut, Commissioner
x Napoleon, Commissioner


We will have 48 hours of debate, which will be extended if deemed necessary. I expect full participation, Representatives.
[/quote]

Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 21, 2011, 06:51:30 PM

Sorry, you're too late.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 21, 2011, 09:57:09 PM
The Governor has vetoed the SRC report, I think we should go for an override.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on May 21, 2011, 11:39:07 PM
I echo the governor's concerns, and would oppose an override.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on May 22, 2011, 12:17:56 AM
I support the SRC report and will vote for a veto override.

In regards to the Northeast parks and recreation act, I cannot support taking away user fees from parks. We need to fund those parks somehow, whether it is through user fees or through taxes. I strongly feel that those who are actually using the parks should at least pay for a part of the costs.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 22, 2011, 04:09:31 AM
I echo the governor's concerns, and would oppose an override.

Your opinion doesn't count.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 22, 2011, 09:25:55 AM
I echo the governor's concerns, and would oppose an override.

Giovanni, why don't you take a few minutes and read the report? The SRC spent a lot of time on that, and it's rather insulting to see people oppose it because it's long and they're too lazy to read it and understand the changes the report makes.

In regards to the Northeast parks and recreation act, I cannot support taking away user fees from parks. We need to fund those parks somehow, whether it is through user fees or through taxes. I strongly feel that those who are actually using the parks should at least pay for a part of the costs.

User fees are not completely taken away, though they are reduced significantly (assuming most of the visitors to our parks are NE residents). We'd have to determine how our parks are currently being paid for and whether admission fees are sufficient for their maintainance.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on May 22, 2011, 10:37:46 PM
In regards to the Northeast parks and recreation act, I cannot support taking away user fees from parks. We need to fund those parks somehow, whether it is through user fees or through taxes. I strongly feel that those who are actually using the parks should at least pay for a part of the costs.

User fees are not completely taken away, though they are reduced significantly (assuming most of the visitors to our parks are NE residents). We'd have to determine how our parks are currently being paid for and whether admission fees are sufficient for their maintainance.


I can see why we might want to make entry fees higher for non-residents, but I still don't think we should take away all user fees for residents. They should also help pay for the parks, but they can pay less since they are also paying taxes which go towards the operation of parks as well.

Also keep in mind that while some popular parks near the cities might be able to get enough money from non-residents to pay all of it's costs, I doubt that will be the case in more remote parks which might be protecting very important habitats. The user fees from the more popular parks also help support parks that might not get as many visitors.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 22, 2011, 10:53:01 PM
Northeasterners should be allowed to view the natural beauty found in many state and regional parks free of cost. I don't have too much of a problem finding a way to parks other than user fees, which probably don't come close to covering costs anyway.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on May 22, 2011, 10:58:12 PM
Please note that all regionally-owned unimproved land has been transferred back to the original indigenous tribes under the "Un-Stealing Act," signed here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102877.msg2806392#msg2806392).  Therefore your current debate over user fees is moot.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 22, 2011, 11:01:31 PM
Is there a record of the executive actually doing such a thing?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on May 22, 2011, 11:05:53 PM
Is there a record of the executive actually doing such a thing?

Yes, he signed the bill, as I pointed out earlier.

If you're referring to the implementation of the act in question, the text of it says:

Quote
The Un-Stealing Bill

All unimproved regional lands shall be immediately transferred to the original Indian tribes indigenous to said lands.

Key word is "immediately" - as in, "as soon as this bill becomes law."  It therefore has already happened.  By signing the bill, the governor implied that he meant to implement it - it would be ridiculous if the governor had to make two posts for every bill, one to sign and one to implement.  If that were the case, I believe there would have been absolutely nothing accomplished by the NE government in its entire history...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 22, 2011, 11:10:52 PM
It is perfectly legitimate for me to believe that this law has not been executed and therefore has not done any transfer of lands. The governor has the authority to execute laws after exercising his ability to sign them. However, with no executive order issued, we still own these lands.

I disagree with the premise of the legislation and find it unconstitutional for it to be considered policy as our Assembly only legislates and we have no executive authority whatsoever. I will be requesting a CJO injunction.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on May 22, 2011, 11:13:19 PM
Are you seriously claiming that the assembly has no power to sell, purchase, or transfer anything?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on May 23, 2011, 01:04:32 AM
As Lt. Governor, I hereby cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of the Un-Stealing Bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 23, 2011, 01:06:34 AM
As Lt. Governor, I hereby cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of the Un-Stealing Bill.

That legislation is no longer in session so I'm afraid you're too late.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on May 23, 2011, 01:08:16 AM
As Lt. Governor, I hereby cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of the Un-Stealing Bill.

That legislation is no longer in session so I'm afraid you're too late.

There is no time limit specified in the constitution as to when the Lt. Governor may cast a tie-breaking vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 23, 2011, 01:10:23 AM
As Lt. Governor, I hereby cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of the Un-Stealing Bill.

That legislation is no longer in session so I'm afraid you're too late.

There is no time limit specified in the constitution as to when the Lt. Governor may cast a tie-breaking vote.

Legislation does not carry over from session to session. The Lt. Governor as the constitutional presiding offeicer of the Assembly, is unable to cast votes on legislation that is from a previous session after multiple new ones have come and gone. Nice try though.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on May 23, 2011, 01:12:36 AM
As Lt. Governor, I hereby cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of the Un-Stealing Bill.

That legislation is no longer in session so I'm afraid you're too late.

There is no time limit specified in the constitution as to when the Lt. Governor may cast a tie-breaking vote.

Legislation does not carry over from session to session. The Lt. Governor as the constitutional presiding offeicer of the Assembly, is unable to cast votes on legislation that is from a previous session after multiple new ones have come and gone. Nice try though.

Says who?  Certainly not the Northeast Constitution.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 23, 2011, 01:16:42 AM
SOAP buddy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on May 23, 2011, 01:22:09 AM

I don't see anything in the SOAP that would prevent the Lt. Gov. from breaking a tie at a late point.  In any case, if you really want to go down that road, the SOAP says that the Lt. Governor must certify bills as having passed, and you may find me a rather unwilling partner.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 23, 2011, 01:30:33 AM
That would be a poor strategy given that it is guaranteed to backfire.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on May 23, 2011, 01:33:36 AM
Okay, now that we've cleared up that there's nothing preventing me from casting my tie-breaking vote, onwards to the governor's desk!  I, as Lt. Governor, hereby certify the Un-Stealing Act as having passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on May 23, 2011, 02:08:58 AM
Are all state parks "unimproved" lands? What if they have hiking trails and visitor centers? Did we just give away whatever wilderness that is left in the Northeast?

And I guess it's about time we got rid of our wilderness. It's such a waste of space. I am sure Native Americans of the 1600s would have felt the same way. ::)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 23, 2011, 02:17:07 AM
As usual, jumping right over the top of the sublime and going straight for the ridiculous.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 23, 2011, 07:52:21 AM
TIME OUT.

Everyone just shut up for a second.

What just happened here?!?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 23, 2011, 10:15:02 AM
Jake, it looks to me like wormyguy, during the debate over user fees in the Parks and Recreation Act, pulled up this old bill which, if legally passed, would have transferred all unimproved lands to the Native tribes that originally lived upon them. It looks like the worst piece of legislation I've ever seen come out of the Northeast, and it should be nullified if it was improperly passed.

But if it was properly passed, then there isn't a lot we can do. That bill transferred all of the Northeast's unimproved lands to the Native tribes - who knows if that was actually implemented or accomplished, given the massive legal and logistical headache that would cause. But by repealing the bill, the NE government would be retaking millions of square miles from the Natives without compensation.

I'm really pissed off that we're even talking about this. We have to clean up the mess left behind by a bunch of legislative flunkies who didn't give a rat's ass about good public policy. I appreciate that wormy brought it to the Assembly's attention, but not the spiteful manner in which he did so.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 23, 2011, 12:27:51 PM
Ay caramba...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 23, 2011, 04:05:40 PM
Vote to override veto on SRC report is now going.
AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 23, 2011, 04:25:46 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Yelnoc on May 23, 2011, 04:31:59 PM
If the native tribes that originally lived on them have been wiped out, what would happen to the land?  How would claims by multiple tribes be settled.

Fear not!  A story from the SoIA's Office is a'comin'!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 23, 2011, 04:34:31 PM
If the native tribes that originally lived on them have been wiped out, what would happen to the land?  How would claims by multiple tribes be settled.

Fear not!  A story from the SoIA's Office is a'comin'!

Make sure to talk aabout unionized park workers and the fact that's we are leasing these lands to natural gas companies under contract. And have fun writing a story about a law that never passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Yelnoc on May 23, 2011, 04:35:41 PM
If the native tribes that originally lived on them have been wiped out, what would happen to the land?  How would claims by multiple tribes be settled.

Fear not!  A story from the SoIA's Office is a'comin'!

Make sure to talk aabout unionized park workers and the fact that's we are leasing these lands to natural gas companies under contract.
Noted.  Now, where can I find the entire text of the bill?  I can't find it on the wiki.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 23, 2011, 04:37:06 PM
If the native tribes that originally lived on them have been wiped out, what would happen to the land?  How would claims by multiple tribes be settled.

Fear not!  A story from the SoIA's Office is a'comin'!

Make sure to talk aabout unionized park workers and the fact that's we are leasing these lands to natural gas companies under contract.
Noted.  Now, where can I find the entire text of the bill?  I can't find it on the wiki.

It never properly passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on May 23, 2011, 04:37:17 PM

Very libertarian of you. ::)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 23, 2011, 04:39:08 PM

He is more libertarian than you, anti-capitalist thief and contract breaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Yelnoc on May 23, 2011, 04:40:17 PM
If the native tribes that originally lived on them have been wiped out, what would happen to the land?  How would claims by multiple tribes be settled.

Fear not!  A story from the SoIA's Office is a'comin'!

Make sure to talk aabout unionized park workers and the fact that's we are leasing these lands to natural gas companies under contract.
Noted.  Now, where can I find the entire text of the bill?  I can't find it on the wiki.

It never properly passed.
I'm sure the text must be somewhere.  Can you link me to it or copy/paste it into this thread?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 23, 2011, 04:42:29 PM
If the native tribes that originally lived on them have been wiped out, what would happen to the land?  How would claims by multiple tribes be settled.

Fear not!  A story from the SoIA's Office is a'comin'!

Make sure to talk aabout unionized park workers and the fact that's we are leasing these lands to natural gas companies under contract.
Noted.  Now, where can I find the entire text of the bill?  I can't find it on the wiki.

It never properly passed.
I'm sure the text must be somewhere.  Can you link me to it or copy/paste it into this thread?

Why would you writeabout a law that isn't in effect and never will be?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Yelnoc on May 23, 2011, 04:43:48 PM
If the native tribes that originally lived on them have been wiped out, what would happen to the land?  How would claims by multiple tribes be settled.

Fear not!  A story from the SoIA's Office is a'comin'!

Make sure to talk aabout unionized park workers and the fact that's we are leasing these lands to natural gas companies under contract.
Noted.  Now, where can I find the entire text of the bill?  I can't find it on the wiki.

It never properly passed.
I'm sure the text must be somewhere.  Can you link me to it or copy/paste it into this thread?

Why would you writeabout a law that isn't in effect and never will be?
I need to know what it entails to write an article about this entire situation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on May 23, 2011, 04:44:57 PM

The State cannot contract, any "contract" on the part of the State is theft.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 23, 2011, 04:45:28 PM
There is no situation, just a court case. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Yelnoc on May 23, 2011, 04:46:25 PM
There is no situation, just a court case. :P
Do you really have to be this difficult?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 23, 2011, 04:47:34 PM

Funny you would say that ::)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 23, 2011, 04:49:57 PM
There is no situation, just a court case. :P
Do you really have to be this difficult?

Of course, I don't think you should write an article until cinyc makes a ruling. Can't you pick on a lesser region in the meantime? :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Yelnoc on May 23, 2011, 04:52:32 PM
There is no situation, just a court case. :P
Do you really have to be this difficult?

Of course, I don't think you should write an article until cinyc makes a ruling. Can't you pick on a lesser region in the meantime? :P
I looked through the thread and apparently wormy quoted the entire bill in its one-sentence glory two pages back.  Wonderful.  And no, I would like to set up the consequences of this bill hypothetically passing and maybe introduce the voices of Native Americans, park rangers, and others who would be affected by the bill.  As a backdrop to the court case.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 23, 2011, 05:08:03 PM
As the veto override continues, I believe we should debate impeaching those who are abusing the top two offices to carry out an assault on the region. I just love how Ghostwhite can't open voting booths but he's right there doing the bidding everytime one of these stupid laws like the Un-Stealing Act or Nullification Resolution are questioned.

 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on May 23, 2011, 05:22:01 PM

Funny that I would, Carl.

Napoleon may wish to study the book "How To Win Friends And Influence People" by Dale Carnegie, since he seems right now to be rather intent on torpedoing his Senate prospects.  In any case, I would like to know what charges either I or Ghost_white would be brought up on for impeachment, since neither of us has committed any crime beyond being of a different party affilation and ideology than the speaker, and also having a greater level of respect for constitutional norms than he.  Such an act would be obvious to any Northeast voter for exactly what it is - partisan hackery.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 23, 2011, 05:27:23 PM
Partisan hackery is your administration in whole, and you can be impeached for any reason.
What the Governor and yourself attempted earlier was in violation of our Constitution.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 23, 2011, 07:14:27 PM
Sigh....

Aye to override the veto of the SRC report.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 23, 2011, 07:56:10 PM
Welcome to my time in the Assembly, enjoy.

It's all about turning the region into extremist libertarian 'paradise' ie Anarchy... basically the laws of the jungle.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 23, 2011, 07:57:52 PM
Welcome to my time in the Assembly, enjoy.

It's all about turning the region into extremist libertarian 'paradise' ie Anarchy... basically the laws of the jungle.



If they want compromise, they can work with us. If they want war, they will lose.

P.s. what do either of those stupid laws have to do with anarchy or libertarianism?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 23, 2011, 08:05:13 PM
The particularly polluted stream of 'libertarianism' - "taxation is theft"  - the state should not own anything... that's how it fits.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 23, 2011, 08:10:27 PM
The particularly polluted stream of 'libertarianism' - "taxation is theft"  - the state should not own anything... that's how it fits.

Giving away land for free is theft from the taxpayer. Anyone subscribing to that particular style of libertarian needs to get their head out of the sand and their fingers out of the ears.

I just don't understand why these dumb laws mean so much to wormy that he is willing to make a mockery of our region and constitution to preserve them. I thought we were working together pretty well until this whole mess started.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 23, 2011, 08:15:40 PM
He doesn't do compromise... unless that compromise ends up with him getting what he wants.... also, I don't think their heads are stuck in the sand... think darker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on May 23, 2011, 09:49:55 PM
Giving away land for free is theft from the taxpayer.

Uh, no.  The land was taken by force from its original owners, and therefore the thing which would involve the least moral turpitude is to return it to the legal heirs of the original owners.  Tax moeny is also taken by force from taxpayers, however this happened after the land was taken by force, and conflicting grievances ought to be settled on the principle of "oldest first;" especially since said taxpayers are a party in the first grievance (they are living on land taken by force from the indigenous peoples of the area).  BTW, does this mean you are retroactively against the Homestead Act?  I'd give you points for being a consistently good Democrat.

Quote
I just don't understand why these dumb laws mean so much to wormy that he is willing to make a mockery of our region and constitution to preserve them. I thought we were working together pretty well until this whole mess started.

I just don't understand why these dumb laws mean so much to Napoleon that he is willing to make a mockery of our region and constitution to get rid of them. I thought we were working together pretty well until this whole mess started.  (Do note that it is you, rather than I, who initiated this entire dispute, I was merely attempting to be helpful).

And Polnut is a fine one to talk about compromise, given that he opposed every single thing I ever introduced, even when my bills were "moderate," had broad popular support, and required him to be a hypocrite to oppose them.  (There was one in which he listed a laundry list of "concerns" - all of which I had already specifically addressed in the bill beforehand.  When I and others pointed this out to him, he declared he would oppose it anyway).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on May 23, 2011, 09:50:08 PM
I vote aye to override the veto on the SRC report.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on May 23, 2011, 09:54:59 PM
The particularly polluted stream of 'libertarianism' - "taxation is theft"  - the state should not own anything... that's how it fits.

Giving away land for free is theft from the taxpayer. Anyone subscribing to that particular style of libertarian needs to get their head out of the sand and their fingers out of the ears.

I just don't understand why these dumb laws mean so much to wormy that he is willing to make a mockery of our region and constitution to preserve them. I thought we were working together pretty well until this whole mess started.

Wormy had proven through his actions on Atlasia that he has some real issues. He needs help.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 23, 2011, 09:55:51 PM
Giving away land for free is theft from the taxpayer.

Uh, no.  The land was taken by force from its original owners, and therefore the thing which would involve the least moral turpitude is to return it to the legal heirs of the original owners.  Tax moeny is also taken by force from taxpayers, however this happened after the land was taken by force, and conflicting grievances ought to be settled on the principle of "oldest first;" especially since said taxpayers are a party in the first grievance (they are living on land taken by force from the indigenous peoples of the area).  BTW, does this mean you are retroactively against the Homestead Act?  I'd give you points for being a consistently good Democrat.

Quote
I just don't understand why these dumb laws mean so much to wormy that he is willing to make a mockery of our region and constitution to preserve them. I thought we were working together pretty well until this whole mess started.

I just don't understand why these dumb laws mean so much to Napoleon that he is willing to make a mockery of our region and constitution to get rid of them. I thought we were working together pretty well until this whole mess started.  (Do note that it is you, rather than I, who initiated this entire dispute, I was merely attempting to be helpful).

And Polnut is a fine one to talk about compromise, given that he opposed every single thing I ever introduced, even when my bills were "moderate," had broad popular support, and required him to be a hypocrite to oppose them.  (There was one in which he listed a laundry list of "concerns" - all of which I had already specifically addressed in the bill beforehand.  When I and others pointed this out to him, he declared he would oppose it anyway).

Rubbish,

1. You addressed them as far as you were concerned - not to my satisfaction

2. I'm glad you put the " " around moderate - because I'm yet to see a genuinely moderate piece of legislation from you

3. And you also opposed everything I put forward, even things with appreciable benefits (back-filling HepB vaccinations for example) and low costs...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 23, 2011, 10:08:44 PM
The original owners are long dead. I don't support reparations for blacks, nor do I support this. I don't care what happened regarding you and Polnit before I was even registered. You may have been trying to be helpful, I thought you were trying to be a smart ass by detailing my bill. Now this is in the hands of the courts as the law is illegitimate. Do not blame me for the mistakes of others, I try my best as Speaker to ensure that votes are fair and handled properly according to the rules established with the creation of this body. As for broad public support for these laws, I doubt it but feel free to poll it and prove me wrong. I do not appreciate being dragged into this bickering so hopefully you are content with allowing these disputes to be taken up by the court per the constitution and laying off the threats against my Senate campaign. My first and foremost priority is my service in the Assembly for the term I have been elected to. If my respect for rule of law is what causes me to lose my Senate race, then so be it! I prefer to stay above the fray and not participate in any kind of personal mudslinging. I don't want to play hardball here, which we are both at fault for...but you can either be constructive with me or you can remain content with alienating people in this region such as myself, Jake, and homelycooking who harbor no personal animosity from whatever happened when Polnut was still here. I think I've been very lenient regarding our joke of a governor. I've been hard at work as Speaker, SRC Commissioner, Constitutional Convention leader, and Senate candidate all at once. I'm trying to fix the institutional failures of this region and hopefully you are willing to help. What is preventing your bill from being passed properly at a later date?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on May 23, 2011, 10:26:48 PM
The original owners are long dead. I don't support reparations for blacks, nor do I support this.

This is somewhat different from slavery reparations; slavery reparations are the expropriation of property created in the modern day to pay for the emotional distress caused to people who no longer are living.  This is returning stolen property that still exists to the directly-traceable descendents of those it was stolen from.

Quote
I do not appreciate being dragged into this bickering

Um, you were the one who started it, so I might say that it is you who is dragging I into this bickering.

Quote
so hopefully you are content with allowing these disputes to be taken up by the court per the constitution

Of course, because my arguments are legally correct whilst yours are conjectural and frivolous.

Quote
and laying off the threats against my Senate campaign.

I'm not threatening anything.  I am making the observation that your path to victory is considerably more difficult without the second preferences of my supporters.

Quote
What is preventing your bill from being passed properly at a later date?

The fact that it has already been passed properly, twice.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 23, 2011, 10:32:26 PM
The esteemed CJO will decide whether or not that is true but I do expect to be right.

As for my Senate bid, I would appreciate your second preferences but I will not compromise on my convictions to do so. It is up to you and your supporters to decide whether myself or Marokai is a better fit.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on May 23, 2011, 10:38:38 PM
I'm not so trivial a person as to make tribal land repatriation my single issue (can you imagine how it would be in real life?!).  What turns I and quite probably my party against you is your overall level of partisan hackery, culminating in your threatening impeachment against our party office-holders merely because you disagree with them.  That sort of shocking abuse of power is not the type of "reform" we're after, and it's going to hurt your stock with us quite a bit.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 23, 2011, 10:46:07 PM
Ghostwhite has no confidence from the citizenry and is governor due to a technical error from years ago. In all honesty he should have been impeached long ago but I was willing to give him another chance. You can call me a partisan hack but it wont stick, if anyone else thinks I'm not one of the least hackish posters inside and outside this game, please speak up. I'm such a partisan hack that I voted for you and Jake both for Speaker and defended you from Antonio when he was attacking you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on May 23, 2011, 10:50:43 PM
Yes, and I voted for you and even (IIRC) for Polnut his second time around as speaker.  Ghost_white was legitimately elected governor in the last election, by a fairly solid margin, I might add.  I was under the impression that you were not a very hackish type, but you seem to have proven me wrong over the past 24 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 23, 2011, 10:57:17 PM
I'm sorry you've come to that conclusion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on May 23, 2011, 11:32:26 PM
How is Napoleon hackish? What does this have to do with party?

Anyways a "real" libertarian would have given all of the stolen property back, not just the portions you don't want. You are all for helping Native Americans, as long as you aren't inconvenienced. What a joke.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 23, 2011, 11:39:21 PM
Northeast Parks and Recreation Use Act

1. This act shall be applied only to those lands and facilities operated and maintained by the state and/or regional governments.

2. Citizens and legal residents of the Northeast shall not be required to pay any fee for use of state and/or regional parks or recreational facilities.

3. Citizens and legal residents of the Northeast are eligible for free admission to state parks and recreational facilities not operated or maintained by the regional government irrespective of their state of residence.

4. Nonresidents of the Northeast may be required to pay a fee for use of state and/or regional parks or recreational facilities where applicable.

5. The Un-Stealing Act is repealed if it was properly passed.

Any objections to my amendment?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on May 23, 2011, 11:43:28 PM
How is Napoleon hackish? What does this have to do with party?

I just said why.

Quote
Anyways a "real" libertarian would have given all of the stolen property back, not just the portions you don't want. You are all for helping Native Americans, as long as you aren't inconvenienced. What a joke.

Well, actually it wouldn't inconvenience me in the slightest if such a policy were implemented in Atlasia. ::)

There are practical limits to my beliefs: something which would cause such a massive disturbance and would require a massive use of coercive force - such as the forcible ethnic cleansing of a highly populated area - does not jibe with what I would consider legitimate.  However, that doesn't mean that there aren't smaller things that can't be made right without causing massive harm to tens of millions of people, and this is one of them.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 23, 2011, 11:49:15 PM
No harm done (http://www.chem.info/News/2011/05/Environmental-Controls-Stench-from-Waste-Facility-Overwhelms-Community/).

::)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on May 24, 2011, 12:22:43 AM
How is Napoleon hackish? What does this have to do with party?

I just said why.

Quote
Anyways a "real" libertarian would have given all of the stolen property back, not just the portions you don't want. You are all for helping Native Americans, as long as you aren't inconvenienced. What a joke.

Well, actually it wouldn't inconvenience me in the slightest if such a policy were implemented in Atlasia. ::)

There are practical limits to my beliefs: something which would cause such a massive disturbance and would require a massive use of coercive force - such as the forcible ethnic cleansing of a highly populated area - does not jibe with what I would consider legitimate.  However, that doesn't mean that there aren't smaller things that can't be made right without causing massive harm to tens of millions of people, and this is one of them.

But why give away wilderness areas for development? I have no problems if the Natives want access to their sacred grounds. I would be surprised if that wasn't already the case. But if they want to build a Casino in the middle of the Adirondacks..yeah I oppose that. And so would their ancestors, obviously. But dollar is king....

If you want, we can do a homestead act of sorts for Natives, giving them land which is adjacent to developed land. The practical effect of your bill as currently written would be to destroy the last refuges of nature in the Northeast. That is unnecessary to do to help Native Americans. Now on the other hand if your goal is to ruin wilderness areas....


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 24, 2011, 12:31:22 AM
Whatever his goal, I linked to the result.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 24, 2011, 12:48:11 AM
Sbane, if you remember, I wanted to present an amended version which would permit Native tribes full access to their lands... but it was a pointless exercise. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on May 24, 2011, 02:03:24 PM
I echo the governor's concerns, and would oppose an override.

Your opinion doesn't count.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. That does seem like a large slap in the face to the Northeasternern citizens who elected me to represent them, but in an attempt to preserve civility, I'll just ignore the personal attack.

I echo the governor's concerns, and would oppose an override.

Giovanni, why don't you take a few minutes and read the report? The SRC spent a lot of time on that, and it's rather insulting to see people oppose it because it's long and they're too lazy to read it and understand the changes the report makes.

I did read it, and as my post indicated, I, like the Governor, am concerned about the repeal of the Nullification Resolution. I think it is ultimately necessary to have such a resolution to protect our region from unconstitutional overreach on the part from our Federal government. There are many members of the senate I could quote that would love to trample the rights of our region if they had the chance.

If the Feds overreach their boundaries, we cannot just wait for a Federal judiciary, who are by no means filled with lovers of constitutional restraint, to come to their senses, the regions much act. In fact, I cannot understand why Jake Matthews, who claims to be a libertarian, could possibly support repeal of the Nullification Resolution, I do hope he changes his mind.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 24, 2011, 02:07:29 PM
I guess Jake just isn't an idiot who thinks not counting your vote is a "personal attack".


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on May 24, 2011, 02:43:42 PM
I guess Jake just isn't an idiot who thinks not counting your vote is a "personal attack".

Well I am disappointed, Napoleon, if you disagreed with what I said, you are more than welcome to dispute what I have put forth and we can debate it. This is after all, the Northeast Assembly, and both you and I are Northeast Assemblymen, but instead of doing so, you have decided to resort to more personal attacks against me.

Marokai Blue is somebody I sharply disagree with on, well, practically everything. Both me and him can have spirited debates against the other. He does not on the other hand simply resort to attacking his opponent by calling him names such as "idiot" and telling him that his "opinion doesn't matter" even though the people legitimately elected him through the democratic process.

Perhaps the people of the Northeast Region should consider that when choosing their next senator.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 24, 2011, 02:46:44 PM
You're not an Assemblyman.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on May 24, 2011, 03:00:12 PM

When did that happen?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 24, 2011, 03:02:33 PM

Youre not part of this region, ergo, you are not particular this Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Yelnoc on May 24, 2011, 03:04:21 PM
Is that in the Northeast Constitution?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 24, 2011, 03:04:42 PM
I will keep my statement about Giovanni short and sweet--

I don't believe that anyone who does not live in the Northeast Region should serve in our Assembly and exploit our legislative process. However, childish personal attacks will not make him go away. Ignoring his presence would be best and accepting the fact that he found a loophole in our Constitution should just be the solution to this problem.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 24, 2011, 03:06:47 PM

I believe it is. If anyone wants to challenge this view, Sue me. I have no tolerance for immature trolling.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on May 24, 2011, 03:08:25 PM

That's bullshit and you know it.

Quote
vi) When the polls close, the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region shall be given twenty-four (24) hours to count the votes and declare a winner. The newly elected Reps shall officially assume office on the Tuesday following the election.

I was democratically elected to the Northeastern Assembly by the people of the Northeast Region, the Northeastern CJO even certified the results as such.

Certification of April 29, 2011 Northeast Assembly Special Election:

Jake Matthews, a.k.a. 20RP12, is the only person who wrote himself in.  No one declared or agreed to accept write-ins after Jake Matthews vacated his old Assembly seat by swearing in as Lt. Governor on April 19.  Thus, all votes other than None of the Above are invalid. 

It is certified that Jake Matthews has won the April 29, 2011 Northeast Assembly Special Election with 3 votes.  1 vote was legally cast for "None of the Above".

Please note that Governor Ghost_white previously certified (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=134446.msg2873947#msg2873947) the following Atlasians as winners of the April Northeast Assembly general election:

Giovanni, Homelycooking, Jake Matthews, Napoleon, Sbane, and EarlAW

That certification will remain in effect unless someone successfully sues to overturn it.

Where in your constitution supports your viewpoint?





Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Yelnoc on May 24, 2011, 03:09:29 PM

I believe it is. If anyone wants to challenge this view, Sue me. I have no tolerance for immature trolling.
It's not a matter of belief.  If it's in there you can quote it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 24, 2011, 03:10:14 PM
That alone does not make you eligible to hold office. Take it up with the court or stop whining.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on May 24, 2011, 03:11:06 PM
It's not a matter of belief.  If it's in there you can quote it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 24, 2011, 03:12:27 PM
If it is in there, sue me. Otherwise go away, troll.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Yelnoc on May 24, 2011, 03:13:37 PM
If it is in there, sue me. Otherwise go away, troll.
I am your Game Moderator.  You may not like me but you will damn well have to get used to me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 24, 2011, 03:14:55 PM
If it is in there, sue me. Otherwise go away, troll.
I am your Game Moderator.  You may not like me but you will damn well have to get used to me.

I wasn't even talking to you. Obviously you can't sue me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on May 24, 2011, 03:16:31 PM
I am not the one who should be looking up anything. I have stated particular facts and backed them up with constitutional resources. Your bullshit viewpoint has no constitutional standing. It's funny that you're accusing the Lt. Governor and Governor of abusing power when it is clear it is you doing it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Yelnoc on May 24, 2011, 03:19:10 PM
If it is in there, sue me. Otherwise go away, troll.
I am your Game Moderator.  You may not like me but you will damn well have to get used to me.

I wasn't even talking to you. Obviously you can't sue me.

Excuse me, I quoted the wrong post from you.

Quote
That alone does not make you eligible to hold office. Take it up with the court or stop whining.

I don't want to get involved with this little spat but it seems someone needs to step in.  If you want Giovanni out that badly, pass a law requiring northeast officeholders to reside in the Northeast.  Don't resort to petty attacks.  The Northeast has more important issues to deal with.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 24, 2011, 03:19:33 PM
I didn't tell anyone to look up anything so I don't know where you come up with this crazy. If you want to challenge my viewpoint, see you in court. I don't have to argue any thing with either of you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 24, 2011, 03:20:42 PM
If it is in there, sue me. Otherwise go away, troll.
I am your Game Moderator.  You may not like me but you will damn well have to get used to me.

I wasn't even talking to you. Obviously you can't sue me.
r

Excuse me, I quoted the wrong post from you.

Quote
That alone does not make you eligible to hold office. Take it up with the court or stop whining.

I don't want to get involved with this little spat but it seems someone needs to step in.  If you want Giovanni out that badly, pass a law requiring northeast officeholders to reside in the Northeast.  Don't resort to petty attacks.  The Northeast has more important issues to deal with.

I don't need him out, he isn't in.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Yelnoc on May 24, 2011, 03:27:15 PM
If it is in there, sue me. Otherwise go away, troll.
I am your Game Moderator.  You may not like me but you will damn well have to get used to me.

I wasn't even talking to you. Obviously you can't sue me.
r

Excuse me, I quoted the wrong post from you.

Quote
That alone does not make you eligible to hold office. Take it up with the court or stop whining.

I don't want to get involved with this little spat but it seems someone needs to step in.  If you want Giovanni out that badly, pass a law requiring northeast officeholders to reside in the Northeast.  Don't resort to petty attacks.  The Northeast has more important issues to deal with.

I don't need him out, he isn't in.
And now we are back at square one.  Please sue Giovanni, or Giovanni, please sue Napoleon.  Put this out in court.  Let's see who can defend their position.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 24, 2011, 03:31:27 PM
This is why our region is in such peril. We all act like children and bitch and moan and complain and don't get a mother f**king thing done and then we wonder why we are the laughing stock of Atlasia.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 24, 2011, 03:34:30 PM
Yes, we are certainly a laughingstock if we sit and allow Giovanni to troll our entire region.

Nothing is being held up. What truly makes us a joke is that we can spend weeks on an SRC report so only I end up voting for it, our puppet governor vetoes it, and we end up wasting time that way.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 24, 2011, 06:44:40 PM
I honestly had the feeling that this would be the response to the SRC - there is support for it until it challenges some of the highly questionable laws of the past.

But wow... even during some of my more heated fights with Wormy and his minions - I don't recall it getting this vicious in the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 24, 2011, 06:50:51 PM
I only want to find answers regarding these constitutional questions. Most libertarians orgasm over following the Constitution, until it works against them I guess. If the Constitution was properly followed previously, I wouldn't have to resort to the court.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 24, 2011, 06:53:26 PM
The Governor's veto is overridden 4/4. The bill has become law.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 24, 2011, 07:07:13 PM
Napoleon, Giovanni is an Assemblyman as much as you are and was duly elected by the people of the Northeast. If you don't like that, shrink the size of the Assembly, institute a residency requirement, whatever - but he deserves to be called what the people of the Northeast desired him to be. Sure, he's a troll, sure, he's a carpetbagger, but that is this region's fault for being so dysfunctional. He won election here despite his residency in North Dakota by pointing out one of our region's flaws, and it is our responsibility to fix the flaws that were brought to our attention. Jake, this is why we cannot ignore Giovanni. Our response to the existence of a problem in our Region should not be to shrink from it and hope it goes away, but to address it openly (which, through the Convention, we're beginning to accomplish).

My main problem with Giovanni is that for most of the Assembly session he did not participate meaningfully in our affairs. If he is willing to have some discussion about the SRC report by bringing before this Assembly his honest concerns about the SRC report or the Nullification Resolution, or anything else, I welcome that. He is too late in this case, as we have already cast our votes for a veto override. But if he wants to obstruct our progress and waste our time, then I want him to get out of the way.

The debate in this body has become pure vitriol. I joined the game and ran for election because I thought it would be fun, competitive and engaging - but now it is one vicious verbal broadside after another. I want to stay here, to help fix up this region, to be a part of a strong community, but I have no interest in trying to cut through the cries of "troll!" "hypocrite!" "hack!": above which nothing currently can be heard.

We seriously need to calm down, have a little more respect for one another, and try to work through the SRC and the PRA as cooperatively as possible. Otherwise, what's the f-cking point? We're at each other's throats in an imaginary legislature in the imaginary government of an imaginary nation, and if it's not going to be constructive or fun, I'd rather f-ck off and play Minesweeper.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 24, 2011, 07:13:09 PM
I don't agree with your interpretation off the Constitution. There is no record of out of region assemblymen prior to this and I am certain the Constitution is in agreement with my view that Giovanni is not eligible to serve in this body. We have a legal avenue established to determine whether Giovanni is eligible, he can sue if he wishes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Yelnoc on May 24, 2011, 07:23:53 PM
I don't agree with your interpretation off the Constitution. There is no record of out of region assemblymen prior to this and I am certain the Constitution is in agreement with my view that Giovanni is not eligible to serve in this body. We have a legal avenue established to determine whether Giovanni is eligible, he can sue if he wishes.
Why would Giovanni need to sue?  He has been elected, the results are certified.  To boot him out, you will need to sue him (IMO, you will lose your suit), pass a law requiring northeast officeholders to reside in the northeast, or vote him out at the next election.  You have done none of these things; instead you have whined, complained, and called people names.  If I were a northeast citizen I would as of now not consider voting you into the Senate.

This isn't an attack on you.  I'm trying to spur you into action.  Do something; win those votes if you must think of it that way.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 24, 2011, 07:32:32 PM
I am doing something about it and what I believe the right now thing to do is not defy the Constitution and allow Giovanni a voice in this Assembly when he beyond any doubt in my mind is ineligible. Why would I just assume he is an Assemblyman? That is backwards. This is not a vote first, ask questions later legislature. No one has built a convincing argument as to why the other way is morally or practically superior. Being political expedient is the easy way out, but I will not allow injustice against my constituents.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Yelnoc on May 24, 2011, 07:49:49 PM
I am doing something about it and what I believe the right now thing to do is not defy the Constitution and allow Giovanni a voice in this Assembly when he beyond any doubt in my mind is ineligible. Why would I just assume he is an Assemblyman? That is backwards. This is not a vote first, ask questions later legislature. No one has built a convincing argument as to why the other way is morally or practically superior. Being political expedient is the easy way out, but I will not allow injustice against my constituents.
Giovanni is elected, as you can see from the certification.  We are all expecting you to make a coherent argument, hopefully back with quotes form the constitution, as to why Giovanni is not constitutionally allowed to be a northeast citizen.  Then he will be able to respond.  Giovanni starts ahead because he was elected so you have to craft your argument first.  That is how civil debate works.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 24, 2011, 07:52:15 PM
I am perfectly willing to lay out my argument in court, in fact, I welcome it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on May 24, 2011, 08:11:23 PM
I will admit that I did not expect to win, and did not take my responsibilities seriously upon my election. That was very wrong of me, and I apologize to the Assembly for that, especially homelycooking, who I know worked very hard to reform the region. I have since changed and truly want to attempt to serve the Northeast Region. Hell, I even moved to the NE in an attempt to disperse the controversy.

If I fail, vote me out next election. However, if Napoleon truly does not believe me, I would have no problem going to court to defend myself.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 24, 2011, 08:19:01 PM
It is very good of you to admit that and I welcome you to the region when you're move ttakes effect but surely you don't take it personal that I want the Constitution to be followed? This really should have never been allowed to be dragged out this long, if you think you are right we will have to see what cinyc says. Your "contributions" to the Assembly, while nonserious and rather offensive, are no reason to disqualify your votes but your ineligibility does. At no point in this region has an outsider been allowed to participate. That doesn't change with me becoming Speaker, either.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 24, 2011, 08:20:33 PM
I will admit that I did not expect to win, and did not take my responsibilities seriously upon my election. That was very wrong of me, and I apologize to the Assembly for that, especially homelycooking, who I know worked very hard to reform the region. I have since changed and truly want to attempt to serve the Northeast Region. Hell, I even moved to the NE in an attempt to disperse the controversy.

I appreciate your apology very much, Giovanni, and I accept it. But considering that you are the Assembly's member from the "Carpetbaggers United Front", I must still question your sincerity. Have you really changed, or are you still a "Carpetbagger" at heart?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: President Mitt on May 24, 2011, 08:25:36 PM
It is very good of you to admit that and I welcome you to the region when you're move ttakes effect but surely you don't take it personal that I want the Constitution to be followed?

Of course I do not take it personally that you are wrongly interpreting the Constitution. :)

I will admit that I did not expect to win, and did not take my responsibilities seriously upon my election. That was very wrong of me, and I apologize to the Assembly for that, especially homelycooking, who I know worked very hard to reform the region. I have since changed and truly want to attempt to serve the Northeast Region. Hell, I even moved to the NE in an attempt to disperse the controversy.

I appreciate your apology very much, Giovanni, and I accept it. But considering that you are the Assembly's member from the "Carpetbaggers United Front", I must still question your sincerity. Have you really changed, or are you still a "Carpetbagger" at heart?

That was an attempt at creating a joke party. I didn't intend for it to go anywhere. You may have noticed while studying the region's legislative history that I am a former NE Assembly member for two terms before 'retiring' to the Midwest. The NE has actually been the only region where I served in government.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 25, 2011, 02:38:42 PM
Final vote for Parks and Recreation.


AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 25, 2011, 03:29:48 PM
Aye throw my hands up in the air sometimes saying aaaaay-o...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Sbane on May 25, 2011, 07:40:29 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 25, 2011, 09:14:25 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 26, 2011, 02:49:04 PM
The Northeast Parks and Recreation Act passes 4-0.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 26, 2011, 04:36:24 PM
I will abstain from future votes on legislation in this term unless Giovanni's votes are counted and the Speaker of the Assembly recognizes that member as an Assemblyman.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 26, 2011, 05:03:34 PM
I will abstain from future votes on legislation in this term unless Giovanni's votes are counted and the Speaker of the Assembly recognizes that member as an Assemblyman.

He missed three legislative votes so there is no longer a constitutional debate. Were he ever a member would not be resolved as the constitution is crystal clear here. Giovanni hasn't voted since I said his votes would not count. I was trying to get wormyguy to count Giovanni's votes so I would have standing to sue wormyguy but this is no longer possible. In fact, Earl also missed three votes on passing legislation and forfeits his seat.

I maintain that I have broken no laws.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on May 26, 2011, 08:03:57 PM
I will abstain from future votes on legislation in this term unless Giovanni's votes are counted and the Speaker of the Assembly recognizes that member as an Assemblyman.

He missed three legislative votes so there is no longer a constitutional debate. Were he ever a member would not be resolved as the constitution is crystal clear here. Giovanni hasn't voted since I said his votes would not count. I was trying to get wormyguy to count Giovanni's votes so I would have standing to sue wormyguy but this is no longer possible. In fact, Earl also missed three votes on passing legislation and forfeits his seat.

I maintain that I have broken no laws.

Three votes or three consecutive votes without posting a leave of absence?   That matters - a lot.  When did the last missed vote take place?

Any Northeast citizen should have standing to sue over the election certification.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 26, 2011, 08:16:13 PM
Three consecutive votes on legislation were missed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on May 26, 2011, 08:20:11 PM
Three consecutive votes on legislation were missed.

When was the last vote missed by both Assemblymen? 

I will have to hold a special election to fill the seats.  The question is whether that's tonight or next week.  It might be next week anyway because of the lack of time to give notice.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 26, 2011, 08:21:29 PM
Three consecutive votes on legislation were missed.

When was the last vote missed by both Assemblymen? 

I will have to hold a special election to fill the seats.  The question is whether that's tonight or next week.  It might be next week anyway because of the lack of time to give notice.

The Northeast Parks and Recreation Act that passed today.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on May 26, 2011, 08:28:00 PM
Three consecutive votes on legislation were missed.

When was the last vote missed by both Assemblymen? 

I will have to hold a special election to fill the seats.  The question is whether that's tonight or next week.  It might be next week anyway because of the lack of time to give notice.

The Northeast Parks and Recreation Act that passed today.

Thanks.  I'll double-check that.  If you are correct, we will hold a special election to fill the seats next week.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 26, 2011, 08:29:47 PM
Three consecutive votes on legislation were missed.

When was the last vote missed by both Assemblymen? 

I will have to hold a special election to fill the seats.  The question is whether that's tonight or next week.  It might be next week anyway because of the lack of time to give notice.

The Northeast Parks and Recreation Act that passed today.

Thanks.  I'll double-check that.  If you are correct, we will hold a special election to fill the seats next week.

If it helps, there was a vote to pass the SRC that was 1-0 followed by a vote to pass it over the governor's veto that was 4-0.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 26, 2011, 09:14:42 PM
Giovanni ought to be called by his rightful title up until the point that he is expelled from the Assembly by an official decision. To you, Napoleon, it might be clear that his presence in the Assembly is unwarranted and illegal, but to me it is not, and, as far as I'm concerned, the judgment of the people (the certification of Giovanni's election) holds until it is officially overruled.

If it helps, there was a vote to pass the SRC that was 1-0 followed by a vote to pass it over the governor's veto that was 4-0.

Napoleon, that vote lasted twelve minutes. The SOAP mandates a 24-hour voting period.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 26, 2011, 10:18:19 PM
Every vote was held for 24 hours. This has been consistent.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on May 26, 2011, 10:23:01 PM
Also, in one case he stated his intention to vote during the debate, followed by your declaration that you would not count his vote.  That seems highly irregular to me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on May 26, 2011, 10:26:56 PM
I'm going to have to go back and look at the thread.  For starters, I don't think we've viewed veto overrides as votes on legislation because of the simultaneous tracking in the SOAP.  In general, we've very liberally interpreted the three consecutive vote provisions lest run out of people wishing to run for Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 26, 2011, 10:35:38 PM
I'm going to have to go back and look at the thread.  For starters, I don't think we've viewed veto overrides as votes on legislation because of the simultaneous tracking in the SOAP.  In general, we've very liberally interpreted the three consecutive vote provisions lest run out of people wishing to run for Assembly.

I'd be inclined to agree if it were considered a motion to veto an override but the constitution makes reference to "previously vetoed legislation" which designates it is indeed legislation. I believe that would make it qualify as a third consecutive vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on May 27, 2011, 09:50:49 AM
I think that several other members of the current assembly (Earl and possibly Sbane) have also missed three consecutive votes at one point.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 27, 2011, 11:19:06 AM
Sorry, Napoleon, you're right. The SRC vote was held open for a day and twelve minutes. I'm an idiot and misread the timestamp.

If people need to be expelled because of the three-vote rule, so be it. We shouldn't let too much inactivity slip by. But Napoleon, you could have done more by notifying Assemblymen of upcoming votes. It often might be the case that many Assemblymen miss a vote because they aren't online in that strict 24 hour period, forget to check the Assembly the one time they are online, etc.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 27, 2011, 11:38:44 AM
Jeez I'm the Speaker, not a babysitter. I should not be held responsible for the activity of others.

Wormy, this is the first time three consecutive votes have been missed. You can think that all you want but you'll be wrong.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on May 27, 2011, 05:54:36 PM
I'm going to have to go back and look at the thread.  For starters, I don't think we've viewed veto overrides as votes on legislation because of the simultaneous tracking in the SOAP.  In general, we've very liberally interpreted the three consecutive vote provisions lest run out of people wishing to run for Assembly.

I'd be inclined to agree if it were considered a motion to veto an override but the constitution makes reference to "previously vetoed legislation" which designates it is indeed legislation. I believe that would make it qualify as a third consecutive vote.

Yeah, that's what the Constitution seems to say about vetoes. 

I will verify your vote count, but it does sound accurate.  If so, we will be holding elections for two vacant Assembly seats next week.  Current seat holders are welcome to run for their old seats - though I might have to visit the whether a non-Northeast resident can hold a Northeast Assembly seat if he wins.  I honestly haven't given it much independent thought, hoping for a court case.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on May 28, 2011, 10:47:14 AM
Jeez I'm the Speaker, not a babysitter. I should not be held responsible for the activity of others.

You would not be held responsible for others' inactivity. I only proposed the vote notification amendment to SOAP so that turnout for votes would be higher. There is no language in that amendment which holds the Speaker liable for any member's non-participation, regardless of whether a PM is sent or not.

This was introduced in hopes of decreasing the necessity of expelling members for three missed votes, a constructive measure aimed at making that punishment more fitting for the crime. I did not mean it to be a burden for the Speaker, nor do I believe it would be if adopted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 01, 2011, 12:22:32 PM
Can we get back down to business, please?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 05, 2011, 01:45:18 PM
Additional Amendments to the Northeast Gun Safety Act

The Northeast Gun Safety Act shall be re-amended to read:

1. Any person who has committed a non-murder felony while under the age of 21, will automatically have his rights restored at age 35.
     a. Except in cases where the victim of the offender's crime is a minor.
     b. Except in cases where the offender has committed two or more felonies during this period.
2. Whenever a gun is used as an instrument in the crime, an additional five years will be added to the sentence.
     a. In cases of abduction, rape, or murder of any degree, in which a gun is used as an instrument in the crime, these rights will not be restored.

48 hours for debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 06, 2011, 08:08:31 AM
Would a felon to which either 1a or 1b apply ever receive restoration of his rights? And what "rights" do the amendments (either of them) refer to?

What counts as "instrument in a crime"? Does the gun have to be fired for this to apply?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on June 06, 2011, 08:15:55 AM
So section 2 basically says that a person will have rights restored at age 40, right?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 07, 2011, 09:45:25 AM
So section 2 basically says that a person will have rights restored at age 40, right?


No...
Would a felon to which either 1a or 1b apply ever receive restoration of his rights? And what "rights" do the amendments (either of them) refer to?

What counts as "instrument in a crime"? Does the gun have to be fired for this to apply?

It seems pretty clear to me, this is largely the existing text. The rights referred to are obviously gun rights as provided by the Constitution. A gun does not have to be fired to be a criminal instrument.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on June 07, 2011, 11:43:16 AM
Oh oh oh, I read it wrong. My bad.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 07, 2011, 11:53:34 AM
Would a felon to which either 1a or 1b apply ever receive restoration of his rights? And what "rights" do the amendments (either of them) refer to?

What counts as "instrument in a crime"? Does the gun have to be fired for this to apply?

It seems pretty clear to me, this is largely the existing text. The rights referred to are obviously gun rights as provided by the Constitution. A gun does not have to be fired to be a criminal instrument.

The bill/amendment should specify which "rights" are restored. As far as I'm concerned, "obvious" is not good enough - it should be explicit. Part one also could be improved by saying "Any person...will automatically have his right to bear arms restored at age 35 or at the end of his criminal sentence, whichever comes later."

2a seems like it infringes upon the independence of the judiciary. I don't think it's right for the legislature to mandate that in all cases in which a gun is used in a crime, regardless of whether it is used to intimidate but never fired or fired dozens of times, exactly five years must be added to a criminal's sentence.

I'd like to request an additional 24 hours for debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 07, 2011, 02:37:47 PM
Your issue seems to be with the law as currently in place, perhaps that should be done separately from these minor changes?

Either way, 24 more hours. It is rather disappointing this hadn't already been taken care of.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 07, 2011, 08:49:09 PM
Your issue seems to be with the law as currently in place, perhaps that should be done separately from these minor changes?

Either way, 24 more hours. It is rather disappointing this hadn't already been taken care of.

Well, you're right. I suppose I can support these amendments, but I do want to revise the language of the original amendment upon which this bill was based.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 08, 2011, 07:22:30 PM
We arbitrarily punish people more just because they use a gun in their crime? What exactly is the justification of that? Is that how things really work in relation to gun crime?

Homelycooking also has a great point regarding the judiciary. I don't think it's really our place to just randomly add a one-size-fits-all punishment on top of the usual punishment just because there was a fun involved.

Heaven knows I'm not a gun nut or anything but I'm really not comfortable with Section 2 at all. Someone please convince me. Otherwise I'm fine with this. (And considering, after checking the statute, that sort of thing is actual law, I'm tempted to introduce a repeal of that altogether.)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on June 08, 2011, 10:03:42 PM
We arbitrarily punish people more just because they use a gun in their crime? What exactly is the justification of that? Is that how things really work in relation to gun crime?

Well, the use of a gun in a crime can be seen as justification.  The language "instrument of crime" is what deserves attention.  Non-specific language like that can leave to much room for interpretation.

Also, if section 1 mentions non-murder felony, and section 2 talks about a gun being used as an "instrument of crime", can't this be contradictory if in fact, the felon had a gun during the crime, but the crime was not murder?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 09, 2011, 02:09:22 AM
We arbitrarily punish people more just because they use a gun in their crime? What exactly is the justification of that? Is that how things really work in relation to gun crime?

Well, the use of a gun in a crime can be seen as justification.  The language "instrument of crime" is what deserves attention.  Non-specific language like that can leave to much room for interpretation.

Also, if section 1 mentions non-murder felony, and section 2 talks about a gun being used as an "instrument of crime", can't this be contradictory if in fact, the felon had a gun during the crime, but the crime was not murder?

Keyword would be the, indicating prior text as the antecedent.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 14, 2011, 07:31:10 AM
*whistles to myself*

Our supposedly very efficient worker for the NE hasn't posted in 2+ days and said this debate on this issue should've been over like five days ago. Shouldn't we be voting, or, you know, anything? I keep checking back here for something and it's been a little too quiet. "Not responsible for activity" indeed.



As for myself, I will personally vote against this amendment to the gun laws, as I don't believe that we should start arbitrarily setting up extra punishments essentially "just because" a certain weapon is involved in a crime. How about we add 2 extra years for knives? Or an extra six months if it's a "blunt instrument"? (Also, as Cinn points out, "instrument in a crime" is incredibly vague, since it doesn't technically mean just the murder weapon. It could literally just mean hitting someone with a gun, or maybe even just having a gun on you at the time.)

The punishment for the crime and the assessment of the severity of the crime is left up to the courts and I think we should leave it that way. Voting against this particular set of changes won't be what puts an end to that, but hopefully my repeal that I introduced days ago will. So.. whenever.. you know, we get moving again..


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on June 14, 2011, 08:19:37 AM
I'm with Marokai.

I vote Nay.

It seems superfluous to over make an already complex legal system even more intricate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 14, 2011, 09:45:45 AM
I'm with Marokai.

I vote Nay.

It seems superfluous to over make an already complex legal system even more intricate.

I'm going to wait for homelycooking since he requested extra time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 14, 2011, 07:04:56 PM
Nay. The amendments have the right ideas in mind, but the bill that they seek to amend is critically flawed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 14, 2011, 07:09:18 PM
Nay. The amendments have the right ideas in mind, but the bill that they seek to amend is critically flawed.

We aren't voting yet. In fact, I was waiting for you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 14, 2011, 07:13:28 PM
Oh! Sorry. Well, let's proceed to a vote, then.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on June 14, 2011, 07:33:20 PM
Me?  Nominated for Lieutenant Governor?  Wat.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on June 14, 2011, 07:50:11 PM
I'm with Marokai.

I vote Nay.

It seems superfluous to make an already complex legal system even more intricate.

Since voting is now opened.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on June 15, 2011, 02:41:17 PM
I'm with Marokai.

I vote Nay.

It seems superfluous to make an already complex legal system even more intricate.

Since voting is now opened.

It's not opened yet.  Once Napoleon sees that debate has halted and HC is ready, I'm sure he'll call a vote.   


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 15, 2011, 04:23:43 PM
Oh! Sorry. Well, let's proceed to a vote, then.

Okay, I thought you were offering changes. We still wont have a vote until later tonight because I intend on making this passable. If anyone else wants to offer something constructive rather than cheap attacks, I'd welcome that. The status quo isn't the answer if you don't like the bill as it stands; I prefer accomplishing what needs to be done even if I don't like the sponsor of the law.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on June 15, 2011, 04:59:30 PM
I can't speak for the others, but I think that in general, section two is unpopular.  Also, what about fixing the "rights restored"  in section 1, and having it read something like;

Quote
1. Any person who has committed a non-murder felony while under the age of 21, will automatically have their [gun] ownership and operating rights restored at age 35.
     a. Except in cases where the victim of the offender's crime is a minor.
     b. Except in cases where the offender has committed two or more felonies during this period.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 15, 2011, 05:39:12 PM
Oh! Sorry. Well, let's proceed to a vote, then.

Okay, I thought you were offering changes. We still wont have a vote until later tonight because I intend on making this passable. If anyone else wants to offer something constructive rather than cheap attacks, I'd welcome that. The status quo isn't the answer if you don't like the bill as it stands; I prefer accomplishing what needs to be done even if I don't like the sponsor of the law.

People have been making perfectly reasonable complaints about this law. You may not like having your proposals criticized, but not everything negative said about something you like is a "cheap attack."

I'm willing to vote for this proposal if the additional punishment for a gun being part of a crime is removed from law.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on June 15, 2011, 05:55:53 PM


Quote
People have been making perfectly reasonable complaints about this law. You may not like having your proposals criticized, but not everything negative said about something you like is a "cheap attack."

In his defense, there have been some less than cordial remarks that can be seen as a "cheap attack."

Quote
I'm willing to vote for this proposal if the additional punishment for a gun being part of a crime is removed from law.

Section 2 is the bulk of Napoleons proposal I believe but, I am not in favor of it either.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 15, 2011, 07:24:46 PM
I prefer accomplishing what needs to be done even if I don't like the sponsor of the law.

That was unnecessary. Our personal relationship has nothing to do with this.

Cincinnatus has the right idea as to specifying which rights Section 1 refers to. I would support those changes, and I believe that section 2 of the amendments needs to be repealed outright.

Also, the original NE Gun Safety Act contains this section:

Quote
Salespersons are required to check customer idenity before transaction.

Unless you'd like to address this in your bill, Napoleon, I am willing to introduce legislation that would make "check customer identity" more clear - presumably by writing in references to driver's licenses, identification cards and the like. As it stands, salespersons are not explicitly required to use any documents at all to verify a customer's identity.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 15, 2011, 08:40:57 PM
@hc: that bit was not at all meant to refer to you.

@Marokai: offering amendments usually works better than acting like a third grader in this Assembly.

Anyone else think that holding debate open longer at hc's request expecting an amendment or something is just terrible inactivity on my part?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on June 15, 2011, 09:02:38 PM
Well.. I don't wrong you for waiting in expectations for an amendment.  We should however, try and stick to a timeline when someone requests a 24 hour extension.

My amendment is as follows regarding section 1;

Quote
1. Any person who has committed a non-murder felony while under the age of 21, will automatically have their [gun] ownership and operating rights restored at age 35.
     a. Except in cases where the victim of the offender's crime is a minor.
     b. Except in cases where the offender has committed two or more felonies during this period.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 15, 2011, 09:16:19 PM
I never intended to propose an amendment to Napoleon's bill when I requested the extension of the debate - I only wanted to make sure that the discussion we were having was not abruptly terminated. I do, however, want to propose an amendment to the original NE Gun Safety Act, but since the bill being considered amends the amendments to the original bill and not the bill itself, it wouldn't be fitting to bring it up here.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 15, 2011, 09:33:55 PM
Well.. I don't wrong you for waiting in expectations for an amendment.  We should however, try and stick to a timeline when someone requests a 24 hour extension.

My amendment is as follows regarding section 1;

Quote
1. Any person who has committed a non-murder felony while under the age of 21, will automatically have their [gun] ownership and operating rights restored at age 35.
     a. Except in cases where the victim of the offender's crime is a minor.
     b. Except in cases where the offender has committed two or more felonies during this period.

Accepted. Unless there's anything else, I will have a final amendment before the vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on June 16, 2011, 06:14:37 PM
I have no further amendments to offer but, is this passable with Section 2 as it currently is?  It seems Marokai, Jake, and HC are rather set against it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 17, 2011, 10:47:46 PM
I guess we have a final vote. 24 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on June 17, 2011, 10:55:01 PM
I'm with Marokai.

I vote Nay.

It seems superfluous to over make an already complex legal system even more intricate.


Once more.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 17, 2011, 11:20:57 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 18, 2011, 07:25:20 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 18, 2011, 08:37:50 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on June 18, 2011, 10:31:16 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 21, 2011, 09:05:23 AM
This bill fails.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 21, 2011, 09:08:14 AM
Call to Vote Amendment

Section 3 of the Standing Order on Legislative Procedure is hereby amended with the addition of a sub-section (i), as follows:

(i) The Speaker of the Assembly shall notify all members of the Assembly via private message of an ongoing vote on the floor of the Assembly no later than one hour after the commencement of the voting period.   

We will now open the floor to debate this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 21, 2011, 09:13:53 AM
I designed that bill to have no real enforcement mechanism so that speakers aren't held responsible for looking after the duties of elected assemblymen. I just thought that since participation in Assembly affairs this past term was often sporadic, an informal measure like this might help.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 21, 2011, 09:16:22 AM
I think something like this is essential for all legislatures. The most important person in any legislative body in Atlasia is the person running that legislative body. We place in them our trust that the legislature will continue moving forward seamlessly, and with as much activity as possible. Responsibilities like this for the Speaker of the Northeast Assembly is a no brainer, to me, and I hope that it passes easily, as it should.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 21, 2011, 09:16:58 AM
I disagree with the basis for this law. The Speaker is not meant to be Babysitter.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 21, 2011, 09:28:20 AM
I disagree with the basis for this law. The Speaker is not meant to be Babysitter.

It's a title of work that has responsibilities, not a title of prestige that's meant to be flaunted. Being a Speaker, or any other legislative equivalent (such as PPT for the federal Senate) is, by any fair assessment, the caretaker of the legislature. I suppose we could amend the resolution to include a more lenient time frame, though, but I hardly think it's unfair to encourage members, which the Speaker presides over, to vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on June 21, 2011, 09:45:59 AM
I wouldn't support stringent enforcement upon the Speaker to tell Assembly members to do their job.  This bill doesn't seem to do so, and because it does not, I'm sorry to say that I see little purpose in it except formalities.  I don't think it's the duty of the Speaker to encourage the Assembly to follow through on their duties.  Perhaps if the size of the Assembly is reduced, those that fail to participate will no longer plague this Assembly. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 21, 2011, 09:56:35 AM
Being Speaker has responsibilities?! Never would have guessed that on my own.

All this bill does is shift responsibility away from other members and discourage participation in debate. Who needs to participate in discussion when a nifty little message will arrive telling when to vote each time?

Every Representative has responsibilities.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 21, 2011, 10:14:02 AM
I wouldn't support stringent enforcement upon the Speaker to tell Assembly members to do their job.  This bill doesn't seem to do so, and because it does not, I'm sorry to say that I see little purpose in it except formalities.  I don't think it's the duty of the Speaker to encourage the Assembly to follow through on their duties.  Perhaps if the size of the Assembly is reduced, those that fail to participate will no longer plague this Assembly. 

In the coming session of this legislature, we will most likely have four assemblymen - a majority of this body - who did not run for their office and merely wrote themselves in on the ballot. I, too, would prefer that this amendment to SOAP be made unnecessary by a reduction in the size of the Assembly, but that is not the case. In such a situation, I believe that it is preferable to encourage absentee legislators to participate via a PM call to vote than to wait until they have missed three votes before throwing them out. To my mind, it is better to attempt to do something constructive with our execrable situation than to fall back on the punishments intended for a less dysfunctional legislature.

If it is agreeable to anyone, I would be willing to change the text of my amendment from "ongoing vote" to "ongoing debate", since Napoleon's comment about reliance on calls to vote as an excuse to avoid debate is a relevant and important one. I realize that this won't solve the "babysitter" role that he has inveighed against, but perhaps it will nonetheless achieve the result that I'm trying to bring about.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on June 21, 2011, 10:37:13 AM
I disagree with the basis for this law. The Speaker is not meant to be Babysitter.

Whie this is true and I agree with this, it takes less than 2 seconds to send a PM that could create more activity. I ran for Governor on the platform of improving Legislative activity, so if this bill helps, I'm all for it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 21, 2011, 10:47:47 AM
I disagree with the basis for this law. The Speaker is not meant to be Babysitter.

Whie this is true and I agree with this, it takes less than 2 seconds to send a PM that could create more activity. I ran for Governor on the platform of improving Legislative activity, so if this bill helps, I'm all for it.

It doesn't help though.

It takes less than. 2 seconds to check the thread themselves. Remember there is a limit to the number of PMs one can send within a certain period.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 21, 2011, 10:54:08 AM
I wouldn't support stringent enforcement upon the Speaker to tell Assembly members to do their job.  This bill doesn't seem to do so, and because it does not, I'm sorry to say that I see little purpose in it except formalities.  I don't think it's the duty of the Speaker to encourage the Assembly to follow through on their duties.  Perhaps if the size of the Assembly is reduced, those that fail to participate will no longer plague this Assembly. 

In the coming session of this legislature, we will most likely have four assemblymen - a majority of this body - who did not run for their office and merely wrote themselves in on the ballot. I, too, would prefer that this amendment to SOAP be made unnecessary by a reduction in the size of the Assembly, but that is not the case. In such a situation, I believe that it is preferable to encourage absentee legislators to participate via a PM call to vote than to wait until they have missed three votes before throwing them out. To my mind, it is better to attempt to do something constructive with our execrable situation than to fall back on the punishments intended for a less dysfunctional legislature.

If it is agreeable to anyone, I would be willing to change the text of my amendment from "ongoing vote" to "ongoing debate", since Napoleon's comment about reliance on calls to vote as an excuse to avoid debate is a relevant and important one. I realize that this won't solve the "babysitter" role that he has inveighed against, but perhaps it will nonetheless achieve the result that I'm trying to bring about.

That would be an improvement but I would still probably be opposed. This bill screams nanny state. We can't even expect our legislators to check a thread?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on June 21, 2011, 11:16:07 AM
I disagree with the basis for this law. The Speaker is not meant to be Babysitter.

Whie this is true and I agree with this, it takes less than 2 seconds to send a PM that could create more activity. I ran for Governor on the platform of improving Legislative activity, so if this bill helps, I'm all for it.

It doesn't help though.

It takes less than. 2 seconds to check the thread themselves. Remember there is a limit to the number of PMs one can send within a certain period.

Meh. This is true. Perhaps we could make an Amendment to the bill to allow the Governor to send the messages. I'd be happy to do so.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 21, 2011, 11:20:55 AM
We can't even expect our legislators to check a thread?

To be honest, no. Those that write themselves in on their ballot and immediately get elected to the Assembly because there are so many open seats often have no real sense of responsibility - it means nothing to them if they're elected to or removed from office. The only vote which mattered in their election was their own, so why would they feel accountable for their actions to their constituents, much less participate constructively in the legislature? I think that we need to address this reality, which will become even more difficult to avoid in the next session, with a measure that reminds such legislators of their duty.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on June 21, 2011, 11:33:44 AM
If the Governor wants to take such responsibility on, it is completely within their right to do so.  I however, do not agree with such a bill that would relieves our officials in the Assembly from individual responsibility.  An Assembly members actions, or lack thereof rather, is reflective of his/her commitment to this region.  If I know someone requires the Governor or Speaker to hold their hand and tell them when to vote, I'm not inclined to elect them again.

The Speaker has the responsibility of directing this Assembly, yes.  He does not however, have the responsibility of sending out reminders every time legislation comes to a vote.  I would rather the Speaker call 24 hours vote, and close the vote as close to that set period as possible.  I can understand sending one of the active members of this Assembly a reminder on the off chance that they have been busy.  I don't want to see the Speaker introducing training wheels to our less motivated and committed members.

I can understand where this bill is coming from but, do you really think a reminder will help debate?  If they have no commitment already, I doubt a PM will force anything but partisan based "vote this way", if they are convinced to vote at all.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 21, 2011, 12:00:32 PM
If the Governor wants to take such responsibility on, it is completely within their right to do so.  I however, do not agree with such a bill that would relieves our officials in the Assembly from individual responsibility.  An Assembly members actions, or lack thereof rather, is reflective of his/her commitment to this region.  If I know someone requires the Governor or Speaker to hold their hand and tell them when to vote, I'm not inclined to elect them again.

But my point is that this sentiment, as reasonable as it is, just doesn't apply to the reality that we are forced to deal with. I'm not concerned with the Assembly's active membership - this bill is meant to address the problem of "casual candidates becoming absent legislators". You or I have no say in the election of someone who writes himself in. That person may not even realize that they've won a seat in the Assembly, if they don't check the right threads. If they recieve notifications, they might come to realize that they are expected to conform to certain standards of conduct befitting the office that they hold. The people of the Northeast have the right to be represented by the legislators that they chose, and I think that it is the Assembly's responsibility to ensure that that representation comes about, even if it requires a bit of "hand-holding". If the member still does not respond to notifications, then by all means he should be thrown out - but I believe that we should at least try to contact the absentee member before he is removed from office.

Will a reminder help debate? Not likely. But I do not think that it can harm debate - and if it manages to turn one member into an active participant in debate, then the amendment will have been worthwhile.

If the Governor or Lieutenant Governor or Speaker   


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on June 21, 2011, 12:14:22 PM
Well.. Perhaps we should send PM's to members that have been elected, rather than for every voting session?  Maybe a reminder that 2 consecutive votes have been missed by the CJO.  I just can't see having the Speaker telling everyone that a vote is currently in progress.  If Jake is successful in his determination to see several pieces passed in a month, the Speaker will be quite busy messaging uncommitted people for every vote.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 21, 2011, 12:15:52 PM
I'd rather those schmucks get booted if they choose not to do their job.

LOL at mentioning the Governor. Ghostwhite can't even do anything without being PMed. We might need a law for that too. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 21, 2011, 09:39:23 PM
Obviously we don't have time to vote on this, so the debate will have to carry over into the next session once a speaker is elected.

I suppose this session of the Assembly concludes at midnight tonight, since newly elected assemblymen are constitutionally required to officially assume office today.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 21, 2011, 11:04:04 PM
Was an honor being here for as long as I was, then.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 21, 2011, 11:08:13 PM
A sincere thank-you to Marokai, Napoleon, sbane and Jake for their work these two months. It's been a pleasure to work with all of you, and I'm quite proud of our collaboration.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on June 21, 2011, 11:13:58 PM
Obviously we don't have time to vote on this, so the debate will have to carry over into the next session once a speaker Speaker homelycooking is elected.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on June 22, 2011, 03:51:17 PM
Obviously we don't have time to vote on this, so the debate will have to carry over into the next session once a speaker Speaker homelycooking is elected.

^^^ This.

As Governor of the Region, I wish to strongly urge the Assembly to elect Homelycooking as Speaker of the Assembly. He is a hard and diligent worker and wants only the best for the Region. Now get to work you guys, we have a Region to fix :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 22, 2011, 06:30:28 PM
Obviously we don't have time to vote on this, so the debate will have to carry over into the next session once a speaker Speaker homelycooking is elected.

^^^ This.

As Governor of the Region, I wish to strongly urge the Assembly to elect Homelycooking as Speaker of the Assembly. He is a hard and diligent worker and wants only the best for the Region. Now get to work you guys, we have a Region to fix :)

As a simple citizen I urge the same. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 22, 2011, 06:38:56 PM
Should the Assembly so decide, I would be honored to serve as speaker.

However, we're still waiting for Assemblymen to swear in. We currently have only three who have done so - myself, Cincinnatus and wormyguy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on June 22, 2011, 06:54:36 PM
Is Winfield aware of his duties as Lieutenant Governor?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 22, 2011, 06:56:50 PM
Is Winfield aware of his duties as Lieutenant Governor?

Yes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 22, 2011, 08:20:51 PM
Is Winfield aware of his duties as Lieutenant Governor?

The New Northeast Constitution was ratified on 13 February 2006

ARTICLE IV - EXECUTIVE BRANCH

i) The executive authority of the Northeast Region shall be vested first and foremost in the Governor of the Northeast Region, and secondly by the Lieutenant Governor.

viii) If the office of Governor is to become vacant at some point while he or she is in office, than the Lieutenant Governor is to be immediately sworn in as Governor of the Northeast Region. If the office of Lieutenant Governor is to become vacant at some point while he or she is in office, than the Governor may appoint a new one after the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.

xiii) The Lieutenant Governor of the Northeast Region shall be charged with the responsibilities of the Legislative Assembly of the region. He or she shall ensure that the Legislative Assembly has the ability to propose legislation that they are able to be debated on, and voted on during appropriate periods. In the temporary absence of the Lieutenant Governor, than the Governor may take up these responsibilities.

xiv) In the temporary absence of the Governor, then the Lieutenant Governor may be allowed to temporarily conduct the duties of the Governor.

xv) The chain of command for the Governorship of the Northeast Region shall be as follows: Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Chief Judicial Officer, Longest continuously serving citizen of the Northeast Region, followed by the next longest and the next and so on. The chain of command shall be used to fill sudden vacancies in the office of Governor.

ARTICLE V - LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

xiv) The Lieutenant Governor of the Northeast acts as the President of the Northeast Legislative Assembly. He officially opens and closes the sessions, organizes votes on legislation and notifies the Reps of the results of any official vote. He does not take part in any vote in the Legislative Assembly unless a vote results in a perfect tie. In this case, he or she shall be allowed to vote to break said tie.

This is the only NE constitution I can find.  So if any of this has changed, please advise.

As this stands, the Lieutenant Governor presides over the Assembly with duties and responsibilities as noted.  So this is what I shall be doing, unless this constitution has been superceded.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on June 22, 2011, 08:27:24 PM
I look forward to you serving.  Hopefully the legislative positions will see much more activity this time around.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 22, 2011, 09:22:39 PM
Should the Assembly so decide, I would be honored to serve as speaker.

However, we're still waiting for Assemblymen to swear in. We currently have only three who have done so - myself, Cincinnatus and wormyguy.

In the Northeast Assembly, please clarify the duties and the authority of the Speaker of the Assembly. 



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on June 22, 2011, 09:28:34 PM
Quote
Northeast Assembly Speaker Act

The Northeast Assembly shall elect a Speaker from among its members by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly at the start of each new Northeast Assembly term.
   
The Speaker shall assume the role of presiding officer of the Northeast Assembly whenever the Lieutenant Governor publicly confirms he will be absent from the Northeast Assembly or the Lieutenant Governor otherwise publicly designates the Speaker to this role for a specified period.
   
The Speaker shall serve until the end of the Northeast Assembly term, unless the Speaker is removed or resigns from the office of the Speaker.
   
The Speaker may be removed from office by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly.
   
If the office of the Speaker becomes vacant for any reason, the Northeast Assembly shall elect a new Speaker from among its members by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly as soon as possible.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 22, 2011, 09:39:46 PM
Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on June 22, 2011, 09:44:18 PM
It'll be exciting to watch you progress in the game. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 22, 2011, 09:49:36 PM

Thank you, but I doubt it will be all that exciting.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on June 22, 2011, 10:33:05 PM
It's good to be back.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 22, 2011, 10:51:15 PM
I have invited by PM Sic Semper Tyrannis/Fallen Morgan and Elyski 729 to swear in as members of the NE Assembly, and I see Morgan has done so.

Thank you Morgan. 

I have also informed them, and I wish to inform all, that I will be opening the Northeast Assembly tomorrow, Thursday, for the purpose of nominating and electing a Speaker for the Assembly.

So all members of the Assembly please check into the Assembly tomorrow evening and we will take care of this order of business and begin the new session of the Northeast Assembly.

I am hopeful and optimistic that this session will be activist and productive.

I also plan on meeting with Governor Jake Matthews to discuss the session and to work out an agenda from the perspective of the Executive Branch.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 23, 2011, 09:54:36 AM
The Constitution sez:

Quote
In the temporary absence of the Lieutenant Governor, than the Governor may take up these responsibilities.


While the NE Assembly Speaker act reads:

Quote
The Speaker shall assume the role of presiding officer of the Northeast Assembly whenever the Lieutenant Governor publicly confirms he will be absent from the Northeast Assembly or the Lieutenant Governor otherwise publicly designates the Speaker to this role for a specified period.

I wonder if the word "may" in the Constitution means "has the option to"? If the Governor does not exercise this option, I imagine that the Speaker takes on those responsibilities.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 23, 2011, 08:04:26 PM
As Lieutenant Governor of the Northeast Region, and as President of the Northeast Assembly, I hereby call the new session of the Northeast Assembly to order.

A very warm welcome to all.

I have every confidence that this session of the Northeast Assembly will prove to be a productive one and beneficial to the Northeast Region.

In spite of my somewhat controversial victory in my election as Lieutenant Governor, nevertheless, the fact of the matter is, I have been duly elected to this office, and I intend to carry out the responsibilities of this office to the best of my ability.

I call on all members of this Assembly to act with respect and dignity toward one another, while at the same time being forceful advocates for their particular points of view and beliefs.

The first order of business for this session will be for all members of this assembly who wish to do so to make an opening statement.  

After opening remarks by the members of this Assembly, I will then call for nominations from the floor of the Assembly for the position of Speaker of the Assembly.  The members of the Assembly will then vote on the nominees for Speaker.  I, of course, will vote only in the event of a tie.

Should there be only one nominee for the position of Speaker, I will declare that individual as duly elected to the position of Speaker of the Northeast Assembly.

We will now proceed with these items of business, in the order as I have outlined.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 23, 2011, 09:31:44 PM
Let us do what we can in these next few months to make the Northeast the fairest region of Atlasia. I look forward to a productive, constructive and respectful session.

Warm regards to all.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 25, 2011, 08:00:44 AM
Anyone home?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on June 25, 2011, 08:18:15 AM

It appears not. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 25, 2011, 09:07:59 AM
I am trying to be an active Lieutenant Governor, but it would appear that to date some of the Assembly members have not shown up to new session of the Assembly.  In fact, only one Assembly member has made an opening statement to date.

Opening statements are not mandatory, of course, but I thought this would be a nice gesture with which to open the new session of the Assembly.

I will give one more day, today, which is Saturday, June 25, for opening remarks by members, then I will call for nominations, or nomination, from the floor of the Assembly for the position of Speaker of the Assembly. 

Once the Speaker has been duly elected by the Assembly, we can then proceed on debate of proposed legislation.  I see there is one item of proposed legislation in the legislation thread, which I will bring to the Assembly floor after the election of the Speaker.

So I ask all members of this Assembly to please show up to the session so we can proceed with the business of the Northeast region.

Thank you.   


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on June 25, 2011, 09:49:56 AM
Assemblymen,

As Governor, I would like to see legislation proposed to decrease the number of Assembly seats to 5.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 25, 2011, 11:41:05 AM
Assemblymen,

As Governor, I would like to see legislation proposed to decrease the number of Assembly seats to 5.

Thank you.

Legislation cannot accomplish that. We would need to change the Constitution.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on June 25, 2011, 01:12:11 PM
I'm here.

I'm also fairly certain Napoleon is no longer an assemblyman.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 25, 2011, 01:15:08 PM
I'm here.

I'm also fairly certain Napoleon is no longer an assemblyman.

I'm also fairly certain that matters naught.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 25, 2011, 05:06:11 PM
Assemblymen,

As Governor, I would like to see legislation proposed to decrease the number of Assembly seats to 5.

Thank you.

Legislation cannot accomplish that. We would need to change the Constitution.


GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE

ARTICLE V - LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

vii) The number of Reps to be elected corresponds to the entire part of the quotient C/6, with C being the number of citizens in the Northeast Region as of the third Friday at 12:00:00am EST of the month of the election.

Unles the constitution has been amended since, this is the constitutional requirement for the number of representatives.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on June 25, 2011, 05:56:13 PM
Change it to this:

Quote
vii) The Northeast Assembly shall be composed of five members, each of whom shall be registered voters residing in the Northeast Region.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on June 25, 2011, 06:38:50 PM
Change it to this:

Quote
vii) The Northeast Assembly shall be composed of five members, each of whom shall be registered voters residing in the Northeast Region.



This has been brought up and of those who participated in discussion, I believe four Assemblyman was the general consensus.   


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 25, 2011, 06:57:06 PM
I, for one, can and will not support an Assembly composed of more than four members.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 25, 2011, 07:00:30 PM
Four members seems small, I'm not sure if that would pass the citizen vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 25, 2011, 07:38:17 PM
Four members seems small, I'm not sure if that would pass the citizen vote.

Be that as it may, I won't support a five member assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on June 25, 2011, 08:06:22 PM
Four members seems small, I'm not sure if that would pass the citizen vote.

Be that as it may, I won't support a five member assembly.
So you want to reduce the amount of Assemblymen, but would vote against reducing it to 5? Hm.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 25, 2011, 09:11:38 PM
Four members seems small, I'm not sure if that would pass the citizen vote.
Be that as it may, I won't support a five member assembly.
So you want to reduce the amount of Assemblymen, but would vote against reducing it to 5? Hm.

Touché. Of course I want to see the size of the assembly reduced - by any amount. My point, however, is that I want it to be reduced to a size that is as small as possible. I will insist upon a three- or four-member assembly, and support a larger assembly size only begrudgingly.




Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on June 25, 2011, 09:19:50 PM
Change it to this:

Quote
vii) The Northeast Assembly shall be composed of five members, each of whom shall be registered voters residing in the Northeast Region.

^^^^^


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 26, 2011, 07:51:27 PM
Five days into the start of the Assembly session and still nothing.
Cincinnatus is on leave. FallenMorgan and elyski are nowhere to be found. I have no clue what wormyguy's up to. I'm here...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 26, 2011, 07:55:08 PM
To be fair, it has been a hectic weekend. I did introduce a bill that I hope is passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 26, 2011, 08:29:36 PM
To be fair, it has been a hectic weekend. I did introduce a bill that I hope is passed.

Agreed. And by the way, that bill looks like something I can support.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Elyski on June 27, 2011, 07:31:24 AM
I'm here.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 27, 2011, 07:50:38 PM
Northeast Governor Winfield addresses the Assembly

The next agenda item for the Northeast Assembly to consider is the selection of a Speaker of the Assembly.

Please elect a Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 27, 2011, 07:55:21 PM
To be fair, it has been a hectic weekend. I did introduce a bill that I hope is passed.

Napoleon, please repost the bill you are referring to so the Assembly can consider it. Was this bill voted on and passed before the end of the previous session, or did it die on the order paper at the end of the previous session?

   


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 27, 2011, 07:57:23 PM
Pretty certain he's talking about this one.

Natural Beauty Preservation Act

No billboard advertisements may be placed along roads, highways, freeways, or interstates in areas classified as rural.
Municipalities shall have the power to ban billboards within their jurisdiction.

X Napoleon


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 27, 2011, 08:17:27 PM
Pretty certain he's talking about this one.

Natural Beauty Preservation Act

No billboard advertisements may be placed along roads, highways, freeways, or interstates in areas classified as rural.
Municipalities shall have the power to ban billboards within their jurisdiction.

X Napoleon

Thank you.

However, it seems to me that if this bill was not passed before the end of the last session that it would have died on the order paper.  As I was not present for the last session, please clarify the situation with this bill.

If it did in fact die on the order paper, in order for it to be considered and voted on, it would have to be reintroduced by the current Governor, i.e. myself, or by a  current member of the Assembly.  So if this bill died on the order paper, is there a member of the Assembly who wishes to reintroduce this bill for the consideration of the Assembly?

But before this is dealt with, the Assembly is to elect a Speaker.  So I ask the Representatives to elect a Speaker as soon as possible.

Let me take this opportunity to congratulate Homelycooking, Fallen Morgan, Wormyguy, Cincinnatus, and Elyski for their election to the Assembly.  The Northeast is fortunate to have these fine Representatives dealing with the affairs of the Northeast. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 27, 2011, 09:00:25 PM
Let me take this opportunity to congratulate Homelycooking, Fallen Morgan, Wormyguy, Cincinnatus, and Elyski for their election to the Assembly.  The Northeast is fortunate to have these fine Representatives dealing with the affairs of the Northeast. 

Thanks. And don't forget Redcommander, who was elected but hasn't sworn in yet.

I'm afraid we might not have a quorum in the near future...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 27, 2011, 10:24:07 PM
I introduced the bill this session as a citizen. It needs another signature to be considered, but any of you could take it up automatically if you so wish. Have no doubt I will remain active in regional politics despite my election to the Senate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 27, 2011, 11:09:37 PM
I introduced the bill this session as a citizen. It needs another signature to be considered, but any of you could take it up automatically if you so wish. Have no doubt I will remain active in regional politics despite my election to the Senate.

OK, a citizen initiative.  That's what I call grassroots democracy.  Have no fear, I shall either get one of the Representatives to bring this to the floor for consideration, debate, and a vote, or I shall bring it to the floor myself.

However, before we proceed with any legislation, the Assembly is to elect a Speaker. 

Members of the Assembly, please elect a Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 27, 2011, 11:21:21 PM
Members of the Assembly, due to the resignation of Governor Jake Matthews, as the Lieutenant Governor at the time, I have been sworn in as Governor.

Therefore, there exists a vacancy in the executive branch for the position of Lieutenant Governor.

As per the constitution, the Assembly is to recommend to me a new Lieutenant Governor.

Please give the election of a Speaker and a reocmmendation to me for a new Lieutenant Governor your top priority.

Bills or legislation can be debated and voted upon with me filling in for the Lieutenant Governor, however, it is urgent that the Assembly elect a Speaker and recommend to me a new Lieutenant Governor as soon as possible, so that I can dedicate my time to the other duties of Governor.

La cucina brutta, can I give you the assignment to PM the other Representatives and ask them to work with you to elect a Speaker and to send me a name for a new Lieutenant Governor?

We will then be in a better position to properly attend to the affairs of the Northeast.   


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 27, 2011, 11:34:34 PM
The floor is now open for nominations for Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 28, 2011, 08:17:26 AM
La cucina brutta, can I give you the assignment to PM the other Representatives and ask them to work with you to elect a Speaker and to send me a name for a new Lieutenant Governor?

Sure. And please, call me "homely".


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 28, 2011, 01:41:47 PM
Someone nominate homelycooking. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 28, 2011, 11:17:22 PM
Let me take this opportunity to congratulate Homelycooking, Fallen Morgan, Wormyguy, Cincinnatus, and Elyski for their election to the Assembly.  The Northeast is fortunate to have these fine Representatives dealing with the affairs of the Northeast. 

Thanks. And don't forget Redcommander, who was elected but hasn't sworn in yet.

I'm afraid we might not have a quorum in the near future...

Yes indeed, Redcommander is a welcome addition to the Northeast Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 28, 2011, 11:20:09 PM
La cucina brutta, can I give you the assignment to PM the other Representatives and ask them to work with you to elect a Speaker and to send me a name for a new Lieutenant Governor?

Sure. And please, call me "homely".

Thank you homely.  Much appreciated.  I trust these matters will be transacted shortly so the Northeast Assembly can proceed to other business. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 29, 2011, 11:05:16 AM
24 hours with no nominations... would the speaker be elected via write-in?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 29, 2011, 11:15:36 AM
What a farce. The session is about 1/8 done, and nothing has been accomplished. Where the hell are elyski, redcommander, FallenMorgan...?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on June 29, 2011, 06:18:43 PM
I have returned and my first post will be gladly used to nominate homely as Speaker :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 29, 2011, 09:18:23 PM
OK, homely and Cincinnatus have shown up at the Assembly. 

According to information I have received from homely, we need 3 Representatives to transact business.

Where are Fallen Morgan, Wormyguy, Elyski, and Redcommander? 

Gentlemen, you have been elected as Representatives, so please show up here to the Assembly so we can proceed with the region's business.   


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 29, 2011, 09:26:38 PM
If Redcommander swears in, a majority will be four Assemblymen.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 29, 2011, 10:39:28 PM
We can proceed with the business of the Northeast Assembly with those present,  homelycooking and Cincinnatus.

As the office of Lieutenant Governor is currently vacant, I will fill in for that position.

homelycooking has been nominated for Speaker of the Northeast Assembly.

We will now proceed with the vote.

Please cast your vote.

Ballot

Speaker of the Northeast Assembly

[  ]  homelycooking
[  ]  Write in


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on June 29, 2011, 10:46:13 PM
Speaker:

[X] homelycooking


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 29, 2011, 11:09:12 PM
Speaker:

[X] homelycooking


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on June 30, 2011, 10:06:15 AM
As the office of Lieutenant Governor is currently vacant, I will fill in for that position.

But what would Napoleon say about that?

Speaker of the Northeast Assembly

[  ]  homelycooking
[X]  Write in: wormyguy


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on June 30, 2011, 07:53:11 PM
Speaker of the Northeast Assembly

[  ]  homelycooking
[X]  Write in: wormyguy


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on June 30, 2011, 08:47:08 PM
Next vote decides the election. Elyski must vote - otherwise, we're at an impasse.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 01, 2011, 12:04:16 PM
It is July 1.

Elyski has not shown up to vote.

I will therefore have to cast the deciding vote for Speaker of the Norltheast Assembly.

I cast my vote for homelycooking.

Congratulations homelycooking, you are now the new Speaker of the Northeast Assembly.

Thank you wormyguy for allowing your name to stand for Speaker.

Either one of you would have done an excellent job.

Now, let's get onto the business of the Northeast Region.

Thank you.

May I take this opportunity to introduce the first bill to be presented in this new session, a bill left over from the previous session, and proposed by Speaker Napoleon, at the time, now Senator Napoleon.



Quote from Napoleon  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Natural Beauty Preservation Act bill

No billboard advertisements may be placed along roads, highways, freeways, or interstates in areas classified as rural.
Municipalities shall have the power to ban billboards within their jurisdiction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This bill is now open for debate.

Members of the Assembly, please proceed.

 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 01, 2011, 12:49:31 PM
Governor, if you could from now on, please put the text of the bills in a quote box just for visual purpose.  Also, the Speaker is meant to be picked by the Assembly but, unless the decision is challenged, congratulations HC.

In regards to the bill;

I can understand allowing municipalities to determine the use of billboards, but I'm not sure I can support a ban on advertisement in rural areas, which seems to be the basis for this bill. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 01, 2011, 12:55:54 PM
He can't appoint a Lieutenant Governor because the Assembly needs to recommend one. Until then, he would be acting Lieutenant Governor.

As for the bill, many rural residents live in such areas to escape city life and enjoy our region's natural beauty. To commercialize these areas is an insult. I'd add that this works perfectly fine in Vermont.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on July 01, 2011, 01:40:48 PM
I am awaiting Napoleon's lawsuit challenging Winfield's "vote" in the Speaker election, given that he, as governor, is assuming the duties of the vacant Lt. Governorship.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 01, 2011, 01:42:02 PM
I am awaiting Napoleon's lawsuit challenging Winfield's "vote" in the Speaker election, given that he, as governor, is assuming the duties of the vacant Lt. Governorship.

Not the same situation at all. However CJO cinyc's ruling will hopefully address this as well.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 01, 2011, 01:47:28 PM
I understand you don't care for Napoleon and nor does he care for you, but can we refrain from attacking each other in this thread.  I could care less what you guys argue about in separate threads, because it's not really a concern until it spills in here. 

Wormy, if you would actually provide debate your opinion would be valued [at least to me], if you would actually bother to care.  I won't hold my breath but, it would be nice if we could just debate the bill in question :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 01, 2011, 01:49:39 PM
Governor, if you could from now on, please put the text of the bills in a quote box just for visual purpose.  Also, the Speaker is meant to be picked by the Assembly but, unless the decision is challenged, congratulations HC.

The Speaker was chosen by the Assembly.  I was simply casting the tie breaking vote.  If we had a Lieutenant Governor, the LG would cast the tie breaking vote.  Since we have no LG, I, as Governor, am acting within the constitution filling in for the LG in this capacity, therefore, I had the constitutional authority to cast the tie breaking vote.

I do not have the authority to simply appoint a new LG.  The Assembly is supposed to recommend a new LG to me.  I would like to see the constitutiion changed in this matter, allowing the Governor to nominate a new LG, to be confirmed by a vote of the Assembly.  This is of course the same way in the U.S., when there is a vacancy in the Vice Presidency, the President nominates a new VP, who is voted on by the Congress.    


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 01, 2011, 02:22:46 PM
I understand you don't care for Napoleon and nor does he care for you, but can we refrain from attacking each other in this thread. 

Please dont put words in my mouth.

Quote
Wormy, if you would actually provide debate your opinion would be valued [at least to me], if you would actually bother to care.  I won't hold my breath but, it would be nice if we could just debate the bill in question :P

I agree.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 01, 2011, 02:33:49 PM
Please, we must return to discussion and debate on the bill before the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on July 01, 2011, 02:47:42 PM
I am awaiting Napoleon's lawsuit challenging Winfield's "vote" in the Speaker election, given that he, as governor, is assuming the duties of the vacant Lt. Governorship.

Not the same situation at all. However CJO cinyc's ruling will hopefully address this as well.

Of course it's the same situation.  Winfield is assuming the duties of the vacant Lt. Governorship as Governor and casting a vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 01, 2011, 02:52:54 PM
I am awaiting Napoleon's lawsuit challenging Winfield's "vote" in the Speaker election, given that he, as governor, is assuming the duties of the vacant Lt. Governorship.

Not the same situation at all. However CJO cinyc's ruling will hopefully address this as well.

Of course it's the same situation.  Winfield is assuming the duties of the vacant Lt. Governorship as Governor and casting a vote.

Of course it's the same situation if you have a libertarian victim complex. To those of us capable of critical analysis, Winfield is assuming the duties of an office he was elected to, on a temporary basis, so that he can fill the position. Winfield is not assuming these duties to permanently have a vote in the legislature and usurp power. Winfield is unable to appoint a new Lt. Governor until the Assembly recommendation takes place.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on July 01, 2011, 03:01:11 PM
Winfield is not the Lt. Governor.  There never was an assembly recommendation during Han's term either.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 01, 2011, 03:04:06 PM
Winfield is not the Lt. Governor.  There never was an assembly recommendation during Han's term either.

I did not say he was. If the Assembly didn't recommend anyone, that is not my fault. Han could have been proactive like Winfield to get the Assembly to act on the Lieutenant Governor issue but apparently this never happened.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 01, 2011, 03:16:23 PM
Read the constitution.

ARTICLE IV - EXECUTIVE BRANCH

xiii) The Lieutenant Governor of the Northeast Region shall be charged with the responsibilities of the Legislative Assembly of the region. He or she shall ensure that the Legislative Assembly has the ability to propose legislation that they are able to be debated on, and voted on during appropriate periods. In the temporary absence of the Lieutenant Governor, than the Governor may take up these responsibilities.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 01, 2011, 10:24:39 PM
Winfield, Cincinnatus, Napoleon, I appreciate your desire to keep this session moving forward, but I see this in the Northeast Assembly Speaker Act and worry that my assuming the job of Speaker is not legal.

Quote
The Northeast Assembly shall elect a Speaker from among its members by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly at the start of each new Northeast Assembly term.

I received 50% of the vote, as did Wormyguy. Neither of us attained a majority, unless Winfield claims that he is a member of the Assembly as well.

I'm sorry, but I only want the proper procedure to be followed, and I don't want to be an illegal Speaker.





Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 01, 2011, 11:39:59 PM
Winfield, Cincinnatus, Napoleon, I appreciate your desire to keep this session moving forward, but I see this in the Northeast Assembly Speaker Act and worry that my assuming the job of Speaker is not legal.

Quote
The Northeast Assembly shall elect a Speaker from among its members by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly at the start of each new Northeast Assembly term.

I received 50% of the vote, as did Wormyguy. Neither of us attained a majority, unless Winfield claims that he is a member of the Assembly as well.

I'm sorry, but I only want the proper procedure to be followed, and I don't want to be an illegal Speaker.


I would interpret "all members of the Northeast Assembly" to mean all members present at the time of the vote.  All members had ample notice of the vote for Speaker.  As you see, the Northeast Assembly has never had all elected members present, and has Redocmmander even sworn in?

In the event of a tie, the Lieutenant Governor casts the tie breaking vote.  As Governor, in the absence a Lieutenant Governor, I was acting, constitutionally, in the capacity of the Lieutenant Governor, to break the tie.

Anyway, I shall take this matter up with the Northeast Chief Judicial Officer.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 02, 2011, 08:19:02 AM
Well, Redcommander hasn't sworn in, and thus isn't yet a member of the Assembly. That leaves myself, Cincinnatus, Elyski, Wormy and FallenMorgan. I thought a candidate for speaker would need three of five votes.

Quote
In the event of a tie, the Lieutenant Governor casts the tie breaking vote.  As Governor, in the absence a Lieutenant Governor, I was acting, constitutionally, in the capacity of the Lieutenant Governor, to break the tie.

That's obviously right, but the Lt. Governor's vote could resolve the tie without bringing it into accordance with the Northeast Assembly Speaker Act. I don't think that law means anything other than what it says, Winfield: a Speaker must recieve support from a majority of the Assembly, active or inactive. Note:

Quote
The Northeast Assembly shall elect a Speaker from among its members by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly at the start of each new Northeast Assembly term.

But, nonetheless, we should take this up with cinyc.





Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 02, 2011, 09:56:27 AM
Despite ongoing debate, the importance of selecting a Lt. Gov should be brought up in this thread.

Therefore, I think we should recommend dallasfan for Lt. Gov.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 02, 2011, 10:01:11 AM
(In response to homelycooking reply 4011)

Then get ALL MEMBERS of the Assembly to vote.

I've tried.

I have been asking the Assembly to elect a Speaker since day 1.  

Are we supposed to wait indefinitely?

This is getting annoyng.

If a member of the Assembly chooses not to vote, we can't force him.

I will invalidate the Speaker election in the Assembly, call for a revote for Speaker, and we will then wait and wait and wait and wait for the Speaker election to be concluded, once ALL MEMBERS have voted.

If that makes everyone feel better, fine.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 02, 2011, 10:03:14 AM
Despite ongoing debate, the importance of selecting a Lt. Gov should be brought up in this thread.

Therefore, I think we should recommend dallasfan for Lt. Gov.

I have asked Dallasfan if he would be interested in becoming Lt. Gov., and he is not at this time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 02, 2011, 10:05:30 AM
Quote
Then get ALL MEMBERS of the Assembly to vote.

You're acting as Lt. Gov, I have no power to start a vote.  I would certainly like to work with you to get a Lt. Gov in as soon as possible so we can move forward.  As far as the Speaker elections go, the importance of the position is dwarfed by the Lt Gov, and when the winner of the special election has sworn in, I'm sure the problem can be resolved beyond a doubt.

Despite ongoing debate, the importance of selecting a Lt. Gov should be brought up in this thread.

Therefore, I think we should recommend dallasfan for Lt. Gov.

I have asked Dallasfan if he would be interested in becoming Lt. Gov., and he is not at this time.

Hmmm.. That ruins that than.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 02, 2011, 11:01:52 AM
What about NiK? Bullmoose? Obamaisdabest? Seriously, now we're grasping at straws.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 02, 2011, 11:06:58 AM
What about NiK? Bullmoose? Obamaisdabest? Seriously, now we're grasping at straws.

Nik is not available.  I don't know about the other two.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 02, 2011, 01:47:44 PM
I had an idea for Lieutenant Governor.

If any current Assembly members are interested, they could resign their seat in the Assembly, their name could be presented to the Governor for appointment as the new LG, and a special Assembly election could be called to fill the Assembly vacancy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 02, 2011, 01:56:28 PM
Due to the extreme controversy surrounding the recent Speaker election for the Northeast Assembly, I hereby invalidate the previous Speaker election results, and call for a new Speaker election.  The elected Speaker refuses to take the office under these circumstances anyway.

I hereby call upon the Assembly to elect a Speaker, to be elected by ALL MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY.

PLEASE ELECT A SPEAKER!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 02, 2011, 01:59:18 PM
Winfield, you do not have the power to invalidate this vote.

The Speaker can resign if he does not want the office.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 02, 2011, 03:14:41 PM
OK.  

So, homelycooking, if you will not accept the office of Speaker under the circumstances, and it appears to me that you will not accept, please resign, and I will call for a new election for Speaker.

You, of course, are free to run for Speaker again if you so choose.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 02, 2011, 09:12:38 PM
I second Cincinnatus' concerns regarding the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 02, 2011, 10:23:51 PM
For the sake of continued progress, I will accept the office of Speaker.

I do so with a great amount of regret and hesitation, as I still do not believe that I have been elected properly, with the support of a majority of the vote of the members of the Assembly.

But the time has come to stop my anal-retentive insistence upon making sure that every law is reconciled with reality in the most perfect way possible. In doing so, I have shown a remarkable amount of immaturity, and I apologize for that mainly to Winfield, who has been in the right most of the time while I nitpicked and hemmed and hawed.

I hope the Assembly can forgive me. I would completely understand if they decided to elect a different Speaker at this time, but I hope they could let me get to work at paying the Northeast back its two weeks of time that I so needlessly wasted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 02, 2011, 10:28:02 PM
Shall the debate continue on the bill?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 02, 2011, 10:41:31 PM
It shall not. Without objection, I withdraw that bill from consideration.

The Assembly shall now consider the following bill, proposed by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Marokai Blue. Though the gentleman no longer is a member of this body, it is only proper that his bill, proposed during his tenure as a Northeast Assemblyman, is considered.

Quote
The Crime Is What Actually Matters Act

Clause 2 of the Amendments to the Northeast Gun Safety Act is repealed.

I have invited Mr. Marokai to speak on behalf of his bill. Otherwise, the floor is open for debate, which shall last for 48 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 02, 2011, 10:51:33 PM
A Note from the Speaker

While the bill is being considered, any new information regarding the appointment of a new Lt. Governor will gladly recieve an audience on the floor.

In the interest of time, members, should you wish to truncate the period of time allotted for debate or voting, please indicate your desire by declaring "Motion to suspend SOAP 3a/3d/3f", etc. The Assembly will then consider your motion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 02, 2011, 11:06:28 PM
I thank you for the invitation to speak about this bill. :)

Though I realize I can no longer vote in this Assembly, I still believe this is something that should be passed and swiftly. This bill would repeal the Clause of the "Amendments to the Northeast Gun Safety Act" that pertains to additional penalties just for the criminal having a gun as an "instrument" in a crime.

Quote
2. Whenever a gun is used as an instrument in the crime, an additional five years will be added to the sentence.

I don't believe it is this Assembly's place, or any legislature's place for that matter, to dictate additional penalties for crimes based on the smaller details of that crime. Should we add an extra punishment for the use of a blunt weapon? Or what about adding an extra year for the use of a knife in a crime? Making this special exception just for guns, I believe, is silly, and wrong.

Another problem is the fact that, aside from us stepping on the judiciary's toes here when we shouldn't be, the clause itself is incredibly vague. "Whenever a gun is used as an instrument in a crime" could mean literally anything. It could count simply threatening someone with a gun, or hitting someone with the side of a gun, etc. This essentially means that whenever there's a gun connected to any crime whatsoever, the person in question immediately gets five years slapped onto his sentence.

What if it was something as comparatively small as shoplifting? Instead of spending a few days or months in jail or paying a hefty fine, if you were carrying or threatened someone with a gun, you're suddenly in jail for years just because you carried a gun when you tried to steal a CD.

I believe that this clause should either be much more narrowly written, or stricken down entirely. Preferably, the latter. I am very supportive of sensible gun control and gun safety measures, but this is absolutely the wrong approach and could have a ton of unintended consequences.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 02, 2011, 11:59:56 PM
In regard to the bill;

I agree that the language is vague, and while I agree that gun safety is important, this specific clause does not have my support.  I motion to suspend SOAP 3a, 3d, 3f, in order to decrease debate time 12 hours.

In regards to the Lt. Gov position;

Due to the fact that many either have stopped paying attention, or don't want the position, it seems this has become a problem in recommending someone.  I thought dallasfan would make a good recommendation, but Winfield messaged him and he was not interested.  Nik's name was thrown out, and that's not a possibility.  I messaged another possibly interested person, but for reasons known to him and myself, I don't think it's possible.  I think at this point, if anyone in the Northeast is willing, they should make themselves known to the Assembly.   


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 03, 2011, 08:18:49 AM
I agree that the language is vague, and while I agree that gun safety is important, this specific clause does not have my support.  I motion to suspend SOAP 3a, 3d, 3f, in order to decrease debate time 12 hours.

On the motion to suspend SOAP 3a, 3d and 3f by the gentleman from New York, please vote aye or nay. This vote will last 24 hours, per SOAP, and will be concurrent with debate on the "The Crime is What Actually Matters Act".


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 03, 2011, 09:11:26 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 03, 2011, 07:26:16 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on July 03, 2011, 07:33:59 PM
I would acquiesce to the Lieutenant Governorship, but am expecting a trial soon (that I shall plead guilty to) so I wouldn't be of use for very long.

Not sure if this matter was resolved - why not appoint Marokai? His move to Iowa isn't valid for quite some time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 03, 2011, 07:38:02 PM
I talked to Marokai and I don't think it's possible for me to recommend him.  Of course, I can't stop others from recommending him.  I just think we need someone else.  It's becoming quite evident why HC wants to get rid of the position :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 03, 2011, 07:54:31 PM
I talked to Marokai and I don't think it's possible for me to recommend him.  Of course, I can't stop others from recommending him.  I just think we need someone else.  It's becoming quite evident why HC wants to get rid of the position :P

Ahem.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 03, 2011, 08:00:13 PM
I talked to Marokai and I don't think it's possible for me to recommend him.  Of course, I can't stop others from recommending him.  I just think we need someone else.  It's becoming quite evident why HC and Napoleon wants to get rid of the position :P

Ahem.

Was that ahem because I messaged Marokai, or because I made a mistake and didn't say you wanted to get rid of the Lt. Gov position.  Either way, I'm sure your position is well-known and I changed it for you :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 03, 2011, 08:02:32 PM
I talked to Marokai and I don't think it's possible for me to recommend him.  Of course, I can't stop others from recommending him.  I just think we need someone else.  It's becoming quite evident why HC and Napoleon wants to get rid of the position :P

Ahem.

Was that ahem because I messaged Marokai, or because I made a mistake and didn't say you wanted to get rid of the Lt. Gov position.  Either way, I'm sure your position is well-known and I changed it for you :)

HC wanted to keep the position and I still want to abolish the useless distraction.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 03, 2011, 08:10:08 PM
I talked to Marokai and I don't think it's possible for me to recommend him.  Of course, I can't stop others from recommending him.  I just think we need someone else.  It's becoming quite evident why HC and Napoleon wants to get rid of the position :P

Ahem.

Was that ahem because I messaged Marokai, or because I made a mistake and didn't say you wanted to get rid of the Lt. Gov position.  Either way, I'm sure your position is well-known and I changed it for you :)

HC wanted to keep the position and I still want to abolish the useless distraction.

Ahh.. Thanks for clarifying.  I was under the assumption HC wanted to make it relevant or abolish it if that couldn't be done.  Nonetheless, it was you that publicly wanted to get rid of the position, so glad we clarified.

Edit:  There's still a vote going on.  Sorry for interrupting it :)



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 03, 2011, 08:24:12 PM
I was under the assumption HC wanted to make it relevant or abolish it if that couldn't be done.  Nonetheless, it was you that publicly wanted to get rid of the position, so glad we clarified.

That's true. I want the Lt. Governor position to be made useful if possible or to be abolished if necessary.
Napoleon, however, has always favored eliminating that position.

Edit:  There's still a vote going on.  Sorry for interrupting it :)

I wouldn't worry so much about that, unless you expect Elyski/FM/wormy to show up.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 03, 2011, 08:26:04 PM
I have no idea what's going on here.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 03, 2011, 08:43:34 PM

We're currently voting on suspending the rules in order to decrease debate time 12 hours.  Vote Aye to decrease, or vote Nay.

The debate is on clause 2 of the "Amendments to the Northeast Gun Safety Act" which reads as follows;

Quote
2. Whenever a gun is used as an instrument in the crime, an additional five years will be added to the sentence.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 03, 2011, 08:54:03 PM
The clause should be removed.  I for once agree with Marokai.

And as for decreasing debate time, my vote would have to be no.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 03, 2011, 08:59:15 PM
The clause should be removed.  I for once agree with Marokai.

See? We can find common ground. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 03, 2011, 09:01:19 PM
The clause should be removed.  I for once agree with Marokai.

See? We can find common ground. :P

Indeed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 04, 2011, 08:37:08 AM
On the motion to suspend SOAP 3a, 3d and 3f by the gentleman from New York, please vote aye or nay. This vote will last 24 hours, per SOAP, and will be concurrent with debate on the "The Crime is What Actually Matters Act".

The ayes are two and the nays are three. The motion has not achieved the support of a majority of the members of this assembly; therefore it is not agreed to. (Note: SOAP instructs absences and abstensions in votes to be counted as nays)

Debate on the "The Crime is What Actually Matters Act" will continue until 11:41 this evening.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 04, 2011, 11:34:52 PM
The Crime is What Actually Matters Act will now come to a vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye; those opposed, nay. This will be a 24-hour vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 04, 2011, 11:37:25 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 04, 2011, 11:39:11 PM
I offer my name for recommendation for the position of Lt. Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 04, 2011, 11:42:24 PM
I offer my name for recommendation for the position of Lt. Governor.

Uh, and give up being Senator?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 04, 2011, 11:44:22 PM
I offer my name for recommendation for the position of Lt. Governor.

Uh, and give up being Senator?

I don't think we have any rule forbidding it so it's a legitimate recommendation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 04, 2011, 11:45:03 PM
I offer my name for recommendation for the position of Lt. Governor.

Uh, and give up being Senator?

No but this nonbinding recommendation ought to be ended as quickly as possible and no one seems intent on throwing a name out there. After a name is recommended, Governor Winfield can appoint whoever he likes. I want to give him the opportunity to do so as quickly as possible.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 04, 2011, 11:48:20 PM
I offer my name for recommendation for the position of Lt. Governor.

Uh, and give up being Senator?

I don't think we have any rule forbidding it so it's a legitimate recommendation.

The Constitution does forbid dual office holding. (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_V_of_the_Third_Constitution#Section_1:_Candidacy_and_Office_Holding_Rules) There was a past court case against a member that tried to be Lt. Governor and Assemblyman at the same time, and he was forced to step down from one of those positions. I imagine the same conclusion would be reached with trying to be Lt. Governor and Senator at the same time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 04, 2011, 11:50:07 PM
I offer my name for recommendation for the position of Lt. Governor.

Uh, and give up being Senator?

I don't think we have any rule forbidding it so it's a legitimate recommendation.

The Constitution does forbid dual office holding. (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_V_of_the_Third_Constitution#Section_1:_Candidacy_and_Office_Holding_Rules) There was a past court case against a member that tried to be Lt. Governor and Assemblyman at the same time, and he was forced to step down from one of those positions. I imagine the same conclusion would be reached with trying to be Lt. Governor and Senator at the same time.

I'm not trying to be Lt. Governor, if another name comes up for someone who wants the job then go for it but the legislature needs a name to give before the Governor can proceed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 04, 2011, 11:52:02 PM
Fair enough, fair enough. Just felt like pointing that out before you guys moved forward or anything.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 04, 2011, 11:53:37 PM
I'll add this: while the former Vice President has shown humility and regret for his actions unmatched by others, I think Dallasfan has a chance to truly serve his region in this position. I therefore request him to change his mind.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 04, 2011, 11:55:50 PM
I'll add this: while the former Vice President has shown humility and regret for his actions unmatched by others, I think Dallasfan has a chance to truly serve his region in this position. I therefore request him to change his mind.

I would very much like that as well even if he told me no :P

Also, I would have known the obvious had I just read this;

Quote
No person may simultaneously hold two or more offices of the Republic of Atlasia at any level of the government.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on July 04, 2011, 11:56:29 PM
I'll add this: while the former Vice President has shown humility and regret for his actions unmatched by others, I think Dallasfan has a chance to truly serve his region in this position. I therefore request him to change his mind.

If Winfield calls upon me, I will accept this time, although I would like the Representatives to bear in mind my situation is rather.. precarious, and you may find yourselves holding another recommendation vote soon.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 05, 2011, 08:36:06 AM
I'll add this: while the former Vice President has shown humility and regret for his actions unmatched by others, I think Dallasfan has a chance to truly serve his region in this position. I therefore request him to change his mind.

If Winfield calls upon me, I will accept this time, although I would like the Representatives to bear in mind my situation is rather.. precarious, and you may find yourselves holding another recommendation vote soon.

We have no other viable names at this point.

Also: Aye on the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on July 05, 2011, 10:30:46 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 05, 2011, 11:05:52 PM
On the previous question the ayes are three; the nays are zero. The bill is hereby passed.

The House will now consider the next bill in the queue.

Write-in Votes Act

I. Any person who wishes to accept write-in votes cast at an election for himself or herself must declare, in the Candidate Declaration Thread, that he or she will accept write-in votes at least twenty-four hours before the opening of a regional election.
II. No candidate shall be declared elected to any office of the Northeast who has neither declared his acceptance of write-in votes in the manner prescribed in section I of this Act nor secured a place on a regional ballot by declaring his candidacy at least seven days before the opening of a regional election.
III. All write-in votes cast for persons who have neither declared his acceptance of write-in votes in the manner prescribed in section I of this Act nor secured a place on a regional ballot by declaring his candidacy at least seven days before the opening of a regional election shall be considered null and void.
IV. A write-in vote, cast for a candidate who has secured a place on a regional ballot by declaring his candidacy at least seven days before the opening of a regional election, shall not be construed to have not been cast for that candidate.
V. A person's casting of a write-in vote for himself or herself at a regional election shall not be construed to constitute acceptance of write-in votes, unless that person has already declared his acceptance of write-in votes in accordance with section I of this Act.

Debate will last 48 hours - until midnight Thursday night.

As the sponsor of this bill, I will speak to its merits tomorrow (today, after I get some sleep)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on July 05, 2011, 11:34:01 PM
I see no reason why restricting choice in elections is a good idea.  I will therefore vote nay on this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 05, 2011, 11:35:00 PM
I see no reason why restricting choice in elections is a good idea.  I will therefore vote nay on this bill.

I couldn't agree more. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 05, 2011, 11:46:56 PM
I see no reason why restricting choice in elections is a good idea.  I will therefore vote nay on this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 06, 2011, 08:17:45 AM
I do not believe that this bill restricts voters' choice in an election. Indeed, sections II, III and IV merely clarify the status of write-in votes and write-in candidates and ought not to be controversial by themselves. The major advance that I think this bill makes is to prevent candidates from being elected merely by writing themselves in.

I believe that an election ought to be decided by every voter, rendering his individual judgment on the people who have placed themselves before the electorate as candidates. Nothing should be done to make it more difficult for candidates to run for office, which is why I'd support making chronological limits on candidacy declaration much more lenient. I do not think, however, that our Region should sanction the oft-employed mechanism by which a candidate not having previously declared his desire to serve the Region in one of our various offices is elected to office by the vote of himself. This arrangement actually hinders voters' ability to choose their own assemblymen, for if there are a great number of excess seats that could not be filled by declared candidates, as is currently the case in elections for this body, any voter can write himself in and subvert the processes of debate and deliberation that are so crucial to democracy. The only choice, therefore, that my bill restricts in an election is a voter's choice to write himself in on a ballot and become elected to a seat that reasonable democratic principles would suggest he does not deserve.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on July 06, 2011, 12:00:12 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 06, 2011, 12:22:07 PM

We are currently in debate for 48 hours so your vote will have to wait.  Any comments in favor/opposition, amendments, motions, ect can be made at this time.

I can agree that we need to have people declare, but the only way we filled the seats this session were from write-ins.  If I remember correctly, the only one's to actually declare last regional election were wormyguy, HC, and myself. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 06, 2011, 09:18:42 PM
I wish to address the issue of the Write-In Voters Act.

There can be little doubt but what this bill was precipitated by my election as Lieutenant Governor and Representative, and of some others election as Representatives, as write in candidates in the most recent election.

I do agree with two previous statements on this issue, that being this bill is indeed restrictive.  I see no harm in write in candidates seeking election, simply by indicating their willingness to accept the office by voting for themselves as a write in candidate.  Why should they have to declare their intentions beforehand? 

To my knowledge, and correct me if I'm wrong, no other region has these restrictions.

Atlasia elections are meant to be as all encompassing as possible, and restricting them by disallowing straight write in candidates as now allowed, could lead to less interest in seeking office. 

I see no good reason for changing the current voting system and urge members of this Assembly to defeat this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 06, 2011, 09:28:03 PM
This really isn't a bill designed to respond to your rise as Governor.  It has to do with a recommendation from the CJO in response to a question about the election of redcommander;

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=134826.msg2936168#msg2936168 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=134826.msg2936168#msg2936168)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 06, 2011, 09:56:24 PM
It is my firm conviction that someone who wishes to serve the people of the Northeast owes them at the very least to announce in some form before the election that he or she will be a candidate. The goal of this bill is not to eliminate write-in candidacies - it is to eliminate the possibility of a person becoming elected who received no vote excepting his own.

To the points of Governor Winfield:

There can be little doubt but what this bill was precipitated by my election as Lieutenant Governor and Representative, and of some others election as Representatives, as write in candidates in the most recent election.

I do agree with two previous statements on this issue, that being this bill is indeed restrictive.  I see no harm in write in candidates seeking election, simply by indicating their willingness to accept the office by voting for themselves as a write in candidate.  Why should they have to declare their intentions beforehand?  

A candidate should have to declare his intentions beforehand because the people of the Northeast deserve to know before they cast their ballot which of their fellow citizens are seeking office, so that they can vote accordingly to help elect or defeat their favorite or least favorite candidates. Why should certain candidates have the privilege of not needing to concern themselves with the electorate's judgment?

Atlasia elections are meant to be as all encompassing as possible, and restricting them by disallowing straight write in candidates as now allowed, could lead to less interest in seeking office.  

I disagree that this bill will lead to less interest. Perhaps it will frustrate those who were hoping to win election by their vote alone, but if they desired to honestly serve the people of the Northeast, they would declare their candidacies before the election. In a legislature such as ours with so many seats and so few candidates willing to fill those seats, under a system where one's decree is sufficient to win election to an office, why should candidates bother to declare their intentions at all if they can write themselves in and get elected?

Note: "those" is purely abstract. I am not referring to anyone in this region by that word. Even if certain elected officials emulate "those" by their actions, I have no right to judge their intentions.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 06, 2011, 10:21:32 PM
As an aside, if we want to discuss real electoral reform, I would recommend eliminating the 20 minute time frame in which one can change or nullify their vote.  Once a vote is cast, it should remain as is, with no option to change it.   


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 06, 2011, 10:28:05 PM
As an aside, if we want to discuss real electoral reform, I would recommend eliminating the 20 minute time frame in which one can change or nullify their vote.  Once a vote is cast, it should remain as is, with no option to change it.   

I could agree to that. But that's another matter for another debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 06, 2011, 10:33:59 PM
As an aside, if we want to discuss real electoral reform, I would recommend eliminating the 20 minute time frame in which one can change or nullify their vote.  Once a vote is cast, it should remain as is, with no option to change it.   

I could agree to that. But that's another matter for another debate.

Yes, I realize that.  That's why it is an aside.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on July 07, 2011, 05:32:18 PM
I fail to see any reason why this harms democracy. How hard is it to simply post in the declaration thread?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 07, 2011, 05:52:56 PM
I fail to see any reason why this harms democracy. How hard is it to simply post in the declaration thread?

The Assembly was designed to elect Representatives proportionally as opposed to through special elections. This law would exacerbate our problems by essentially guaranteeing that all declared candidates win, even if voters prefer a late entry write in.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 07, 2011, 07:01:23 PM
What if nobody declares their intention to seek an office, e.g. Lieutenant Governor?

If nobody declares their intention either as a candidate on the ballot or that they will be a write in candidate, does that office simply have no candidate, and the office is vacant?

At least if there are no declared candidates or no candidates declaring they will be write in candidates, if general write ins are allowed, as under current law, that office would be filled.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 07, 2011, 07:05:03 PM
Winfields concerns are my biggest problem with this bill.  The fact that three people declared for Assembly last time, and seven seats were to be filled is a problem.  If there was competition during elections, I could see such an Act working.  However, this will likely leave seats open, declared candidates will automatically be elected, and the CJO will have to create special elections to fill the seats.  Again, this comes back to the need to reduce the Assembly size :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 07, 2011, 08:39:09 PM
At least if there are no declared candidates or no candidates declaring they will be write in candidates, if general write ins are allowed, as under current law, that office would be filled.

It may be that potential candidates do not declare because they know that if no one else does, there is no need to. If my bill passes, those candidates would be required to declare. I'm not convinced that being required to do this will stop candidates from seeking office.

The Assembly was designed to elect Representatives proportionally as opposed to through special elections. This law would exacerbate our problems by essentially guaranteeing that all declared candidates win, even if voters prefer a late entry write in.

I do not believe that "late-entry" should be allowed to encompass the days during which the election is being held.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 07, 2011, 10:05:52 PM
Nevertheless, no matter the spin put on this bill, it has a very major flaw, in that it could, potentially, leave an office or offices unfilled, as there is always the possibility that for a certain office or for certain offices, that no one will declare, therefore, leaving that office vacant, necessatating a special election, and special elections are something we want to avoid wherever possible.

And then the issue becomes, what if no one declares for the special election?  

Won't happen you say?  It is always a possibility, and this bill does not address this possibility.  

This bill simply falls short in addressing these issues, and, in my view, fails the democracy test.

Even in the real world, write ins are allowed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 07, 2011, 10:22:53 PM
Nevertheless, no matter the spin put on this bill, it has a very major flaw, in that it could, potentially, leave an office or offices unfilled, as there is always the possibility that for a certain office or for certain offices, that no one will declare, therefore, leaving that office vacant, necessatating a special election, and special elections are something we want to avoid wherever possible.

And then the issue becomes, what if no one declares for the special election?  

Won't happen you say?  It is always a possibility, and this bill does not address this possibility.  

This bill simply falls short in addressing these issues, and, in my view, fails the democracy test.

Even in the real world, write ins are allowed.

Write-ins are allowed in the real world, sure, but not before the write-in candidates submit the necessary paperwork, signatures, etc. to become official write-in candidates. A candidate who did not take this step in the real world would not be permitted to take office even if he recieved the majority of the votes. A majority of voters, voting for Mickey Mouse for president, will not elect Mickey Mouse because he did not (and cannot) declare his candidacy.

What is the "democracy test", in your view?

You make a valid point, however, about unfilled offices. Indeed, my bill doesn't address this, as you've said. If no one declares their candidacy for an office, then I believe that sends a signal to the regional government that that office should be consolidated or otherwise done away with. In the mean time, a special election should be held. That would give anyone who observed that that office was up for grabs the opportunity to declare their candidacy and win that position. If no one declares for the special election, hold another one or abolish the office. The answer to a government so big that no one wants to run for its myriad offices is not to lower the standards of democracy - it is to shrink that government by eliminating those unnecessary positions.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 07, 2011, 11:01:34 PM
The time allotted for debate on this measure has expired. Members will vote aye or nay on the bill at question. This will be a 24 hour vote ending at midnight tomorrow.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 08, 2011, 10:08:28 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 08, 2011, 10:12:32 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on July 08, 2011, 05:40:20 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on July 08, 2011, 05:48:12 PM
I don't think what homely said is true at all. In real life, you don't have to be a declared write-in in order to win an election. If more people write-in your name than vote for the declared candidates on the ballot, you win.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on July 08, 2011, 08:58:52 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 08, 2011, 11:18:22 PM
On the previous question the ayes are two; the nays are two. It will be up to acting Lt. Governor Winfield to break the tie.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 08, 2011, 11:44:45 PM
On the previous question the ayes are two; the nays are two. It will be up to acting Lt. Governor Winfield to break the tie.


Can you guys recommend a Lt. Governor already? This should have been first priority. If I didn't know how Winfield would break the tie, I would threaten a lawsuit.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 09, 2011, 01:09:42 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 09, 2011, 08:13:10 AM
On the previous question the ayes are two and the nays are three; the motion is not agreed to.

The House will now consider the next bill in the queue.

Natural Beauty Preservation Act

No billboard advertisements may be placed along roads, highways, freeways, or interstates in areas classified as rural.
Municipalities shall have the power to ban billboards within their jurisdiction.

Debate will last 48 hours, beginning now and lasting through to 9 AM Monday morning.

Members are also reminded that a recommendation for Lieutenant Governor is needed. Should any new business arise regarding the recommendation, feel free to discuss it during the debate if necessary.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Elyski on July 09, 2011, 03:32:34 PM
Well I'm back. Did I miss anything?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on July 09, 2011, 05:38:50 PM
Well I'm back. Did I miss anything?

Yes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 09, 2011, 08:13:22 PM
Well I'm back. Did I miss anything?

In the future, remember to make a leave of absence thread.  Currently we are debating the piece of legislation HC has posted.

Napoleon, could you please explain (I know you did once already) why I should support the first half?  I can support municipalities having the power to ban billboards, but why should I support an out-right ban for them in rural areas?

In regards to the Lt. Gov position;

I'd like to recommend someone, but it's clear our options outside of already elected officials are thin.  If it pleases the Assembly, I'd like to recommend Napoleon so that Winfield is free to appoint a Lt. Gov.   



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 09, 2011, 08:35:08 PM
I propose the following amendment.

Quote
No billboard advertisements may be placed along roads, highways, freeways, or interstates in areas classified as rural.
Municipalities Local governments shall have the power to ban billboards within their jurisdiction.

Local governments shall include municipalities such as cities, towns, or villages, or counties, townships, or parishes.

It seems fairer and simpler to me, to simply give local governments the power to ban billboards.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 09, 2011, 08:40:12 PM
I agree with the amendment made by Morgan.  I can't support an outright ban of such billboards, but I'm willing to give municipalities the ability to do so.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 09, 2011, 10:00:07 PM
I would support a ban on all billboards in rural areas, but another problem that would arise would be the necessity of establishing a meaningful and effective definition of "rural". I can accept the amendment by FM.

Does Atlasia have an interstate commerce clause in its constitution? If so, such legislation as the one we're debating might be unconstitutional.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 09, 2011, 11:30:20 PM
Its perfectly constitutional in America...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 09, 2011, 11:33:40 PM
Its perfectly constitutional in America...

This is not America?..


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 09, 2011, 11:59:34 PM

Come on. You're smarter than this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 10, 2011, 12:14:31 AM

I welcome your questioning of my intelligence outside of this thread, but let's avoid turning this into every other thread on the Atlasia boards. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 10, 2011, 12:24:38 AM
Back to the bill;

I will support the amendment made by FallenMorgan, but will not vote Aye on the current bill. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 10, 2011, 12:30:45 AM
I'm not questioning your intelligence, I know you're smarter than your post. To be honest, I thought you were trying to make a joke instead of considering my point. No offense was meant but I shall elaborate.

I found no relevant clause in the Atlasian constitution parallel to the mentioned clause found in America's constitution. This law is legal for states in America, so we could assume pretty safely off the bat that were that the case, a law like this would be constitutional here in Atlasia. The Courts are permitted to come to different conclusions in Atlasia, however, it would be silly to legislate on such a wild assumption.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 10, 2011, 08:13:45 AM
I found no relevant clause in the Atlasian constitution parallel to the mentioned clause found in America's constitution.

Thanks. That's all I was looking for.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Elyski on July 10, 2011, 11:06:34 AM
Well I'm back. Did I miss anything?

In the future, remember to make a leave of absence thread. 


Okay, I'll remember that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Elyski on July 10, 2011, 11:07:24 AM
Back to the bill;

I will support the amendment made by FallenMorgan, but will not vote Aye on the current bill. 
I agree.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 11, 2011, 09:35:10 AM
The amendment offered by FallenMorgan, having not been designated by the bill's sponsor as friendly, will come to a vote. Members will vote aye or nay on the following language:

Quote
Local governments shall have the power to ban billboards within their jurisdiction.

Local governments shall include municipalities such as cities, towns, or villages, or counties, townships, or parishes.

This vote will last 24 hours. Should the amendment fail, it will immediately be followed by a vote on the original language.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on July 11, 2011, 09:42:30 AM
Is this on whether to amend the bill or to amend *and* pass the bill with this language?

(Aye if it's the former, nay if it's the latter).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 11, 2011, 10:00:04 AM
Aye on the amendment


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on July 11, 2011, 11:17:09 AM
Aye on the amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 12, 2011, 01:07:56 AM
Please open a recommendation ballot along with the final vote. This is a top priority.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 12, 2011, 08:53:12 AM
Aye on the amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 12, 2011, 09:00:07 AM
On the previous question the ayes are four; the nays are zero. The bill is amended to read:

Quote
Local governments shall have the power to ban billboards within their jurisdiction.

Local governments shall include municipalities such as cities, towns, or villages, or counties, townships, or parishes.

Members will vote aye or nay on passing the bill with this language. This will be a 24 hour vote. Concurrently, members will vote on a recommendation for Lieutenant Governor. Please nominate at least one Northeast Citizen to serve in that office. This will also be a 24 hour vote.

Ballot:

[] Napoleon (nom. Cincinnatus)
[] Write-in


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 12, 2011, 09:02:36 AM
Aye on the bill

[X] Napoleon


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on July 12, 2011, 02:57:53 PM
Nay

[X] Write in: Dallasfan65


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Elyski on July 12, 2011, 04:01:55 PM
Nay.

[X] Write in: Dallasfan65


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on July 12, 2011, 04:11:36 PM
[X] Napoleon

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 12, 2011, 06:42:26 PM
Aye

[X] Write in: Dallasfan65


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 13, 2011, 07:48:01 AM
Aye.

  • Napoleon


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 13, 2011, 08:33:24 AM
On the previous question the ayes are four; the nays are two. The bill is passed.

On the vote to recommend, the votes for Napoleon are three and the write-in votes for Dallasfan are three. Without objection, both candidates will be recommended to the Governor.

The Assembly will now consider the next bill in the queue, proposed by the honorable member from New York. Debate will last forty-eight hours.

Amendment to the Northeast Assembly Speaker Act

The Northeast Assembly shall elect a Speaker from among its members by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly at the start of each new Northeast Assembly term. In the event that the members of the Assembly cannot come to a decision 48 hours after voting has commenced, the Lt. Gov [or in the case of vacancy, the acting Lt. Gov] shall break any ties and declare the new Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 14, 2011, 10:55:21 AM
You may want to address what would happen if there are insufficient votes to elect a speaker (a minority of Assemblymen). Otherwise, as long as you clearly specify that this would occur only in the case of a tie, I'm fine with your amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 15, 2011, 09:46:03 AM
Time for debate has expired. This legislation will come to a vote - members will vote aye or nay on the following bill. This vote will last 24 hours.

Amendment to the Northeast Assembly Speaker Act

The Northeast Assembly shall elect a Speaker from among its members by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly at the start of each new Northeast Assembly term. In the event that the members of the Assembly cannot come to a decision 48 hours after voting has commenced, the Lt. Gov [or in the case of vacancy, the acting Lt. Gov] shall break any ties and declare the new Speaker.
[/quote]


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on July 15, 2011, 10:40:45 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 15, 2011, 09:24:52 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 16, 2011, 02:35:32 PM
Without a Lt. Gov, Speaker homely is in charge of the Assembly :).  I knew we'd have to do this again so here it goes;

We need to recommend Napoleon again for Lt. Gov.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 16, 2011, 07:33:46 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 16, 2011, 09:40:04 PM
Aye

The chair would like to remind the gentleman from New York that Napoleon has already been recommended to the Governor for appointment to the office of Lieutenant Governor.

On the vote to recommend, the votes for Napoleon are three and the write-in votes for Dallasfan are three. Without objection, both candidates will be recommended to the Governor.

If a member wishes to introduce a motion to retract that recommendation, then our procedure will follow from there. Barring that, there is no need to re-recommend.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Elyski on July 17, 2011, 06:05:35 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Rowan on July 17, 2011, 07:08:28 PM
Isn't dual office-holding illegal?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 17, 2011, 07:43:41 PM
On the previous question the ayes are two and the nays are three. The bill is not agreed to.

The Assembly will now consider the next bill in the queue, proposed by the honorable member from New York.

Quote


Northeast Wiki Reform Act



I. Responsibilities

  a. The Northeast Governor is hereby responsible for updating and maintaining records of Northeast legislation during his/her term(s), in a manner that is in accordance with the format determined by the Northeast Wiki Reform Commission.

  b. The CJO of the Northeast is hereby responsible for updating and maintaining records of elected officials, and changes in the Northeast constitution during his/her term(s).

  c. In the event the CJO or Northeast Governor do not have a wiki account, the Assembly shall choose a member with a wiki account to temporarily adhere to the responsibilities of the Governor and CJO delegated by this Act.  The Northeast Governor and CJO shall be required to obtain a wiki account within two weeks of this bills passage in order to adhere to the responsibilities delegated by this Act.

  d. The responsibilities designated in subsections a, b and c shall fall to their respective officeholders once the Northeast Wiki Reform Commission is decommissioned by the Assembly, in accordance with section III, subsection c of this Act.

II.  Updating the Wiki

  a.  The constitution page of the Northeast wiki shall be maintained, and updated no later than 7 days after a change to the Northeast constitution.

  b.  Legislation shall be maintained and updated by the Northeast Governor in a manner consistent with section 3 of this Act, no later than 7 days after the passage, amendment, proposal, repeal, or failure [in the Assembly] of legislation.
 
 
III.  Northeast Wiki Reform Commission

  a.  A number of Northeast citizens, to be determined by the Northeast Assembly, shall hereby form a temporary Northeast Wiki Reform Commission.

  b.  This commission will be active until the Assembly deems it no longer necessary for the purpose of this Act.

  c.  This commission will be responsible for the initial reform of the wiki where, upon its termination, Section 1 will apply.  These responsibilities include;

(1)  Determining the format the wiki will take.  The format MUST include; Standing law, Regional officials, and the NE constitution. 
(2)  Organizing the wiki in accordance with the determined format.


IV.  Northeast Wiki Format

  a.  The Format of the wiki is to be determined by the Northeast Wiki Reform Commission in accordance with Section III, subsection c of this bill. 

V.  Participation Clause

  a.  Though the responsibilities of this act are delegated in the text of this bill, it shall not restrict the ability of citizens to maintain the Northeast wiki.


Debate on this bill will last 48 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 17, 2011, 08:57:47 PM
Northeast Wiki Reform Act

1.  Responsibilities

a. 

I would like to recommend this to read as

a.  The Northeast Governor, or their designate

c.  Northeast Governor, or their designate


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on July 17, 2011, 09:48:40 PM
Yeah, the wiki is pretty outdated. It could use some work.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 18, 2011, 06:51:06 AM
Winfield, you have the ability to ask someone to update the wiki when you can but ultimately, it is your responsibility.  Once it is back in order I (along with others probably) would have no problem updating it when I can, however, the responsibility of assuring it is updated would fall on the Gov/CJO


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 18, 2011, 08:47:21 AM
I worked with Cincinnatus on writing this bill, and I believe that he's created a fine piece of legislation. This is exactly what needs to be done to save the Wiki. My only concern is that we may not have many citizens interested in working on the Wiki Reform Commission.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 18, 2011, 09:03:26 AM
Even if we only have 3 members it would be progress nonetheless.  Obviously I'm willing to work on the commission, and I'm sure we have a few others to fill spots as well.  The biggest obstacle will be for the commission.  Actually figuring out what is still law, as opposed to outdated material will be the biggest challenge.  Once that is done, it shouldn't be difficult at all to update the wiki whenever the Governor signs something into law, or the constitution is changed.

Perhaps we should change Sec III, subsection a to a certain number (to be determined by the Northeast Assembly), or eliminate that wording (see last parentheses) all together?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 18, 2011, 10:05:10 AM
I'm interested in the commission but I think the Governor's amendment is necessary for this bill to accomplish anything.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on July 18, 2011, 11:15:38 AM
I've learned my lesson with "commissions" of any sort.

No way.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 18, 2011, 11:43:52 AM
I've learned my lesson with "commissions" of any sort.

No way.

Is that disapproval of this bill or are you just letting us know you're not interested in joining?  Realistically, if you don't support this bill, what other way might you suggest the wiki be fixed?

Napoleon, as I said before, the Gov is free to have someone else add laws in the wiki.  The responsibility of failure to update it however, lies on the Gov's shoulder.  If this is to much to ask, I'm willing to hear any argument as to why.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 18, 2011, 12:00:17 PM
There's no way to enforce this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on July 18, 2011, 12:11:44 PM
The wiki is supposed to be a collaborative, community effort.  If someone, or more than one person, wants to volunteer to fix it up, you don't need a law or "commission."


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 18, 2011, 01:17:42 PM
I wish it had been a community effort.  Had the wiki been properly kept we wouldn't need to worry about making sure someone is responsible for such.  I understand your argument, and yes, we do need more than just one or two citizens to maintain the regions page.  However, unless we do something like this, it will be very hard to allow others to contribute, because the wiki doesn't have a solid base to update off of.

Of course, once the commission is done, as they are meant to be temporary and do the bulk workload, I would have no problem helping to update the wiki, as I would hope many others would also help with.  This is why Section V. exists explicitly. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 18, 2011, 10:02:57 PM
Question..........

Just how bad of a shape is the Northeast Wiki in?

I am reading from some of the comments that it is way outdated. 

I am also reading that some of you, who will form the Commission, will get the Wiki updated, and from there it becomes the responsibility of the Governor to keep it updated, or, at least, the Governor can designate someone, or perhaps more than one, if they accept of course, to keep it updated.

Perhaps those interested in keeping the Wiki updated can do so on a rotating basis, under the direction of the Governor.  Just a suggestion.  This way, perhaps all interested can participate, and one individual is not doing everything for the Northeast on Wiki.     

So what I see this boiling down to is a joint collaboration between the Governor and legislators and or citizens of the Northeast, with the Governor being ultimately responsible.

This being the case, perhaps something like the above should be written into the bill.

Just some thoughts to consider.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 18, 2011, 10:13:41 PM
Question..........

Just how bad of a shape is the Northeast Wiki in?

I am reading from some of the comments that it is way outdated. 

I am also reading that some of you, who will form the Commission, will get the Wiki updated, and from there it becomes the responsibility of the Governor to keep it updated, or, at least, the Governor can designate someone, or perhaps more than one, if they accept of course, to keep it updated.

Perhaps those interested in keeping the Wiki updated can do so on a rotating basis, under the direction of the Governor.  Just a suggestion.  This way, perhaps all interested can participate, and one individual is not doing everything for the Northeast on Wiki.     

So what I see this boiling down to is a joint collaboration between the Governor and legislators and or citizens of the Northeast, with the Governor being ultimately responsible.

This being the case, perhaps something like the above should be written into the bill.

Just some thoughts to consider.

The Wiki is not just outdated, it is unorganized and incomplete. No new legislation has been added to the appropriate wiki pages in at least a year.

Also, considering that the Assembly is acting upon a new piece of legislation every three days, the work of keeping the wiki updated once the work of the Commission is completed would be relatively simple.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 18, 2011, 11:21:08 PM
I am pleased to advise the honorable members of the Northeast Assembly that Simfan 34 will become the new Lieutenant Governor of the Northeast.

We will be making an announcement from the Governor's office on Tuesday.

 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 19, 2011, 09:56:07 PM
Time for debate has expired. Members will vote aye or nay on the bill at question. This will be a 24 hour vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 20, 2011, 09:17:10 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on July 20, 2011, 02:44:00 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 20, 2011, 07:57:35 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 20, 2011, 08:04:20 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 20, 2011, 11:35:52 PM
On the previous question the ayes are four, the nays are zero. The bill is passed.

We will now consider, simultaneously, the size and membership of the future Wiki commission and the next bill in the queue, proposed by the honorable member from Pennsylvania.

Quote
The Northeast Anti-Outsourcing Incentives Act

1. Any Northeast-based private corporation shall recieve a 15% reduction in its total tax paid for its income.

2. The tax credit shall be removed in the event that the corporation outsources a filled employment position to a foreign nation.

3. This bill shall be invalid if ruled as such by a regional or Atlasian court.

Time for debate on both questions will last 48 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 20, 2011, 11:44:17 PM
At this time, I would like to recommend Lieutenant Governor Simfan as a member of the Wiki  Commission.

I am very pleased that the Lieutenant Governor has agreed to serve on the commission and to share his abilities on this project.

Cincinnatus has already expressed his willingness to serve on the commission, for which I am greatful.

Therefore, we have to date two very capable individuals willing to work on the commission.

I will be willing to assist in this project in any way that I can.

So let's get this moving as quickly as possible.  


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 21, 2011, 05:55:31 PM
Simfan needs to message Dave and ask for wiki access immediately then.  So who do we have to join?  Me, Simfan, Winfield? Who else? 

The bill; I will not be supporting this bill.  As wonderful as it would be for our corporations to conduct their business in the Northeast, favoring certain entities in this manner is something I can't agree to. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 21, 2011, 09:39:55 PM
The bill needs lots of work if it's going to win my support. Section three is unnecessary, and it seems unconscionable to me that we should automatically grant all companies that don't outsource (a term not defined) a 15% tax deduction.

I don't think that the commission needs more than three members, but I would be willing to serve in Cincinnatus', Winfield's or Simfan's place should any of the three find themselves unable to work for the commission.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 21, 2011, 11:08:11 PM
The bill needs lots of work if it's going to win my support. Section three is unnecessary, and it seems unconscionable to me that we should automatically grant all companies that don't outsource (a term not defined) a 15% tax deduction.

I don't think that the commission needs more than three members, but I would be willing to serve in Cincinnatus', Winfield's or Simfan's place should any of the three find themselves unable to work for the commission.

I would be pleased to have Simfan, Cincinnatus, and yourself, homelycooking, serve on the commission.  I guess Simfan and I will have to get wiki accounts.  I will not be on the commission, but I will have to have a wiki account as I will be responsible for updates, from what I understand.

Do we PM Dave to get accounts, or how does it work exactly?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 22, 2011, 04:29:38 PM
The bill needs lots of work if it's going to win my support. Section three is unnecessary, and it seems unconscionable to me that we should automatically grant all companies that don't outsource (a term not defined) a 15% tax deduction.

I don't think that the commission needs more than three members, but I would be willing to serve in Cincinnatus', Winfield's or Simfan's place should any of the three find themselves unable to work for the commission.

I would be pleased to have Simfan, Cincinnatus, and yourself, homelycooking, serve on the commission.  I guess Simfan and I will have to get wiki accounts.  I will not be on the commission, but I will have to have a wiki account as I will be responsible for updates, from what I understand.

Do we PM Dave to get accounts, or how does it work exactly?

Yes, PM Dave.  He gave me access a day or two after I asked for it, so PM him as soon as possible so that he can see it.  Best to write something like "Wiki Access Request" as the title.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on July 22, 2011, 05:03:14 PM
Yeah, it was crap, and probably unconstitutional.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 22, 2011, 05:38:42 PM
Don't let that stop you from proposing other bills.  I'm always willing to debate whatever you propose with one position or another.

Also, I think that if homely is able to join the commission that would be fantastic.  Realistically, I think the commission would be best served with someone who has experience in the region, and knows more about past Assembly work.  Having worked on the Statute Review, I think Homely has a greater sense of direction than I.  I will be a member, but I hope that homely can join and lend a leading hand :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 23, 2011, 08:29:01 AM
Time for debate has expired. Members will now vote on the bill - this will be a 24 hour vote.

Members will also recommend three potential members for the Wiki Review Commission.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 23, 2011, 09:57:50 AM
Nay on the bill

3 potential members;

Myself
Homelycooking
Simfan (?)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 23, 2011, 10:09:24 AM
Nay on the bill. I recommend Cincinnatus, Simfan and Winfield.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on July 23, 2011, 11:53:45 PM
Nay on my own bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 24, 2011, 12:23:01 PM
I'm rather disappointed we didn't get a better debate on on this. It was a good opportunity to tackle unemployment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on July 24, 2011, 02:52:37 PM
Stupid bill, but Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 24, 2011, 03:20:35 PM
I'm rather disappointed we didn't get a better debate on on this. It was a good opportunity to tackle unemployment.

Well, to be fair, its sponsor called it "crap" and didn't seem willing to amend it. Another bill would probably be the best vehicle for that debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 24, 2011, 08:42:50 PM
On the previous question the ayes are one and the nays are three. The bill is not agreed to.

Cincinnatus, Simfan, Winfield and homelycooking have been recommended to the Wiki Review Commission. If you are among these four, please notify your acceptance or rejection of your recommendation and, if you accept, become a member of the commission.

The Assembly will now consider the following bill, proposed by the gentleman from Rhode Island, Governor Winfield.

The Northeast Region Voting Act

In all Northeast Region elections, the 20 minute rule whereby a voter can change their vote within 20 minutes of casting it shall be eliminated.  The original vote as cast by the voter shall be their only valid vote.

Debate will last 48 hours and begins now.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 24, 2011, 10:01:43 PM
On the previous question the ayes are one and the nays are three. The bill is not agreed to.

Cincinnatus, Simfan, Winfield and homelycooking have been recommended to the Wiki Review Commission. If you are among these four, please notify your acceptance or rejection of your recommendation and, if you accept, become a member of the commission.

The Assembly will now consider the following bill, proposed by the gentleman from Rhode Island, Governor Winfield.

The Northeast Region Voting Act

In all Northeast Region elections, the 20 minute rule whereby a voter can change their vote within 20 minutes of casting it shall be eliminated.  The original vote as cast by the voter shall be their only valid vote.

Debate will last 48 hours and begins now.



I believe it would be in the best interests of the Northeast for the three who have actually expressed a willingness already to serve on the commission, Simfan, homelycooking, and Cincinnatus, to comprise the commission.  Since the three of you have already expressed this interest, I will not be accepting a place on the commission.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 24, 2011, 10:23:23 PM
On the previous question the ayes are one and the nays are three. The bill is not agreed to.

Cincinnatus, Simfan, Winfield and homelycooking have been recommended to the Wiki Review Commission. If you are among these four, please notify your acceptance or rejection of your recommendation and, if you accept, become a member of the commission.

The Assembly will now consider the following bill, proposed by the gentleman from Rhode Island, Governor Winfield.

The Northeast Region Voting Act

In all Northeast Region elections, the 20 minute rule whereby a voter can change their vote within 20 minutes of casting it shall be eliminated.  The original vote as cast by the voter shall be their only valid vote.


Debate will last 48 hours and begins now.



This bill could be renamed

The Elimination Of The Twenty Minute Voting Rule Bill

or something along those lines.

I would urge support for this bill, as we have seen in the last federal election, this 20 minute time frame to change a vote leaves open the possibility of a voter being manipulated into changing, or even invalidating their vote due to being pressured by someone else.

Our own Senator Napoleon was the victim of this blatant pressure and manipulation in the last election.

One person, one vote, per election, is a fair way to vote.  This bill eliminates any possibility of a voter being manipulated or pressured in any way by someone else.

This bill personifies democracy in action.

This bill is fair and just and puts all voters on an equal footing in every election.

The will of the people must prevail, not the will of manipulators looking out for their own interests.

I urge the Assembly to get behind democracy and support this bill.

Thank you.

 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 25, 2011, 08:35:46 AM
I agree with the sponsor's sentiments and support this bill. I would just amend it thus for clarity as follows, since "20 minute rule" isn't precise.

Vote Sanctity Act

A voter who edits his ballot any length of time after it has been posted in the voting booth thread for any Northeast Election nullifies it. Election authorities shall not count a ballot altered in the above manner.

I accept my recommendation to the commission.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 25, 2011, 03:29:36 PM
I agree with homely's amendment.

I also accept my recommendation to the commission, and hope that as soon as simfan does the same we can get to work.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 25, 2011, 08:11:29 PM
I as well agree with homely's amendment.

Thank you for your well thought out amendment.

It does add more clarity to the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 25, 2011, 09:28:19 PM
I believe that people should be allowed the opportunity to change their vote within a reasonable timeframe, if they so wish.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 25, 2011, 09:56:22 PM
I believe that people should be allowed the opportunity to change their vote within a reasonable timeframe, if they so wish.

I do not. One's vote should be not be a bargaining chip, to be altered as one wishes after the fact to sway potential political allies or punish political enemies. It should reflect the final and irrevocable outcome of a voter's personal deliberation over the merits of the candidates at hand, and should be treated as such.

Should a voter make an error in his ballot, he still should not be permitted to fix it. That voter should have made sure that his ballot was accurate before posting it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 25, 2011, 10:00:49 PM
Well said, Speaker, well said.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on July 25, 2011, 10:57:16 PM
This bill is absurd.  20 minutes is a reasonable timeframe in which one can change one's mind or (more importantly), correct errors.  Should people be forced to cast any vote in which they mistakenly rank the candidates in the wrong order?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 25, 2011, 11:10:37 PM
This bill is absurd.  20 minutes is a reasonable timeframe in which one can change one's mind or (more importantly), correct errors.  Should people be forced to cast any vote in which they mistakenly rank the candidates in the wrong order?

Voters have 72 hours of voting to mull it over. If a voter fails to check their ballot for accuracy, the responsibility falls on that voter. Mind changing and error checking can be done before any ballot is cast (and should be). This is how voting proceeds in a normal democracy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 25, 2011, 11:16:51 PM
I believe that a voter who is careless enough to cast a vote which does not reflect his true opinions or preferences, whether through error or partisan machination, does not appreciate the democratic process. It is a fitting punishment that any such voter deprives himself of the ability to make his own true voice resonate through society.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 26, 2011, 10:43:40 AM
Except, we're not a "normal democracy."  This is the Internet.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 26, 2011, 07:46:03 PM
Except, we're not a "normal democracy."  This is the Internet.

True, however, this is an internet simulation, and we try to simulate real life situations, in the case of Atlasy Fantasy Elections and Atlas Fantasy Governments, real life political situations.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 26, 2011, 08:57:20 PM
Except, we're not a "normal democracy."  This is the Internet.

True, however, this is an internet simulation, and we try to simulate real life situations, in the case of Atlasy Fantasy Elections and Atlas Fantasy Governments, real life political situations.

Also true.  After all, there aren't that many forests on the Internet.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on July 26, 2011, 09:15:18 PM
I would like to state my opposition to this bill. The nature of our system means that being an informed voter is more difficult than it would be... offline.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 26, 2011, 09:19:42 PM
That is one of the weirdest and ultimately ridiculous arguments against this bill that could be presented, ever.

In real life you don't interact with candidates, have open access to all legislative debate, etc. It's way easier to be informes in Atlasia. I also fail to see why we should give uninformed voters leeway to edit their ballots because they were too uninformed (dumb?) to think about their voting before, well, actually voting.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on July 26, 2011, 09:25:20 PM
Someone who's thinking enough about their vote to realize they want to change it is generally thinking far more than someone who merely copies and pastes from Bgwah's PM.

(Oh no, I just exposed this ridiculous, partisan effort for what it is!)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 26, 2011, 09:28:06 PM
Time for debate has expired. Members will vote on the amended language of the bill, which its sponsor has accepted.

Quote
Vote Sanctity Act

A voter who edits his ballot any length of time after it has been posted in the voting booth thread for any Northeast Election nullifies it. Election authorities shall not count a ballot altered in the above manner.

This vote will last 24 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on July 26, 2011, 09:28:32 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 26, 2011, 09:31:39 PM
Someone who's thinking enough about their vote to realize they want to change it is generally thinking far more than someone who merely copies and pastes from Bgwah's PM.

(Oh no, I just exposed this ridiculous, partisan effort for what it is!)

No one in this thread copies bgwah's PMs and I'm sure Governor Winfield's efforts will help the Rockefeller Republican Party significantly (no offense, Governor :D).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 26, 2011, 09:33:45 PM
Someone who's thinking enough about their vote to realize they want to change it is generally thinking far more than someone who merely copies and pastes from Bgwah's PM.

(Oh no, I just exposed this ridiculous, partisan effort for what it is!)

No one in this thread copies bgwah's PMs and I'm sure Governor Winfield's efforts will help the Rockefeller Republican Party significantly (no offense, Governor :D).

Time for debate has ended, Senator. We are voting now.

Aye on the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on July 26, 2011, 10:12:54 PM
Nein


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 27, 2011, 03:08:36 PM
Aye on the bill


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on July 27, 2011, 06:25:47 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 28, 2011, 10:55:53 AM
On the previous question the ayes are three, the nays are two. The bill is passed.

The Assembly will now consider the following bill, proposed by the honorable member from Connecticut:

Ballot Standardization Act

1. The Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast is hereby authorized to open a voting booth for any and all Northeast Regional regular and special elections.

2. Any other official of the Northeast, including and limited to the Governor, Lt. Governor and members of the Assembly, are hereby authorized to open a voting booth for any and all Northeast Regional regular and special elections only if:
a. The Chief Judicial Officer declares a leave of absence encompassing the first day of the election, or otherwise states publicly his inability to open the polls on time; or
b. The Chief Judicial Officer does not open the polls one hour after an election's constitutionally or legally mandated start time.


3. The post with which the authorized opener of a voting booth begins the election must contain the following text before the listing of candidates running for office, with the bracketed items correctly filled in:

"As [name of authorized poll-opening officer], I hereby declare this polling place open.

This is the Northeast regional polling booth for the scheduled [name of election].  In this polling place, Northeast citizens are electing [names of offices up for election].

Votes for offices in this region are cast using PR-STV.  Voters who wish to preference more than one candidate should allocate a first preference for a candidate by marking a [1] in the space provided by that candidate's name, and proceeding to number as many preferences as they desire by marking a [2], [3], etc for as many candidates as they so desire.

A vote will be counted so long as the voter that casts it is eligible to vote in this election and casts  a formal ballot. A vote is formal so long as it contains numbered preferences with no duplicate numbers. A ballot containing Roman Numerals is not considered informal. A ballot in which candidates have been ranked a,b,c, etc is not considered informal so long as no letter has been repeated, and so long as a single candidate has been ranked a, for as long as the letters are consecutive with no duplicate letters. A ballot is formal if the CJO can determine the intent of the voter without interviewing that voter.

Per past practice, write-in votes are only counted for a candidate if he or she publicly declares a willingness to receive write-in votes for a particular office in the [name of election] before the polls close in the Candidate Declaration Thread or writes in his or her own name on the ballot for that particular office.

Votes for "NOTA" or "None of the Above" for any office are formal regardless of the preference assigned to it. Should a voter preference "NOTA" as well as other candidates, only his vote for "NOTA" will be counted.

This booth shall remain open until [time prescribed for the closing of the polls]."

4. Candidates shall have printed on the ballot certain basic information, limited to the following:
a. their full usernames and display names as of the time of the opening of the polls, should they differ from their usernames;
b. the name of the political party to which they belong, or the affiliation "Independent" in its place should a candidate not belong to a political party;
c. the name of the state in which they reside.

5. All information printed on a ballot must pertain immediately to the election at hand and may not contain solicitation, propaganda, or hyperlinks to other pages.

6. Absentee ballots need not contain all of the information mandated in sections 3 and 4, though it must be provided by the Chief Judicial Officer upon request to an absentee elector at any time beginning one week before the election.

7. An opening post that does not abide by the above clauses of this act inaugurates an election that shall not be recognized as the legitimate voice of the people of the Northeast and shall be rendered null and void.


Debate will last 48 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 28, 2011, 11:02:35 AM
Now I recognize that this is a huge bill and there may be certain sections that might be objectionable to certain people. I am completely willing to amend it so long as the amendments offered retain the spirit of organized, efficient and standardized elections in which I penned this piece of legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 28, 2011, 03:28:45 PM
The NOTA provision needs amended so that candidates preferred to NOTA can have those votes counted in their favor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 28, 2011, 06:46:25 PM

What's with the name calling, Senator?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on July 28, 2011, 07:31:43 PM
The NOTA provision needs amended so that candidates preferred to NOTA can have those votes counted in their favor.

Also, most of this seems to already be in place.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 28, 2011, 07:36:16 PM

I think he's referring to Governor Dannel Malloy of Connecticut.

The NOTA provision needs amended so that candidates preferred to NOTA can have those votes counted in their favor.

Voting in that way seems somewhat self-contradictory. If a candidate is preferenced before "None of the Above", wouldn't counting a vote for NOTA as well void all of the above candidates that he voted for? I understand why you are looking for this change, and I might agree to it, but I favor a strict interpretation of those words, none of the above, no matter what preference it receives or who is preferenced before or after.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 28, 2011, 07:43:55 PM

Oooops, not you buddy :)

And Mr. Speaker, I understand what you are trying to do regarding NOTA, I just don't know if it will work in practice.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 28, 2011, 08:02:20 PM

Do you mean that voters will be unfairly disenfranchised?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 28, 2011, 08:17:58 PM

Do you mean that voters will be unfairly disenfranchised?

Yes. I appreciate your attempts to make our democracy more serious but I fear that if we make our system too complex, the effects would be destructive. But feel free to argue that this concern is unwarranted. I'm listening. Just chiming in as a constituent. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 28, 2011, 08:32:12 PM
OK, this concern is unwarranted. ;D

I believe that because votes for NOTA are quite rare (since I've been in the Northeast, the only person I've known to cast a vote for NOTA in a regional election is myself), and I am certain that the vast majority of voters understand the implications of voting NOTA and do it only when they are wholly disgusted with all of the candidates. People vote NOTA as a last resort, after they've reviewed all the choices and decide that not a single one is for them. Casting votes for a candidate and for that option which registers ultimate disdain for all candidates is nonsensical, and I think the law should recognize it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 28, 2011, 08:36:21 PM
I'm thinking about it like this:

1) Napoleon.     This voter prefers Napoleon out of all candidates
2) belgiansocialist.       This voter prefers belgiansocialist out of the remaining candidates
3) NOTA.                                   This voter prefers to elect NOTA out of the remaining candidates

I see what you are saying though.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 28, 2011, 08:40:24 PM
I'm thinking about it like this:

1) Napoleon.     This voter prefers Napoleon out of all candidates
2) belgiansocialist.       This voter prefers belgiansocialist out of the remaining candidates
3) NOTA.                                   This voter prefers to elect NOTA out of the remaining candidates

I see what you are saying though.

All right, I understand. I'm not entirely convinced that people vote this way, but the fact that they could is reason enough to give that measure a second thought.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 30, 2011, 10:14:31 AM
I have no problem with this bill and will be voting Aye.  I also wouldn't have a problem if you clarify the NOTA, but that won't make or break my affirmative vote :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 30, 2011, 12:00:32 PM
I'll introduce an amendment echoing Napoleon's concerns, which I will designate as unfriendly so that we can have a separate vote on it.

Quote
Votes for "NOTA" or "None of the Above" for any office are formal regardless of the preference assigned to it. Should a voter preference "NOTA" as well as other candidates, only his vote for "NOTA" will be counted, unless a candidate or candidates are preferred to NOTA, in which case votes for that candidate or those candidates will be counted normally.

We will have a 24 hour vote on this amendment, followed by a 24 hour vote on the bill as a whole.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 30, 2011, 12:01:51 PM
I will vote Nay on the amendment simply because I prefer my original language. That said, if the amendment passes, I will think no less of the bill as a whole and will support it just as enthusiastically.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 30, 2011, 12:03:55 PM
This seems like an acceptable amendment, and I'll vote Aye for it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 30, 2011, 12:11:23 PM
Someone who's thinking enough about their vote to realize they want to change it is generally thinking far more than someone who merely copies and pastes from Bgwah's PM.

(Oh no, I just exposed this ridiculous, partisan effort for what it is!)

For the record, I have no idea who Bgwah is, have never received a PM from Bgwah, have never sent a PM to Bgwah. have never quoted Bgwah, have never been quoted by Bgwah (as far as I know), and am really not concerned with anything Bgwah has to say, although recognizing he has the right to say whatever he wants, as long as it is not against forum rules, the same right as any other forum members.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 31, 2011, 06:37:28 PM
On the previous question the ayes are one and the nays are one. Lieutenant Governor Simfan is invited to break the tie.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on July 31, 2011, 07:34:13 PM
I am currently deliberating upon this question, and I shall exercise my right to break the tie.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on July 31, 2011, 07:39:03 PM
Upon seeing the language used by Rep. Homelycooking in his vote, and upon reading this bill, I have decided to vote AYE.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 31, 2011, 08:12:31 PM
The bill is amended to read:

Ballot Standardization Act

1. The Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast is hereby authorized to open a voting booth for any and all Northeast Regional regular and special elections.

2. Any other official of the Northeast, including and limited to the Governor, Lt. Governor and members of the Assembly, are hereby authorized to open a voting booth for any and all Northeast Regional regular and special elections only if:
a. The Chief Judicial Officer declares a leave of absence encompassing the first day of the election, or otherwise states publicly his inability to open the polls on time; or
b. The Chief Judicial Officer does not open the polls one hour after an election's constitutionally or legally mandated start time.


3. The post with which the authorized opener of a voting booth begins the election must contain the following text before the listing of candidates running for office, with the bracketed items correctly filled in:

"As [name of authorized poll-opening officer], I hereby declare this polling place open.

This is the Northeast regional polling booth for the scheduled [name of election].  In this polling place, Northeast citizens are electing [names of offices up for election].

Votes for offices in this region are cast using PR-STV.  Voters who wish to preference more than one candidate should allocate a first preference for a candidate by marking a [1] in the space provided by that candidate's name, and proceeding to number as many preferences as they desire by marking a [2], [3], etc for as many candidates as they so desire.

A vote will be counted so long as the voter that casts it is eligible to vote in this election and casts  a formal ballot. A vote is formal so long as it contains numbered preferences with no duplicate numbers. A ballot containing Roman Numerals is not considered informal. A ballot in which candidates have been ranked a,b,c, etc is not considered informal so long as no letter has been repeated, and so long as a single candidate has been ranked a, for as long as the letters are consecutive with no duplicate letters. A ballot is formal if the CJO can determine the intent of the voter without interviewing that voter.

Per past practice, write-in votes are only counted for a candidate if he or she publicly declares a willingness to receive write-in votes for a particular office in the [name of election] before the polls close in the Candidate Declaration Thread or writes in his or her own name on the ballot for that particular office.

Votes for "NOTA" or "None of the Above" for any office are formal regardless of the preference assigned to it. Should a voter preference "NOTA" as well as other candidates, only his vote for "NOTA" will be counted, unless a candidate or candidates are preferred to NOTA, in which case votes for that candidate or those candidates will be counted normally.

This booth shall remain open until [time prescribed for the closing of the polls]."

4. Candidates shall have printed on the ballot certain basic information, limited to the following:
a. their full usernames and display names as of the time of the opening of the polls, should they differ from their usernames;
b. the name of the political party to which they belong, or the affiliation "Independent" in its place should a candidate not belong to a political party;
c. the name of the state in which they reside.

5. All information printed on a ballot must pertain immediately to the election at hand and may not contain solicitation, propaganda, or hyperlinks to other pages.

6. Absentee ballots need not contain all of the information mandated in sections 3 and 4, though it must be provided by the Chief Judicial Officer upon request to an absentee elector at any time beginning one week before the election.

7. An opening post that does not abide by the above clauses of this act inaugurates an election that shall not be recognized as the legitimate voice of the people of the Northeast and shall be rendered null and void.


We will now proceed to a final, 24 hour vote on this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on July 31, 2011, 08:19:34 PM
Aye

Nay

If I might be indulged with an explanation, I believe this bill to be unconstitutional in that it contradicts the language expressed in the constitution.  The Constitution merely states that the Chief Judicial Officer may open a voting booth, and spells out the conditions for running the election in Article IV, clauses ii thru vi.  This bill contradicts the language of the Northeast Constitution in several places.  I cannot support it for that reason.  I would, however, support it as an amendment to the Constitution.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on July 31, 2011, 08:20:51 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 31, 2011, 08:24:35 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 01, 2011, 02:54:15 AM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 01, 2011, 10:07:07 AM
The vote is cancelled. Without objection, the honorable member from Connecticut withdraws his bill and amends it to remove constitutionally objectionable language. He announces his intentions to introduce a constitutional amendment containing the language formerly contained within Section II of the Ballot Standardization Act at some later time.

The honorable member reintroduces his bill as follows:

Ballot Standardization Act

1. The Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast is hereby authorized to open a voting booth for any and all Northeast Regional regular and special elections.

2. Any other official of the Northeast, including and limited to the Governor, Lt. Governor and members of the Assembly, are hereby authorized to open a voting booth for any and all Northeast Regional regular and special elections only if:
a. The Chief Judicial Officer declares a leave of absence encompassing the first day of the election, or otherwise states publicly his inability to open the polls on time; or
b. The Chief Judicial Officer does not open the polls one hour after an election's constitutionally or legally mandated start time.


3. The post with which the authorized opener of a voting booth begins the election must contain the following text before the listing of candidates running for office, with the bracketed items correctly filled in:

"As [name of authorized poll-opening officer], I hereby declare this polling place open.

This is the Northeast regional polling booth for the scheduled [name of election].  In this polling place, Northeast citizens are electing [names of offices up for election].

Votes for offices in this region are cast using PR-STV.  Voters who wish to preference more than one candidate should allocate a first preference for a candidate by marking a [1] in the space provided by that candidate's name, and proceeding to number as many preferences as they desire by marking a [2], [3], etc for as many candidates as they so desire.

A vote will be counted so long as the voter that casts it is eligible to vote in this election and casts  a formal ballot. A vote is formal so long as it contains numbered preferences with no duplicate numbers. A ballot containing Roman Numerals is not considered informal. A ballot in which candidates have been ranked a,b,c, etc is not considered informal so long as no letter has been repeated, and so long as a single candidate has been ranked a, for as long as the letters are consecutive with no duplicate letters. A ballot is formal if the CJO can determine the intent of the voter without interviewing that voter.

Per past practice, write-in votes are only counted for a candidate if he or she publicly declares a willingness to receive write-in votes for a particular office in the [name of election] before the polls close in the Candidate Declaration Thread or writes in his or her own name on the ballot for that particular office.

Votes for "NOTA" or "None of the Above" for any office are formal regardless of the preference assigned to it. Should a voter preference "NOTA" as well as other candidates, only his vote for "NOTA" will be counted, unless a candidate or candidates are preferred to NOTA, in which case votes for that candidate or those candidates will be counted normally.

This booth shall remain open until [time prescribed for the closing of the polls]."

4. Candidates shall have printed on the ballot certain basic information, limited to the following:
a. their full usernames and display names as of the time of the opening of the polls, should they differ from their usernames;
b. the name of the political party to which they belong, or the affiliation "Independent" in its place should a candidate not belong to a political party;
c. the name of the state in which they reside.

5. All information printed on a ballot must pertain immediately to the election at hand and may not contain solicitation, propaganda, or hyperlinks to other pages.

6. Absentee ballots need not contain all of the information mandated in sections 3 and 4, though it must be provided by the Chief Judicial Officer upon request to an absentee elector at any time beginning one week before the election.

7. An opening post that does not abide by the above clauses of this act inaugurates an election that shall not be recognized as the legitimate voice of the people of the Northeast and shall be rendered null and void.

We will now proceed to a final, 24 hour vote on this bill.

Without objection, we will waive debate and proceed directly to a 24-hour vote.

If a member wishes to object, he is encouraged to notify the Speaker as soon as possible so that his objection can be resolved.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on August 01, 2011, 11:48:24 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on August 01, 2011, 06:35:54 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 01, 2011, 08:22:50 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 01, 2011, 09:04:47 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Elyski on August 02, 2011, 09:12:17 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on August 02, 2011, 09:49:09 AM
I'm sorry Elyski, your seat is vacant. You have missed at least three votes on legislation. We will need another special election.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 02, 2011, 10:07:18 AM
On the previous question the ayes are four and the nays are zero. The bill is passed.

The Assembly will now consider the following bill, proposed by the gentleman from Connecticut and signed by the gentleman from Massachusetts:

End to Alcohol Control Act

1. Businesses with liquor permits shall be allowed to sell liquor, beer, wine, or other alcoholic beverages to those 16 or older (with proper identification) until 2 AM on any day of the week.

2. Government-owned liquor stores shall be auctioned to the highest bidder.

3. Local governments may not restrict alcohol sales in conflict with this law.

Debate will last 48 hours. The two gentlemen sponsoring this bill are welcome to speak to its merits during debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on August 02, 2011, 10:48:08 AM
Government-owned liquor stores are an anachronism. This bill will end that through a fair method utilizing our democratic market. This bill also prevents young children from purchasing alcohol, which I believe is legal now given our lack of legal drinking age. I suggest either 6 AM or 8 AM for an opening time, which I mistakenly excluded.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 02, 2011, 12:50:25 PM
End to Alcohol Control Act

1. Businesses with liquor permits shall be allowed to sell liquor, beer, wine, or other alcoholic beverages to those 16 or older (with proper identification) until 2 AM on any day of the week.

2. Government-owned liquor stores shall be auctioned to the highest bidder.

3. Local governments may not restrict alcohol sales in conflict with this law.

I find this proposal to be much too lax and uncontrolled.  There is no way that 16 year olds should be permitted by law to purchase alcohol.  16 year olds are still in school.  The legal purchase of alcohol by those as young as 16 years of age is a recipe for disaster.  The minimum age for purchase of alcohol should be 18 years of age.

I therefore introduce an amendment to this bill stating that businesses with liquor permits shall be allowed to sell liquor, beer, wine, or other alcoholic beverages to those 18 years of age and older, with proper identification..........   

 



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 02, 2011, 03:31:25 PM
I rise in support of the gentleman from Rhode Island's amendment and further move that the bill be amended to insert '8 AM', the later of the two opening times suggested by the gentleman from Connecticut, into section 1 following the close of the parenthesis, change the word 'until' to 'between', strike '2 AM', and insert '1 AM' in its place. It may seem like a minor difference to some, but as a person who frequently stays up very long into the night, on many occasions within the past few weeks alone hitting the crack of dawn, I can tell you that there is in fact a difference between these times in terms of the darkness of the night, the general quietness, and the possibility of a business with a liquor permit creating an impediment to the peace of the citizenry if open.

Although I would support simply changing the time in the legislation, I would also be open to a form of the legislation mandating some form of a 'winding down' time between midnight or 1 AM and 2 AM.

I am as yet unsure if I would vote for the bill as it currently stands without the gentleman from Rhode Island's amendment or my own. While I strongly support it on principle, I have concerns about the too-young age and too-late time listed in section 1 of the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on August 02, 2011, 03:42:03 PM
While I would prefer a 24 hour law like Nevada has, I chose 2 AM because it seems to be the standard in more real life states more than any other time. I definitely think 1 AM is too early (who stops drinking at 1 AM on weekends? :P ). Since neither myself nor Dallasfan65 are Representatives, I presume that any amending will be subject to voting. Correct me if I am wrong, though.

As for Winfield's change to age 18, I originally had that as Ihad believed that to be our national drinking age but Dallas and I agreed to lower it to 16 when he informed me that a law had been passed to remove the drinking age at the federal level. I am ambivalent on this proposed change as 18 is reasonable enough if 16 can't be agreed upon.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 02, 2011, 04:16:01 PM
All right. I do not drink, so I will take your word for the reasonableness of the closing time. It just seemed a bit too late for my tastes, since I do in fact live across the street from a tavern and often have trouble sleeping on weekends.

As I am new to this body, I am not aware of the procedures for an Assemblyman who has introduced an amendment making changes to that amendment. If I may I would like to withdraw my amendment and introduce a new one that simply inserts 'from 8 AM' after the parentheses in section 1 and before the word 'until'.

I still strongly support the gentleman from Rhode Island's proposed change to the minimum age stated in the bill. In fact, not only would I prefer 18 to 16, I would prefer it to 21 as well. The plethora of different minimum ages for different things strikes me as confusing and unnecessary.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 02, 2011, 04:22:50 PM
Is there currently a regional drinking age?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 02, 2011, 04:39:00 PM
At this time I would like to introduce Senator Napoleon's proposed Constitution for the Northeast Region in the nature of an amendment.

The constitution may be read here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=138801.0 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=138801.0)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 02, 2011, 05:31:41 PM
As I am new to this body, I am not aware of the procedures for an Assemblyman who has introduced an amendment making changes to that amendment. If I may I would like to withdraw my amendment and introduce a new one that simply inserts 'from 8 AM' after the parentheses in section 1 and before the word 'until'.

There are no fixed procedures for that; if you make a motion, it will be recognized regardless of the language you use to express it. As long as an Assemblyman makes it clear what he wishes to do, the Chair will recognize him.

As to the content of the bill, I am in favor of Nathan's amendment. I would also suggest that it might be prudent to limit liquor store hours to a shorter period of time on weekday nights.

Also, I'm a little perplexed by section II. I was unaware that the Northeast Government owned any liquor stores or taverns.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 02, 2011, 05:32:24 PM
At this time I would like to introduce Senator Napoleon's proposed Constitution for the Northeast Region in the nature of an amendment.

The constitution may be read here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=138801.0 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=138801.0)

Please do so in the Legislation Introduction thread, and the Assembly will consider it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on August 02, 2011, 06:11:40 PM
As I am new to this body, I am not aware of the procedures for an Assemblyman who has introduced an amendment making changes to that amendment. If I may I would like to withdraw my amendment and introduce a new one that simply inserts 'from 8 AM' after the parentheses in section 1 and before the word 'until'.

There are no fixed procedures for that; if you make a motion, it will be recognized regardless of the language you use to express it. As long as an Assemblyman makes it clear what he wishes to do, the Chair will recognize him.

As to the content of the bill, I am in favor of Nathan's amendment. I would also suggest that it might be prudent to limit liquor store hours to a shorter period of time on weekday nights.

Also, I'm a little perplexed by section II. I was unaware that the Northeast Government owned any liquor stores or taverns.

Some states in our region are liquor-control states.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 02, 2011, 06:58:12 PM
At this time I would like to introduce Senator Napoleon's proposed Constitution for the Northeast Region in the nature of an amendment.

The constitution may be read here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=138801.0 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=138801.0)

Please do so in the Legislation Introduction thread, and the Assembly will consider it.

I apologize. I misconstrued the rules of order to indicate that I could do it in the nature of an amendment.

As for the liquor bill, I agree that we should open discussion on whether it would be prudent to limit hours for liquor stores and taverns on Sundays through Thursdays.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 02, 2011, 07:02:44 PM
Some states in our region are liquor-control states.

But if liquor-control is not uniform across the Region, why is the regional government operating liquor stores in some states and not others? That is, wouldn't it be up to the individual states who institute such policies to operate the stores and taverns within their own jurisdictions? Forgive me, I'm not too clear on this question of "regional federalism".


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on August 02, 2011, 07:34:21 PM
I am pretty sure we essentially are the government of the states in a consolidated form. We have to legislate on behalf of the states.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 02, 2011, 08:09:01 PM
Besides the age of 16 factor, I stand in support of this bill, especially section 2 :)

I'm still not sure why we have liquor stores, but, if we do, we won't any longer :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 02, 2011, 09:29:45 PM
Under no circumstances will I support the sale of alcohol to anyone under the age of 18.  I agree with Nathan that age 21 would be even better, but if age 21 cannot be agreed to by the Assembly, then age 18 is, I believe, a reasonable compromise.

As to hours of opening, I would definitely not support hours of operation going beyond 2 AM.  In fact, I propose 2 AM for weekends, meaning Fridays and Saturdays, and 12 midnight Sunday to Thursday.

It seems to me as well that as we are the government of the Northeast Region that no state governments exist in this simulation, therefore, no state jurisdiction over liquor store operation exists in this case.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on August 02, 2011, 09:40:10 PM
Is there currently a regional drinking age?

There is not.  I will therefore be voting against this attempt to impose one.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 02, 2011, 09:47:39 PM
A clarification--I did not say or intend to imply that 21 would be better than 18. I think that 18 would be better than either 16 or 21 unless we were to begin raising other minimum ages to 21 as well (which depending on the context I might in fact support).

I agree with the Governor's proposal for the exact hours of operation on different days but I would accept anything from 12.30 to 1 AM as weekday hours as a compromise.

I move that, given the options of 16, 18, or 21, we put our personal preferred minimum drinking age on the record.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 02, 2011, 09:48:55 PM
Is there currently a regional drinking age?

There is not.  I will therefore be voting against this attempt to impose one.

Thanks.  And I will vote against this as well.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 02, 2011, 10:00:47 PM
My amendments:

Change the legal age in the region to purchase alcohol from age 16 as proposed in the bill to age 18.

Change hours of operation of liquor stores in the region to 12 midnight for Sunday to Thursday and 2 AM for Friday and Saturday. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 03, 2011, 12:23:54 AM
I concur with the Governor's amendments and will happily vote for this bill if they are carried. If they are not carried, I am undecided.

I would submit that we may want to make it clear that this bill is not to be construed as banning persons under whatever age is decided upon consuming alcohol. At least, I don't think we should do that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 03, 2011, 12:45:54 AM
I propose an amendment to strike section 1 of the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 03, 2011, 03:53:50 AM
What would your proposed age and hours be?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 03, 2011, 09:29:42 AM
What would your proposed age and hours be?

N/A, considering I'm proposing we strike that whole section.  The drinking age and liquor store hours should be up to the constituent governments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 03, 2011, 09:35:08 AM
It is the absolute height of irresponsibility by lawmakers to have no restrictions on the age to legally purchase alcohol in the Northeast Region.

I recognize the fact that lawmakers have no control over the age of those who consume alcohol, as minors can, clearly, in any jurisdiction, obtain alcohol through illegal means.  The laws governing possession and consumption of alcohol by minors is the subject for another debate.  However, the Northeast government can act responsibly and restrict the sale of alcohol to those age 18 and over only.  

Age 18 for the legal purchase of alcohol is a completely reasonable and fair compromise.

I ask Northeast lawmakers to act responsibly and support this amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on August 03, 2011, 09:55:22 AM
I agree that the age is a reasonable compromise but I'd like to see the operating hours remain as they were when introduced. :)

By the way, it is great to see all of you guys so engaged in this debate. We need more strong policy debates, even if it is something like alcohol laws that usually don't top people's priority lists.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 03, 2011, 10:01:37 AM
I assume the sub-regional governments have their own age restrictions.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on August 03, 2011, 10:11:45 AM
I would support a drinking age at 18.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 03, 2011, 10:13:10 AM
I agree that the age is a reasonable compromise but I'd like to see the operating hours remain as they were when introduced. :)

By the way, it is great to see all of you guys so engaged in this debate. We need more strong policy debates, even if it is something like alcohol laws that usually don't top people's priority lists.

I would hope to get majority support at least for my amendment to restrict the sale of alcohol only to those age 18 and over.  I believe this will be acting responsibly.  

If the majority decide to keep the hours of operation the same as in the original bill, then that is the way it is.  I believe the hours I have proposed are reasonable, however, one cannot always get everything they propose.  That is the nature of debate and compromise.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on August 03, 2011, 10:19:20 AM
There is no drinking age in Portugal or China, as there was no drinking age in America for nearly its entire history, and yet those societies have (unfortunately) yet to devolve into complete anarchy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 03, 2011, 10:36:41 AM
So our standards of law are China?  I don't like the American age of 21, but to have no drinking age, I think personally, is irresponsible.  Now, I don't think parents are going to go out tomorrow and throw alcohol down their children's throats.  However, it's obvious that a (typical) teenager would revel at the chance to get drunk, more so then they would with an age of 18 for the sale of liquor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on August 03, 2011, 11:22:48 AM

While the 'RAH RAH SCREW YOU CHINA, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE OUR GOVERNMENT EVEN MORE OPPRESSIVE THAN YOURS!  THAT'LL SHOW YOU CHINESE ASSHOLES!' argument is no doubt a convincing one, I fail to see how it's relevant.

Quote
I don't like the American age of 21, but to have no drinking age, I think personally, is irresponsible.  Now, I don't think parents are going to go out tomorrow and throw alcohol down their children's throats.  However, it's obvious that a (typical) teenager would revel at the chance to get drunk, more so then they would with an age of 18 for the sale of liquor.

Well, if you look at the actual evidence, the aforementioned country of Portugal (since you seem not to like China) has a much higher rate of alcohol consumption among adults, due to cultural differences, yet a much lower rate of alcohol consumption among minors.  The reason is obvious - if you tell a teenager not to do something, then it becomes an irresistable urge for them to do just that.  Teenagers will always get their hands on alcohol, and are far more likely to abuse it when it is made a forbidden fruit.  It is far more reasonable simply to allow them to learn how to be casual, social drinkers who drink in moderation, rather than giving them the temptation to go to binge drinking parties.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 03, 2011, 11:46:08 AM
I agree with wormyguy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 03, 2011, 12:34:40 PM
I agree in the sense that this is why I wanted to ask earlier if we could please clarify whether or not we mean this to imply any sort of restriction on consumption of alcohol by people younger than the minimum age of purchase. Again, I don't think this should be the case.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on August 03, 2011, 12:55:37 PM
I made sure when I wrote this bill that it was to apply only to purchasing alcohol. Wormyguy is throwing this entire debate off the tracks, whether deliberately or due to a misreading of this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 03, 2011, 12:56:39 PM
I would remind the honorable gentleman from Massadhusetts, Wormyguy, that the use of any type of profane or objectionable language is completely unacceptable in the Northeast Assembly.

The member is to withdraw his objectionable language and apologize to the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 03, 2011, 12:58:50 PM
Do I have any support in this Assembly to have the legal age whereby anyone can purchase alcohol from any establishment that sells alcohol is to be 21 years of age?

   


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 03, 2011, 01:16:04 PM
You don't.  Nor do you have the authority to demand wormyguy withdraw his statement and apologize to this assembly. 

Let me make this clear, I want the age to buy alcohol at 18.  Whether consumption becomes an issue means little to me.  To wormyguy; China became relevant through your reference. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on August 03, 2011, 01:36:02 PM
The Governor doesn't need authorization to request civility during debate. Instead, we should all strive to meet the standards that Governor Winfield expects, regardless of our position.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 03, 2011, 04:05:04 PM
Nor do you have the authority to demand wormyguy withdraw his statement and apologize to this assembly. 


Then the Speaker should act on this completely unacceptable behavior.  It's a little something called parliamentary procedure.  No objectionable language is acceptable in any law making body, ever. Period.

I ask the Speaker to deal with this situation.  It is certainly within his authority to address this matter and correct it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 03, 2011, 04:09:32 PM

Let me make this clear, I want the age to buy alcohol at 18.  Whether consumption becomes an issue means little to me.    

Then I leave my amendment at age 18.  I trust that compromise will find a concensus in the Assembly.

The age of 18 applies to any sale of any alcohol from any estblishment that sells alcohol, liquor stores, restaurants, lounges, bars, etc.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 03, 2011, 04:10:45 PM
The Governor doesn't need authorization to request civility during debate. Instead, we should all strive to meet the standards that Governor Winfield expects, regardless of our position.

Thank you Senator Napoleon.  Your statement is common sense.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 03, 2011, 04:24:06 PM
Nor do you have the authority to demand wormyguy withdraw his statement and apologize to this assembly. 


Then the Speaker should act on this completely unacceptable behavior.  It's a little something called parliamentary procedure.  No objectionable language is acceptable in any law making body, ever. Period.

I ask the Speaker to deal with this situation.  It is certainly within his authority to address this matter and correct it.

I completely agree with you.  I just wasn't aware whether or not you assumed you could make such a demand.  Though, if it were a request (I can't hear tone), you're completely able to do so.

The remark about my intention for 18 was towards Napoleon, who already said that he didn't intend for this to be about consumption.  Debate was somewhat sidetracked, and we've basically come to an agreement that this bill deserves support, minus the age question.  When it's time to vote on the amendment, I will vote Aye for age 18.  It seems to me with this amendment, this bill is quite passable.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 03, 2011, 07:10:12 PM
While I still maintain that I would be more enthusiastic about this bill if there was a stated opening time included and an earlier closing time for weeknights, I will gladly vote Aye if the amendment to change the figure 16 to 18 in section 1 is carried.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on August 03, 2011, 07:14:49 PM
I suggested 6 AM for opening as I had forgot to include that. I suggest offering an amendment, as you are right about it being a necessary change.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 03, 2011, 07:53:19 PM
The Chair does not recognize the unparliamentary language of the honorable member from Massachusetts, Mr Wormyguy. If the gentleman wishes his opinions to be considered by this house, he will phrase them in a way which upholds a certain respect for the opinions of others.

The Speaker notes that the following bill and two amendments to it have been submitted:

Original text as proposed by Napoleon/Dallasfan

Quote
End to Alcohol Control Act

1. Businesses with liquor permits shall be allowed to sell liquor, beer, wine, or other alcoholic beverages to those 16 or older (with proper identification) until 2 AM on any day of the week.

2. Government-owned liquor stores shall be auctioned to the highest bidder.

3. Local governments may not restrict alcohol sales in conflict with this law.

Amended text as proposed by Assemblyman Nathan

Quote
End to Alcohol Control Act

1. Businesses with liquor permits shall be allowed to sell liquor, beer, wine, or other alcoholic beverages to those 16 or older (with proper identification) from 8 AM until 2 AM on any day of the week.

2. Government-owned liquor stores shall be auctioned to the highest bidder.

3. Local governments may not restrict alcohol sales in conflict with this law.

Amended text as proposed by Assemblyman FallenMorgan

Quote
End to Alcohol Control Act

1. Government-owned liquor stores shall be auctioned to the highest bidder.

2. Local governments may not restrict alcohol sales in conflict with this law.

The Chair does not recognize amendments made to this bill from Governor Winfield, since he is not a member of the Assembly. Please note Section 3b of SOAP:

Quote
During debate, Representatives may suggest amendments to proposed legislation.

If a member wishes to offer amendments in the Governor's stead, he is welcome to do so, but let it be clear that the Assembly will only consider the above two amendments at this point.

Debate will last until roughly 11 AM tomorrow morning, at which time a 24 hour vote on amendments to the bill under consideration will commence.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 03, 2011, 08:44:51 PM
Nathan or Cincinnatus, or anyone else who supports my amendments, would you be willing to put forward my two amendments to this bill so they can be voted on?

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 03, 2011, 08:57:08 PM
I would be happy to introduce your amendments, Winfield - even though I don't necessarily agree with them, they contain ideas which deserve to be considered.

Amendment:

Quote
End to Alcohol Control Act

1. Businesses with liquor permits shall be allowed to sell liquor, beer, wine, or other alcoholic beverages to those 18 or older (with proper identification) from 8 AM until 2 AM on Friday and Saturday, and from 8 AM until 12 PM on all other nights.

2. Government-owned liquor stores shall be auctioned to the highest bidder.

3. Local governments may not restrict alcohol sales in conflict with this law.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on August 03, 2011, 08:58:10 PM
They should be introduced separately IMO.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 03, 2011, 09:00:22 PM
I would like to put forward a version of the bill that contains 18 as a minimum age but keeps 8-2 as the hours of operation for all days of the week. While I agree with the Governor's proposals, I would like there to be a version that contains the age amendment (which I view as both more important and more likely to pass) without the weekday night amendment (which I support but which I do not want to sink the age amendment).

Amendment:

Quote
End to Alcohol Control Act

1. Businesses with liquor permits shall be allowed to sell liquor, beer, wine, or other alcoholic beverages to those 18 or older (with proper identification) from 8 AM until 2 AM.

2. Government-owned liquor stores shall be auctioned to the highest bidder.

3. Local governments may not restrict alcohol sales in conflict with this law.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 03, 2011, 10:03:01 PM
Thank you Nathan.

I agree, the age amendment is the most important of the two.

As I have said earlier, if both amendments pass, I would be happy with that, but if just the age 18 amendment passes, I would as well be happy with that.

One cannot always expect to win everything one would like.  That is what compromise is all about. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 04, 2011, 12:17:46 AM
So...amendment with the most votes wins, or...?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 04, 2011, 03:41:40 AM
Should we vote on age (16 or 18) and time (12/2 or 2) separately? That's how I'd do it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 04, 2011, 07:45:40 AM
To be clear, we have four amendments to vote on. Nathan's first sets an 8AM opening time but does not change the age or closing time. His second sets an 8AM opening time and increases the age to 18. Homelycooking's amendment changes the hours to 8AM-12PM on weekdays and increases the age to 18. FallenMorgan's amendment does away with the original bill's section 1 entirely.

Original text as proposed by Napoleon/Dallasfan

Quote
End to Alcohol Control Act

1. Businesses with liquor permits shall be allowed to sell liquor, beer, wine, or other alcoholic beverages to those 16 or older (with proper identification) until 2 AM on any day of the week.

2. Government-owned liquor stores shall be auctioned to the highest bidder.

3. Local governments may not restrict alcohol sales in conflict with this law.

Amended text as proposed by Assemblyman Nathan (first amendment)

Quote
End to Alcohol Control Act

1. Businesses with liquor permits shall be allowed to sell liquor, beer, wine, or other alcoholic beverages to those 16 or older (with proper identification) from 8 AM until 2 AM on any day of the week.

2. Government-owned liquor stores shall be auctioned to the highest bidder.

3. Local governments may not restrict alcohol sales in conflict with this law.

Amended text as proposed by Assemblyman FallenMorgan

Quote
End to Alcohol Control Act

1. Government-owned liquor stores shall be auctioned to the highest bidder.

2. Local governments may not restrict alcohol sales in conflict with this law.

Amended text as proposed by Assemblyman homelycooking

Quote
End to Alcohol Control Act

1. Businesses with liquor permits shall be allowed to sell liquor, beer, wine, or other alcoholic beverages to those 18 or older (with proper identification) from 8 AM until 2 AM on Friday and Saturday, and from 8 AM until 12 PM on all other nights.

2. Government-owned liquor stores shall be auctioned to the highest bidder.

3. Local governments may not restrict alcohol sales in conflict with this law.

Amended text as proposed by Assemblyman Nathan (second amendment)

Quote
End to Alcohol Control Act

1. Businesses with liquor permits shall be allowed to sell liquor, beer, wine, or other alcoholic beverages to those 18 or older (with proper identification) from 8 AM until 2 AM.

2. Government-owned liquor stores shall be auctioned to the highest bidder.

3. Local governments may not restrict alcohol sales in conflict with this law.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 04, 2011, 11:06:54 AM
It would be reasonable to vote on age and time and my amendment separately.  So, I agree with Representative Nathan.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 04, 2011, 12:00:38 PM
Time for debate has expired. Members will vote on the following:

1. whether to (a) set store hours to 8AM to 2AM on all days (Nathan #1), (b) set them to 8AM to 2AM on Saturday and Friday and from 8 AM to 12 PM on all other days (Homelycooking), or (c) keep the original hours of "until 2AM" (no amendment) - vote for a, b, or c.
2. whether to increase purchasing age to 18 (Nathan #2, Homelycooking)- vote aye or nay.
3. whether to eliminate section 1 of the original bill in its entirety (FallenMorgan) - vote aye or nay.

This will be a 24 hour vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 04, 2011, 12:01:44 PM
1. c - no amendment
2. Aye - raise the age to 18
3. Nay - keep section 1


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 04, 2011, 03:18:56 PM
1. A (Nathan #1)
2. Aye
3. Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 04, 2011, 05:31:49 PM
1. Abstain
2. Abstain
3. Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on August 04, 2011, 05:33:13 PM
1. c
2. Nay
3. Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 04, 2011, 06:15:00 PM
1. A
2. Aye
3. Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 05, 2011, 08:38:52 PM
1. The votes for (a) are two and the votes for (c) are two. The Lieutenant Governor is invited to break the tie.
2. The ayes are three and the nays are one. The bill is so amended.
3. The ayes are two and the nays are three. The bill is not amended.

Regrettably, we cannot proceed until Simfan breaks the tie.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on August 06, 2011, 07:36:14 AM
Upon reading this amendment and considering the various options, I have decided to vote for option A of the first proposal.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 06, 2011, 07:46:50 AM
The bill has been amended thus:

Quote
End to Alcohol Control Act

1. Businesses with liquor permits shall be allowed to sell liquor, beer, wine, or other alcoholic beverages to those 18 or older (with proper identification) from 8 AM until 2 AM on any day of the week.

2. Government-owned liquor stores shall be auctioned to the highest bidder.

3. Local governments may not restrict alcohol sales in conflict with this law.

We will now have a 24-hour final vote on the bill at question.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 06, 2011, 08:04:25 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on August 06, 2011, 08:56:15 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on August 06, 2011, 09:04:04 AM
Nay

It's unfortunate that our legislature has been captured by anti-freedom fanatics.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 06, 2011, 09:08:38 AM
Aye.

I was also informed by the Chair that during the vote I could also bring up a motion to move Senator Napoleon's proposed new Constitution for the Region to the top of the queue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 06, 2011, 02:38:37 PM
NAY


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 06, 2011, 09:58:49 PM
On the bill: Aye.

It's unfortunate that our legislature has been captured by anti-freedom fanatics.

The honorable member from Massachusetts is cautioned once more against unparliamentary attacks on other members.

I was also informed by the Chair that during the vote I could also bring up a motion to move Senator Napoleon's proposed new Constitution for the Region to the top of the queue.

The honorable member from Massachusetts moves to suspend section 2a of the Standing Order on Legislative Procedure. Members will vote aye or nay on the motion: this will be a 24 hour vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 06, 2011, 10:29:57 PM
Aye on the motion to suspend section 2a.

Has the bill been passed?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 06, 2011, 10:39:14 PM
Yes. The ayes are four and the nays are two, so the bill passes.

Obviously, though, we must wait on the vote on the motion to suspend section 2a of SOAP before we can continue.

Aye on the motion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on August 06, 2011, 11:28:32 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 07, 2011, 08:43:17 AM
Aye on the motion


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 07, 2011, 02:20:04 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 07, 2011, 09:43:59 PM
Mr. Speaker, please advise the Governor if the honorable member from New Jersey, Mr. Elyski, has missed at least three votes on legislation in a row in the Assembly.

In such case, by terms of the constitution, this seat is vacant, and I will be required to call a special election.

In fairness to Mr. Elyski, I do not choose to act on this until I have received formal notice from the Assembly that Mr. Elyski has in fact missed at least three votes in a row.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 07, 2011, 10:04:20 PM
Mr. Speaker, please advise the Governor if the honorable member from New Jersey, Mr. Elyski, has missed at least three votes on legislation in a row in the Assembly.

He has, Governor Winfield.

On the previous question the ayes are three and the nays are two. Section 2a of SOAP is suspended and the Assembly will now consider the bill proposed by the gentleman from Massachusetts.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=138801.0 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=138801.0)

Debate will last 48 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 07, 2011, 11:44:00 PM
I see no reason to move the capital, though in light of the constitution as a whole this is of minor consequence. 

I'm not happy with 5 members to the Assembly, as I think this is to big.  We can barely keep those we get elected in office because they miss votes.  Our Lt. Governor shows up once in a while.  I'd be happy with 3 members and no Lt Governor, or 4 members with the Lt. Governor.  Whichever is most likely to pass would be nice. 

Well done with Article II, Section 11 Napoleon.  I'm glad this has been added.  For the sack of hearing opinions, could you [Napoleon] argue why 5 members would be better than 3?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 08, 2011, 12:48:52 AM
If I may be so daft...

Quote
1.  The executive shall be a three-member Consulate.  It's members shall be called Consuls.

2.  The Consuls, and any Northeast citizen, may introduce legislation.  The Consulate will vote on proposed legislation.  If approved by a majority vote, the legislation will be voted on by the eligible voters of the Northeast, which shall make up the Electoral College.  If approved by majority vote, the legislation will become law.

3.  A single Electoral College Voting Thread shall be maintained, which shall be updated with legislation up for vote.  Voting shall be conducted for not more than three days.

4.  The Consulate shall be elected on a staggered rotation, with the full Consulate being elected every three months.  In other words, the First Consul shall be elected every January, April, July, and October, the Second Consul shall be elected every February, May, August, and November, the Third Consul shall be elected every March, June, September, and December.

5.  Legislation shall be rejected if the Consulate fails to vote on it, or if the legislation fails to get more than five votes in the Electoral College, after three days.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 08, 2011, 01:00:36 AM
And if I may be so daft as a daft punk in daftville...

Quote
1.  The region consisting of the states of New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine shall be named Borealis.

2.  The capital is New York City.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 08, 2011, 08:37:33 AM
Is the gentleman from Maine offering amendments to the proposed Constitution?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 08, 2011, 08:53:36 AM
Seems like an interesting idea.  I'll have to read it again when I'm awake :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 08, 2011, 10:25:51 AM
Is the gentleman from Maine offering amendments to the proposed Constitution?

Why yes.  Yes I am.  :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 08, 2011, 04:01:36 PM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article II: The Executive

6.  A Governor may be impeached at any time while he or she is in office by the will of two thirds of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region. Impeachment proceedings shall begin when a motion to impeach offered by a Representative is seconded by another Representative, excluding the Representative serving as Lieutenant Governor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Governor, or any other government officer, can only be impeached for just cause, i.e. the commission of an impeachable offence.  Article II, Section 2 makes no provision for impeachment for just cause. 

It is imperative that it be written into the constitution in Article II, Section 2 to cover impeachment of the Governor for just cause for the commission of an impeachable offence.

The Assembly cannot simply decide to impeach the Governor for no reason.

Therefore, I present the above as an amendment to this proposed constitution.

Normally, for a Governor to be impeached, it would only follow a trial wherein the Governor was found to be guilty of an impeachable offence.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 08, 2011, 04:12:55 PM
I concur with the Governor's proposed amendment. If he will propose an exact text therefor I will officially introduce it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 08, 2011, 04:15:47 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article II: The Legislature

12. The Lieutenant Governor of the Northeast Region shall be the Representative receiving the most votes in the most recent general election. He or she officially opens and closes the legislative sessions of the Northeast Legislative Assembly and shall ascend to the Governorship if that office becomes vacant for any reason. If the Governor is temporarily absent (no more than ten days), the Lieutenant Governor may exercise the powers of Governor, excluding the ability to sign or veto legislation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a problem with the Lieutenant Governor being the Representative receiving the most votes in the election.  What if the Representative receiving the most votes does not want to become Lieutenant Governor, but wants to be a Representative so he or she can debate and vote on legislation in the Assembly?  

I find the way Article II Section 12 is written to be too restrictive.  It assigns an office to someone who may not want that office.

Personally, I would prefer the Lieutenant Governor to be elected from candidates running for Lieutenant Governor, and in the event no candidates seek this office, that the new Representatives in the Assembly choose the new Lieutenant Governor from amongst themselves.

Therefore, I propose the above amendment to Article II Section 12.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 08, 2011, 04:34:20 PM
I concur with the Governor's proposed amendment. If he will propose an exact text therefor I will officially introduce it.

Thank you Representative Nathan. 

Article II: The Executive

6.  A Governor may be impeached at any time while he or she is in office by the will of two thirds of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region following having been found guilty of an impeachable offence.  Impeachment proceedings shall begin when a motion to impeach offered by a Representative is seconded by another Representative, excluding the Representative serving as Lieutenant Governor.

Not part of the amendment:  That is assuming of course that a Representative is serving as the Lieutenant Governor.  If the office of Lieutenant Governor is elected as Lieutenant Governor in the election, then "excluding the Representative serving as Lieutenant Governor" will no longer part of Article II Section 6.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 08, 2011, 04:44:11 PM
Article I: The Region

The administrative center for the government of the Northeast Region established in this Constitution shall be Hartford, Connecticut.

I have no problem with the new capital of the Northeast Region being established in Hartford.  It is close to home.  :)

(Some humor from the Governor)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 08, 2011, 05:06:07 PM
I hereby move that we amend Article II, Section 6 to read as follows.

A Governor may be impeached at any time while he or she is in office by the will of two thirds of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region following having been found guilty of an impeachable offence.  Impeachment proceedings shall begin when a motion to impeach offered by a Representative is seconded by another Representative, excluding the Representative serving as Lieutenant Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 08, 2011, 08:36:39 PM
These proposals obviously conflict with mine.  I thank the governor and the fellow from (Massachusetts?) for their input.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 08, 2011, 08:55:18 PM
What can we agree on as an amendment?  4 members with Lt. Gov, 5 members without, 3 members (w/ or w/o ?).  Either way I'll introduce an amendment because I don't like having 5 members and a Lt. Gov.  Nor do I like having the Lt. Gov be the member with the most votes. 

Sorry Napoleon.  I know I've made my opinion aware on this point, but I never really posted in your thread about this before introduction. 

For the record, I will be supporting Morgans amendment to keep the Capital in NY, but will likely not support his other amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 08, 2011, 09:42:42 PM
What can we agree on as an amendment?  4 members with Lt. Gov, 5 members without, 3 members (w/ or w/o ?).  Either way I'll introduce an amendment because I don't like having 5 members and a Lt. Gov.  Nor do I like having the Lt. Gov be the member with the most votes. 

Sorry Napoleon.  I know I've made my opinion aware on this point, but I never really posted in your thread about this before introduction. 

For the record, I will be supporting Morgans amendment to keep the Capital in NY, but will likely not support his other amendment.

The amendment would replace the current executive -- governor and lieutenant governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 08, 2011, 09:54:37 PM
I also don't want the Lieutenant Governor's position to be contingent upon an irrelevant statistic. As I've said, I would prefer three representatives with no Lieutenant Governor. I don't really see how the office could be made useful at this point, and I'd like to see it abolished regardless of how many members the Assembly has.

As a compromise, perhaps it would be acceptable to name, for example, Hartford the region's executive capitol, New York the legislative capitol and Philadelphia the judicial capitol.

Quote
1.  The region consisting of the states of New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine shall be named Borealis.

2.  The capital is New York City.

I can't support this amendment because you've misspelled "capitol" and eliminated PA and DE from the region! ;D

As to your other amendment, FallenMorgan, I am wary of melding the Assembly and the office of the Governor. That said, you brought up an important point. It may be useful to permit citizen referenda on Assembly legislation. If we are going to decrease the Assembly's size, we should be sure to increase citizens' participation in lawmaking.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 08, 2011, 10:01:11 PM
I can't support this amendment because you've misspelled "capitol" and eliminated PA and DE from the region! ;D


Oh yeah, I forgot about them.  *embarrassed*

As to your concerns, there is still an independent judiciary to serve as a check on the Consulate.  Plus, the three Consuls in a way might serve as a check against one another.  And then of course, there's the people.

I just thought it would be an interesting answer to the problem of a limited number of elected officials.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 08, 2011, 11:03:21 PM
For the record, I have no problem with 5 Representatives.

The Assembly needs to have debate and input, and I believe 5 active Representatives could provide the necessary diversity of viewpoints and debate for legislation to be considered from a variety of individuals.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 08, 2011, 11:24:17 PM
I would ideally like 4 Representatives and a Lieutenant Governor, but would be content with 5 and no Lieutenant Governor.

Also, Mr Speaker: 'capital' is the correct spelling for the city that serves as a country's seat of government (derived from Latin capus, head); 'capitol' is the correct spelling for the building or complex that provides the primary public space used for the activities of said government (derived from the name of the Capitoline Hill in Rome, which doesn't have the same etymology). I apologize if this correction is deemed desultory, but the Senator's original usage is correct.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 08, 2011, 11:26:35 PM
We should have an odd number of members in the legislature.  It would prevent votes from potentially being ties all the time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 09, 2011, 02:50:34 AM
In that case I would support five, with no Lieutenant Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 09, 2011, 07:51:51 AM
Also, Mr Speaker: 'capital' is the correct spelling for the city that serves as a country's seat of government (derived from Latin capus, head); 'capitol' is the correct spelling for the building or complex that provides the primary public space used for the activities of said government (derived from the name of the Capitoline Hill in Rome, which doesn't have the same etymology). I apologize if this correction is deemed desultory, but the Senator's original usage is correct.

Not in the slightest. The Speaker stands corrected (thanks for the etymology, by the way).

In that case I would support five, with no Lieutenant Governor.

That's a fair solution.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on August 09, 2011, 11:09:51 AM
I would prefer to keep the number of Representatives as is.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 09, 2011, 09:27:15 PM
Time for debate has expired. The following amendments will now come to a vote:

FallenMorgan's first amendment:

Quote
1.  The executive shall be a three-member Consulate.  It's members shall be called Consuls.

2.  The Consuls, and any Northeast citizen, may introduce legislation.  The Consulate will vote on proposed legislation.  If approved by a majority vote, the legislation will be voted on by the eligible voters of the Northeast, which shall make up the Electoral College.  If approved by majority vote, the legislation will become law.

3.  A single Electoral College Voting Thread shall be maintained, which shall be updated with legislation up for vote.  Voting shall be conducted for not more than three days.

4.  The Consulate shall be elected on a staggered rotation, with the full Consulate being elected every three months.  In other words, the First Consul shall be elected every January, April, July, and October, the Second Consul shall be elected every February, May, August, and November, the Third Consul shall be elected every March, June, September, and December.

5.  Legislation shall be rejected if the Consulate fails to vote on it, or if the legislation fails to get more than five votes in the Electoral College, after three days.

FallenMorgan's second amendment:

Quote
1.  The region consisting of the states of New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine shall be named Borealis.

2.  The capital is New York City.

Nathan's amendment to Article II, sec. 6:

Quote
A Governor may be impeached at any time while he or she is in office by the will of two thirds of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region following having been found guilty of an impeachable offence.  Impeachment proceedings shall begin when a motion to impeach offered by a Representative is seconded by another Representative, excluding the Representative serving as Lieutenant Governor.

Members will vote aye or nay on each amendment. This vote will last 24 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on August 09, 2011, 09:49:56 PM
1. Nay
2. Nay
3. Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 09, 2011, 09:51:58 PM
Nay
Nay
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 09, 2011, 09:54:13 PM
1. Nay
2. Nay
3. Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 09, 2011, 10:14:26 PM
Aye
Aye
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 10, 2011, 03:12:52 AM
Nay
Nay
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on August 10, 2011, 08:16:01 AM
Aye
Aye
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 10, 2011, 08:49:33 AM
On the first question the ayes are two and the nays are four. The amendment is not agreed to.

On the second question the ayes are two and the nays are four. The amendment is not agreed to.

On the third question the ayes are six and the nays are zero. The amendment is agreed to.

The Assembly will now vote on the bill as a whole:

Quote
We the People of the Northeast Region, by acknowledging the right of governance for our granted territory, establish this Constitution to advance civil ordinance and individual opportunity for ourselves and our posterity. The Constitution of the Northeast Region is the supreme law of the region, in concert with the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia.

Article I: The Region

The Northeast Region and the Constitution thereof shall be representative of the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

The administrative center for the government of the Northeast Region established in this Constitution shall be Hartford, Connecticut.

Article II: The Legislature

1. The legislative power of the Northeast Region shall be granted to the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.

2. Elected members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall be called Representatives.

3. Representatives are to be elected by all citizens registered to vote in the Northeast Region. Representatives are to be registered to vote in the Northeast Region.

4. Elections to the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall take place once every February, April, June, August, October, and December. The appropriate election administrator will open the voting booth on the third Friday at 12:00:00am EST of each election month and will close said both the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm EST. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote during this time. The Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region must accept any absentee ballot received no more than one week prior to the opening of the polls.
 
5. Candidates for the Legislative Assembly will be given until the Wednesday preceding the third Friday of the month in which he or she wishes to run in an election thereof to announce his candidacy. This is to be done by officially declaring his or her candidacy in the Candidate Declaration Thread.

6. A Governor may be impeached at any time while he or she is in office by the will of two thirds of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region following having been found guilty of an impeachable offence.  Impeachment proceedings shall begin when a motion to impeach offered by a Representative is seconded by another Representative, excluding the Representative serving as Lieutenant Governor.

7. The number of Representatives to be elected shall be 5. The method of election shall be PR-STV, as specified in Sections 4 to 17 of the Atlasian Proportional Representation Act (F.L. 21-2), unless the Assembly shall provide otherwise by Law.

8. Vacancies in the Legislative Assembly shall be filled in a manner specified by Law, and until such determination is made, by Gubernatorial appointment. Vacancies occur upon resignation, recall, impeachment, failure to swear in within one week of the legislative session’s opening, failure to vote on three consecutive pieces of legislation without publicly declaring absence, or failure to participate in Assembly debate for one month.

9. The Legislative Assembly's sessions shall be conducted in public year-round.

10. All ordinary legislation shall first be considered in the Assembly. Legislation shall be considered by the Legislative Assembly upon petition of any Representative, the Governor, or two Northeast citizens.

11. Any piece of legislation attaining a majority of actual votes from Representatives shall be considered successful. Every piece of legislation shall relate to but one subject that is to be expressed in its title. All pieces of legislation and votes of support and consent by the Legislative Assembly must go through this process in order to become law.

12. The Lieutenant Governor of the Northeast Region shall be the Representative receiving the most votes in the most recent general election. He or she officially opens and closes the legislative sessions of the Northeast Legislative Assembly and shall ascend to the Governorship if that office becomes vacant for any reason. If the Governor is temporarily absent (no more than ten days), the Lieutenant Governor may exercise the powers of Governor, excluding the ability to sign or veto legislation.

13. The Speaker of the Northeast Legislative Assembly acts as the Presiding Officer of the Northeast Legislative Assembly. He or she organizes votes on legislation and notifies the Representatives of the results of any official vote.

14. The Legislative Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor’s veto. If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by more than a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor’s signature.

Article II: The Executive

1. The executive authority of the Northeast Region shall be vested in the Governor of the Northeast Region.

2. The Governor must be elected democratically by the people of the Northeast Region. Elections are to be held every February, June, and October for Governor. The appropriate election administrator will open the voting booth on the third Friday at 12:00:00am EST of each election month and will close said both the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm EST. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote during this time. The Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region must accept any absentee ballot received no more than one week prior to the opening of the polls.

3. Candidates for Governor will be given until the Wednesday preceding the third Friday of the month in which he or she wishes to run in an election thereof to announce his candidacy. This is to be done by officially declaring his or her's candidacy in the Candidate Declaration Thread.

4. When the polls close, the appropriate election administrator of the Northeast Region shall be given twenty-four hours to count the votes and declare a winner. The candidate with the most votes for the office of Governor shall be elected Governor. The newly elected Governor is to be officially sworn in on the Thursday following the election and shall immediately assume office at that point. In the case of a tie, all tied candidates are to run in a run-off election the following week to determine a winner. In the case of a tie, the previous Governor shall remain in office until a Governor is elected. There may only be one Governor at any point in time. Once a new Governor is sworn in, the old one forfeits his or her office.

5. If the office of Governor is to become vacant at some point while he or she is in office, the Lieutenant Governor is to be immediately sworn in as Governor of the Northeast Region.

6.  A Governor may be impeached at any time while he or she is in office by the will of two thirds of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region. Impeachment proceedings shall begin when a motion to impeach offered by a Representative is seconded by another Representative, excluding the Representative serving as Lieutenant Governor.

7. The Governor has the power to make political appointments and serve as the official representative of the Region to the rest of Atlasia. The primary responsibility of the Governor shall be to execute laws passed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast and to promote the interests of the region abroad.

8. The Governor has veto power over any piece of legislation that the Northeast Assembly shall successfully vote in favor. The Governor may not have the power to veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. The Governor is required to sign all pieces of legislation he supports into law after it passes a successful vote in the Legislative Assembly within one week of its passing. Once he or she has signed the legislation, it immediately becomes law unless otherwise stated in the legislation itself. If the Governor does not sign the successful legislation after one week, than it becomes law immediately.

9. The Governor is obligated to present the Legislative Assembly a budget every January, if he or she is in office at that time. The budget of all government activities is to be voted on by the Assembly in the same January. The Governor is obligated to ensure that the budget does not provide for any deficits excepting times of emergency or war, a condition the Legislative Assembly must successfully endorse.

10. The chain of command for the Governorship of the Northeast Region shall be as follows: Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the Northeast Assembly, Chief Judicial Officer, longest continuously serving Representative, followed by the next longest and the next and so on. The chain of command shall be used to fill sudden vacancies in the office of Governor.

11. The office of Governor is to be deemed vacant upon the resignation, recall, or impeachment of the sitting Governor. A Governor who takes no action over a ten (10) day period shall automatically forfeit his or her office unless an official leave of absence is acknowledged prior.

Article III: The Judiciary

1,The judicial branch of the Government of the Northeast Region shall be vested in the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region. The Chief Judicial Officer must be a registered voter in the Northeast Region.

2. The Chief Judicial Officer is to be appointed by the Governor with the support of the Legislative Assembly. He or she shall have a term of six months. Whenever the office of Chief Judicial Officer becomes vacant, he or she must be replaced within two weeks.

3. The Chief Judicial Officer is to be charged with the duties of interpreting the laws of the Northeast Region and is charged to hold trials for the accused. If someone submits a case to him or her, then the Chief Judicial Officer must make a ruling on it, giving ample time to hear arguments from any side of the issue. The Chief Judicial Officer’s rulings are to be considered precedent for all future cases.

4. No persons shall hold the positions of Governor and Chief Judicial Officer at the same time, and no persons shall hold the positions of Representative and Chief Judicial Officer at the same time.

5. The Chief Judicial Officer is responsible for the opening of polling booths. If the Chief Judicial Officer is unavailable to open the booth at the designated start of an election, the Governor or Lieutenant Governor may assume this responsibility.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 10, 2011, 08:52:38 AM
Quote
Article IV: The People

1.   The people of the Northeast Region shall have the power to recall any elected official by the process of petition. Petitions that collect seven or more signatures shall be considered valid. When a valid petition is presented, the appropriate election administrator shall open the voting booth on the nearest Friday at 12:00:00am EST and shall close said both the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm EST. The recall question is: “Shall [name of officer] be recalled from the office of [name of office held]?”. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote YES to recall and NO to retain during this time. Abstentions will not affect the results.

2.   The people of the Northeast Region shall have the power to call a referendum on any law signed by the Governor during the legislative session in which it was passed by the process of petition. Petitions that collect seven or more signatures shall be considered valid. When a valid petition is presented, the appropriate election administrator shall open the voting booth on the nearest Friday at 12:00:00am EST and shall close said both the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm EST. The referendum question is: “Shall [name of law, followed by text] be upheld as law?”. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote YES to uphold and NO to repeal during this time. Abstentions will not affect the results.

3.   Legislation resulting in a tied vote in the Legislative Assembly may be forwarded to the people for a vote at the will of the Governor. Legislation not forwarded to the people shall be considered unsuccessful. When tied legislation is referred by the Governor, the appropriate election administrator shall open the voting booth on the nearest Friday at 12:00:00am EST and shall close said both the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm EST. The referendum question is: “Shall [name of law, followed by text] be made law?”. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote YES for passage and NO for failure during this time. Abstentions will not affect the results. Referred legislation shall automatically become law if voted in favor by the people.

4.   Only votes and signatures from registered Northeast voters shall be considered valid for these questions.

Article V: Bill of Rights

The people of the Northeast have born unto them certain inalienable rights that shall be protected by law:

1. Freedom of Speech
All persons of the Northeast are bound to their free expression of their ideas and thoughts. No laws shall be passed regulating or restraining the freedom of the press. Free speech of the individual shall be protected by the law with exceptions made for speech and expression which inflicts harm onto another.

2. Equality
All persons of the Northeast are born equal, and shall be treated as so under the law, no matter their age, gender, race or ethnicity, religion, disability, economic status or sexual orientation. No government institution may explicitly favor one group over another.

3. Democracy
The people of the Northeast live in a democracy, and therefore all law-abiding citizens shall be granted the right to vote.

4. Rights of the Accused
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have a right to legal counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation, and have a copy thereof; to have a speedy, public and impartial trial, and, except in trials of impeachment, by a jury of the vicinity. The accused shall not be compelled to furnish or give evidence against himself or herself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, property or privileges, but by judgment of that person's peers or the law of the land.
 
5.   Right to Privacy.
Citizens of the Northeast shall have the unabridged right to undertake any action without legal restraint by the government, through its laws, providing said action does not directly harm another citizen physically, mentally, or otherwise prevents another citizen from exercising this same freedom.

Article VI: Amending Procedure

1.   Amendments to this Constitution shall be proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region. A proposed Amendment shall be forwarded to be voted upon by the citizens of the Northeast upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of voting members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region and an affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly

2.    The appropriate election administrator shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Legislative Assembly before 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the same month. The Governor or Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Legislative Assembly after 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00 am EST on the third Friday of the following month. The appropriate election administrator shall close the polling booth at 11:59:59pm EST on the following Sunday. If the date for opening the polling booth coincides with another Northeast election, the Governor or Chief Judicial Officer shall include the vote on any proposed Amendments in the polling booth for that election.

3.   Any Amendment proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall only become effective upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of those citizens of the Northeast Region who vote for or against the proposed Amendment.

This will be a 24 hour vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on August 10, 2011, 01:28:07 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on August 10, 2011, 01:41:55 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 10, 2011, 03:50:09 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 10, 2011, 06:59:35 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 11, 2011, 08:46:45 AM
On the previous question the ayes are two and the nays are two. The new constitution is not agreed to, as it has failed to attain a supermajority of affirmative votes.

The Assembly will now consider the following bill, sponsored by the honorable member from Pennsylvania.

Quote
The Prison Self-Sustainment Act

1. All Northeast Prisons shall be required to produce at least 75% of their food from gardens, which shall be created and maintained by inmates.

2. All inmates shall be given the right to decide amongst themselves which crops shall be maintained within the garden; however, prisons must require enough variety as so to allow for a balanced diet for the inmates.

3. If extra room is necessary, prisons will be granted land necessary to grow crops, paid for by the Northeast government.

Debate will last 48 hours and begins now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 11, 2011, 08:56:32 AM
The Speaker would like to announce that he will be absent from the Assembly starting this evening and continuing until this Sunday afternoon. Anyone willing to serve as Speaker in his absence is welcome to; all that would presumably be asked of him would be to close debate and open a vote on the above bill on Saturday morning, hold the vote on the bill which would close Sunday morning, and open debate on the "Partners in Civic Engagement Act" Sunday morning.

I have a few problems with the Prison Self-Sustainment Act: production of 75% of food from gardens would probably entail growing plants in Northeast gardens that are not endemic to the region and would not thrive due to climate or precipitation restrictions. If you change the percentage or specify that all local produce which could be grown in prisons is required to be, that problem could be solved.

Also, section 3 might not be feasible, especially if the extra land is not adjacent to the prison.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on August 11, 2011, 11:58:49 AM
To propose 2 amendments:

Section 1 shall read:

1. All Northeast Prisons shall be required to produce at least 50% of their food from gardens, which shall be created and maintained by inmates.

Section 3 shall be stricken from the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 11, 2011, 12:03:15 PM
Those amendments will make this bill more supportable.  I commend you on your efforts :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 11, 2011, 12:26:20 PM
Would it be possible to define what constitutes a balanced diet in section 2, or is the sense of the Assembly that that should be left up to the wardens and staff of the prisons?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on August 11, 2011, 12:44:16 PM
I would leave it to nutritionists.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 11, 2011, 06:37:56 PM
How and by whom would the nutritionists be selected? Would they be employed by the prisons directly and if so would there be oversight of their choices?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on August 12, 2011, 02:07:01 AM
You could simply require it to be consistent with federal standards or current regional prison diets.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 12, 2011, 05:33:03 AM
Then, I propose to amend section 2 to read:

All inmates shall be given the right to decide amongst themselves which crops shall be maintained within the garden; however, prisons must require enough variety as so to allow for a balanced diet for the inmates as consistent with present prison dietary standards.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 12, 2011, 12:47:20 PM
I'm not sure if I support this.  However, I think that allowing -- rather than forcing -- inmates to tend their own garden of some sort may help encourage rehabilitation and decrease violence.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on August 12, 2011, 01:53:34 PM
Not all of them are gonna have to work in it. However, it could easily be something of a rehabilitation program, and certainly better than hard labor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 13, 2011, 04:00:05 PM
The Speaker would like to announce that he will be absent from the Assembly starting this evening and continuing until this Sunday afternoon. Anyone willing to serve as Speaker in his absence is welcome to; all that would presumably be asked of him would be to close debate and open a vote on the above bill on Saturday morning, hold the vote on the bill which would close Sunday morning, and open debate on the "Partners in Civic Engagement Act" Sunday morning.


While I would like to get moving, the running of the Assembly is the job of the Lt. Gov first.  I wasn't elected as Speaker, nor appointed as Lt. Gov, so I don't think it would be right to overstep the duties afforded to me by election.  If someone else wishes to act as Speaker in your absence, I will participate in debate and vote.  I will not however take it upon myself to over-extend the authority granted to me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 13, 2011, 08:58:09 PM
I have no authority to appoint a Speaker.

There is a clear division of powers between the executive and the legislative branches.

In the absence of the Speaker, the Lieutenant Governor is to ensure that the Assembly keeps running smoothly.

The Chief Judicial Officer should make a ruling.

However, the Speaker returns tomorrow evening.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 14, 2011, 02:19:55 PM
In the absence of the Speaker, the Lieutenant Governor is to ensure that the Assembly keeps running smoothly.

In the absence of the Lt. Gov, the Speaker is supposed to run the Assembly.  The last two (perhaps more, but since I've been here), haven't run the Assembly, so the Speaker has assumed the role.  The law of Northeast is for the Lt. Gov to run the Assembly and vote when needed (tie).  homely just happens to be far more knowledgeable about Assembly procedure, so the fact that he's been running the Assembly is advantageous.   

I'd have no problem moving the Assembly forward if I felt I had the authority to do so.  If Simfan needs help/instruction in what to do, he can message me or someone with past experience like Napoleon.  Otherwise, I guess this short wait won't be a big deal :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 14, 2011, 05:02:32 PM
The Speaker has returned from his weekend excursion to the great state of New York.

Time for debate on the bill has expired. The following amendment to section 2 of the bill, proposed by the honorable member from Massachusetts, will come to a vote:

Quote
All inmates shall be given the right to decide amongst themselves which crops shall be maintained within the garden; however, prisons must require enough variety as so to allow for a balanced diet for the inmates as consistent with present prison dietary standards.

Members will vote aye or nay: this will be a 24-hour vote. Unless the honorable member from Pennsylvania informs me otherwise, I will consider the two amendments he proposed to his own bill to be friendly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 14, 2011, 07:26:54 PM
Aye on the amendment


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 14, 2011, 08:15:56 PM
During my short time as Lieutenant Governor, I was directing the affairs of the Assembly.  We had no Speaker at the time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 14, 2011, 08:18:51 PM
Quote
Northeast Assembly Speaker Act

    The Northeast Assembly shall elect a Speaker from among its members by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly at the start of each new Northeast Assembly term.
    The Speaker shall assume the role of presiding officer of the Northeast Assembly whenever the Lieutenant Governor publicly confirms he will be absent from the Northeast Assembly or the Lieutenant Governor otherwise publicly designates the Speaker to this role for a specified period.
    The Speaker shall serve until the end of the Northeast Assembly term, unless the Speaker is removed or resigns from the office of the Speaker.
    The Speaker may be removed from office by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly.
    If the office of the Speaker becomes vacant for any reason, the Northeast Assembly shall elect a new Speaker from among its members by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly as soon as possible.


Or...

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly#Standing_Order_on_Assembly_Procedure (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly#Standing_Order_on_Assembly_Procedure)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on August 14, 2011, 08:31:19 PM
Aye on the amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 14, 2011, 08:34:12 PM
Aye on the amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 15, 2011, 07:29:04 AM
Aye on the amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 15, 2011, 06:56:32 PM
On the previous question the ayes are four and the nays are zero. The bill is thus amended.

Quote
The Prison Self-Sustainment Act

1. All Northeast Prisons shall be required to produce at least 50% of their food from gardens, which shall be created and maintained by inmates.

2. All inmates shall be given the right to decide amongst themselves which crops shall be maintained within the garden; however, prisons must require enough variety as so to allow for a balanced diet for the inmates as consistent with present prison dietary standards.

The above bill will now come to a vote. Members will vote aye or nay: this will be a 24-hour vote.





Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on August 15, 2011, 08:13:25 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on August 15, 2011, 08:22:31 PM
I declare myself willing and capable of directing the affairs of the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 15, 2011, 08:27:35 PM
I declare myself willing and capable of directing the affairs of the Assembly.

You can by law designate the Speaker to run the Assembly.  If you choose not to do this (homely runs the Assembly very well), make sure that if you plan not to be here for a few days that you publicly announce so, so homely can take over and keep the Assembly moving.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly#Northeast_Assembly_Speaker_Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly#Northeast_Assembly_Speaker_Act)

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly#Standing_Order_on_Assembly_Procedure (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly#Standing_Order_on_Assembly_Procedure)

These should both help you out.  As long as you're capable of running the Assembly, please do.  If you feel unprepared to do so, I would urge you to publicly specify here that you designate the responsibility to homely for the remainder of this session.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on August 15, 2011, 11:13:03 PM
Thank you. I plan to be absent starting on Wednesday, lasting for a week on a... fact finding... trip to Ontario. It thus transfer my powers in regards to the Assembly to the Speaker, effective immediately.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 16, 2011, 07:19:13 AM
Aye on the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on August 16, 2011, 07:48:35 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 16, 2011, 08:56:32 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 16, 2011, 12:17:43 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 17, 2011, 12:19:09 AM
I, Scott, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of Northeast Assemblyman and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Northeast Region, so help me Dave.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 17, 2011, 12:24:14 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 17, 2011, 07:30:56 AM
On the previous question the ayes are three and the nays are three. It is up to Lt. Gov. Simfan to break the tie.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 17, 2011, 08:09:08 AM
I, Scott, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of Northeast Assemblyman and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Northeast Region, so help me Dave.

For you.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=36934.0 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=36934.0)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 17, 2011, 12:44:12 PM
I, Scott, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of Northeast Assemblyman and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Northeast Region, so help me Dave.

For you.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=36934.0 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=36934.0)
Thanks.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 17, 2011, 07:32:54 PM
I will be only sporadically present for the next week (tomorrow-probably next Thursday or Friday; vacation in Quebec). Is there anything I ought to arrange for in my mostly-absence?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on August 17, 2011, 07:42:40 PM
I will be only sporadically present for the next week (tomorrow-probably next Thursday or Friday; vacation in Quebec). Is there anything I ought to arrange for in my mostly-absence?

Re-election, good sir. Announce!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 17, 2011, 08:05:36 PM
I will be only sporadically present for the next week (tomorrow-probably next Thursday or Friday; vacation in Quebec). Is there anything I ought to arrange for in my mostly-absence?

Re-election, good sir. Announce!

Announced! Thank you for reminding me.

I meant in terms of taking an official leave of absence or the like.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 17, 2011, 08:24:37 PM
I need to know when my full-term election is, too.  Is that later this month?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 17, 2011, 08:43:48 PM
Also, leave of absence notification: from August 21st to August 25th, I will be on vacation a diplomatic errand to Virginia Beach and most likely will not have Internet access.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 17, 2011, 09:17:57 PM
I need to know when my full-term election is, too.  Is that later this month?

The election begins Friday!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 19, 2011, 08:57:11 AM
On the previous question the ayes are three and the nays are three. It is up to Lt. Gov. Simfan to break the tie.

With Simfan's declared absence, it's now Governor Winfield's duty to break the tie.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 19, 2011, 07:44:24 PM
Nay on the bill.

I believe this policy, if enacted, would, in some cases, be difficult to sustain over a long period of time.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 19, 2011, 08:02:19 PM
On the previous question the ayes are three and the nays are four. The bill is not agreed to.

The Assembly will now consider the following bill:

Quote
Partners in Civic Engagement Act

The Government of the Northeast shall match any individual contribution dollar-for-dollar, up to five hundred thousand dollars, to any tax-exempt charity or organization intended to promote the establishment and continued operation of:

- after-school programs in school districts in which more than one quarter of the student population is impoverished;
- educational or recreational summer camps for disabled or handicapped youth;
- public libraries;
- educational, domestic or recreational services for senior citizens;
- parks and land conservation organizations;
- animal shelters;
- soup kitchens for the poor, addiction rehabilitation centers or groups and homeless shelters; and
- medical research into finding a cure or more effective treatment for a communicable disease or genetic disorder.

Debate will last 48 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on August 19, 2011, 08:04:23 PM
Subject to auditing right?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 19, 2011, 08:06:05 PM
I amend the bill as follows:

Partners in Civic Engagement Act

The Government of the Northeast shall match any individual contribution dollar-for-dollar, up to five hundred thousand dollars, to any tax-exempt charity or organization that promotes, and is actively engaged in, the establishment and continued operation of:

- after-school programs in school districts in which more than one quarter of the student population is impoverished;
- educational or recreational summer camps for disabled or handicapped youth;
- public libraries;
- educational, domestic or recreational services for senior citizens;
- parks and land conservation organizations;
- animal shelters;
- soup kitchens for the poor, addiction rehabilitation centers or groups and homeless shelters; and
- medical research into finding a cure or more effective treatment for a communicable disease or genetic disorder.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on August 19, 2011, 08:08:14 PM
While the idea of the taxpayer matching a $500,000 "donation" to the Church of Scientology in order to hawk their "NarcoNon" program might warm the hearts of many, others might see that this bill presents a profoundly flawed idea.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 19, 2011, 08:14:41 PM
While the idea of the taxpayer matching a $500,000 "donation" to the Church of Scientology in order to hawk their "NarcoNon" program might warm the hearts of many, others might see that this bill presents a profoundly flawed idea.

It certainly may be flawed in that the definitions of the individual groups may be impossible to write so as to restrict any efforts toward exploitation or malfeasance.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on August 19, 2011, 08:16:32 PM
The Church of Scientology is a tax-exempt organization, NarcoNon is an addiction rehabilitation center.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on August 19, 2011, 08:19:27 PM
Remove their tax exempt status then.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 19, 2011, 09:50:59 PM
I amend this bill.

Partners in Civic Engagement Act

The Government of the Northeast shall match any individual contribution dollar-for-dollar, up to five hundred thousand dollars, to any tax-exempt charity or organization intended to promote the establishment and continued operation of:

- after-school programs in school districts in which more than one quarter of the student population is impoverished;
- educational or recreational summer camps for disabled or handicapped youth;
- public libraries;
- educational, domestic or recreational services for senior citizens;
- parks and land conservation organizations;
- animal shelters;
- soup kitchens for the poor, addiction rehabilitation centers or groups and homeless shelters; and
- financial support for the poor
- medical research into finding a cure or more effective treatment for a communicable disease or genetic disorder.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 19, 2011, 10:00:30 PM
I can't support this amendment.  Donations are wonderful in helping our poor, but I'm willing to leave an open-ended for someone to give to any low-income (or whatever we define poor as :P), individual, even with the $500,000 limit.  I appreciate your intent, but I will be an assured Nay if this amendment is received friendly, or passes.

Also, I'm worried about what tax payer dollars are going to actually go to here.  I do support the intent of supporting food shelters, libraries, ect, but I'm very wary of this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 20, 2011, 12:27:18 AM
I can't support this amendment.  Donations are wonderful in helping our poor, but I'm willing to leave an open-ended for someone to give to any low-income (or whatever we define poor as :P), individual, even with the $500,000 limit.  I appreciate your intent, but I will be an assured Nay if this amendment is received friendly, or passes.

Also, I'm worried about what tax payer dollars are going to actually go to here.  I do support the intent of supporting food shelters, libraries, ect, but I'm very wary of this bill.
Would you please clarify and be more specific with what you said?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on August 20, 2011, 12:36:52 AM
My parents could get matching money for supporting me of they set up a shady charity fund.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 20, 2011, 12:54:02 AM
I amend this bill a second time.

Partners in Civic Engagement Act

The Government of the Northeast shall match any individual contribution dollar-for-dollar, up to five hundred thousand dollars, to any tax-exempt charity or organization intended to promote the establishment and continued operation of:

- after-school programs in school districts in which more than one quarter of the student population is impoverished;
- educational or recreational summer camps for disabled or handicapped youth;
- public libraries;
- educational, domestic or recreational services for senior citizens;
- parks and land conservation organizations;
- animal shelters;
- soup kitchens for the poor, addiction rehabilitation centers or groups and homeless shelters; and
- medical research into finding a cure or more effective treatment for a communicable disease or genetic disorder.

All charities and organizations must be certified by a government commission before being eligible.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on August 20, 2011, 12:24:40 PM
So now you want to have a completely unaccountable government commission setting up taxpayer-funded slush funds for the pet causes of whoever is on the commission?  Perhaps the taxpayer will be forced to fund labor unions, but not churches, or churches, but not labor unions.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 20, 2011, 12:51:34 PM
So now you want to have a completely unaccountable government commission setting up taxpayer-funded slush funds for the pet causes of whoever is on the commission?  Perhaps the taxpayer will be forced to fund labor unions, but not churches, or churches, but not labor unions.
Well, no.  The commission would review charities and organizations and reject them if they are "shady", like Napoleon brought up.  They'd merely perform background checks to prevent abuse of the system.  Without a commission, there would be no oversight.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 20, 2011, 04:19:32 PM
Minor change of plans.  I am extending my leave of absence to Friday, August 26th.  We made a little error here.  I leave tomorrow.

Chances of me stopping by here when I'm at the hotel are possible, but slim.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on August 20, 2011, 07:49:52 PM
I'd be tempted to lower the cap; this could be too big a drain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 20, 2011, 08:34:41 PM
I'd support lowering the cap. I also support Scott's second amendment, unless wormyguy has some idea that could achieve the same effect in a way that would alleviate his concerns.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 20, 2011, 09:14:23 PM
I am considering withdrawing this bill. The problems of enforcement, protection against abuse or fraud and overall ambiguity that this bill might bring about seem to be too great at this point to overcome.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 20, 2011, 11:01:39 PM
Unless I have the time to stop by here tomorrow morning, this will likely be my last post in the thread for now.  I will come back if I am elected to serve a full term.  In any case, I would like to (if possible) be marked as Yea for my two amendments.  Do NOT mark me for the entire bill, however.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 21, 2011, 03:01:55 PM
I am considering withdrawing this bill. The problems of enforcement, protection against abuse or fraud and overall ambiguity that this bill might bring about seem to be too great at this point to overcome.

This is why I will be voting Nay.  Good intentions, just not a practical bill in my opinion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on August 22, 2011, 12:37:40 PM
The honorable member from Connecticut withdraws his bill.

The Assembly will now consider the following constitutional amendment, proposed by the Governor of the Northeast, Winfield.

Quote
iii) The Chief Judicial Officer is to be charged with the duties of interpreting the laws of the Northeast Region and is charged to hold trials for the convicted. If someone submits a case to him or her, then the Chief Judicial Officer must make a ruling on it, giving ample time to hear arguments from any side of the issue. The Chief Judicial Officer’s rulings are to be considered precedent for all future cases.


Debate will last 48 hours.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 23, 2011, 08:13:22 AM
Not that I want to skip over the bill, but homely is in the Senate, so I think it's of utmost importance to determine a new Speaker.  I suppose Governor Winfield will have to handle this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 24, 2011, 08:34:08 PM
As Governor, I wish to warmly welcome all Representatives to this new session of the Northeast Assembly.

I am confident that this session will produce much meaningful legislation for the advancement of the Northeast.

First order of business is to elect an Assembly Speaker.

We will have nominations then a vote.

Please proceed as soon as possible on this important matter so that the business of the Assembly can move forward.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on August 24, 2011, 09:08:05 PM
In light of the resignation of the speaker, I have deemed it appropriate and necessary that I assume the affairs of the Assembly according to my office.

This is effective immediately.

x Lt. Gov. Simfan34


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 24, 2011, 09:10:39 PM
In light of the resignation of the speaker, I have deemed it appropriate and necessary that I assume the affairs of the Assembly according to my office.

This is effective immediately.

x Lt. Gov. Simfan34

He is not Speaker, as he was not elected under this new Assembly.  We are nominating a new Speaker...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on August 24, 2011, 09:19:26 PM
In light of the resignation of the speaker, I have deemed it appropriate and necessary that I assume the affairs of the Assembly according to my office.

This is effective immediately.

x Lt. Gov. Simfan34

He is not Speaker, as he was not elected under this new Assembly.  We are nominating a new Speaker...

I am referring to homelycooking.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 24, 2011, 09:24:50 PM
In light of the resignation of the speaker, I have deemed it appropriate and necessary that I assume the affairs of the Assembly according to my office.

This is effective immediately.

x Lt. Gov. Simfan34

He is not Speaker, as he was not elected under this new Assembly.  We are nominating a new Speaker...

I am referring to homelycooking.

I understand that, but homely was no longer Speaker when he resigned.  So his resignation has nothing to do with you assuming your charge of this Assembly.  I'm not sure if you were aware this is a newly elected Assembly as you were away, but we are currently nominating and then electing a Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on August 24, 2011, 09:47:24 PM
In light of the resignation of the speaker, I have deemed it appropriate and necessary that I assume the affairs of the Assembly according to my office.

This is effective immediately.

x Lt. Gov. Simfan34

He is not Speaker, as he was not elected under this new Assembly.  We are nominating a new Speaker...

I am referring to homelycooking.

I understand that, but homely was no longer Speaker when he resigned.  So his resignation has nothing to do with you assuming your charge of this Assembly.  I'm not sure if you were aware this is a newly elected Assembly as you were away, but we are currently nominating and then electing a Speaker.

Oh. Yes, right, sorry about that.

In light of the recent changes in the composition of the Assembly, I have deemed it appropriate and necessary that I assume the affairs of the Assembly according to my office.

This is effective immediately.

x Lt. Gov. Simfan34


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 24, 2011, 09:56:24 PM
Mr. Lieutenant Governor, if you are going to assume these responsibilities, then please ensure that you are actively engaged in the affairs of the Assembly, so as not to hold up Assembly business due to your absence.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 24, 2011, 09:59:42 PM
Mr. Lieutenant Governor, if you are going to assume these responsibilities, then please ensure that you are actively engaged in the affairs of the Assembly, so as not to hold up Assembly business due to your absence.

Or at least give the powers back to the new Speaker once he is nominated/elected. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on August 24, 2011, 10:07:49 PM
Mr. Lieutenant Governor, if you are going to assume these responsibilities, then please ensure that you are actively engaged in the affairs of the Assembly, so as not to hold up Assembly business due to your absence.

Duly noted and heeded.

Now, as the Governor noted, it is the legislature's duty to elect a Speaker. Nominations are currently open.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 26, 2011, 09:30:00 AM
I nominate snowstalker.  Might as well start a vote.  It appears no one wants to nominate someone.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on August 26, 2011, 09:42:58 AM
I think Nathan and Scott will be back soon.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 26, 2011, 12:46:42 PM
I'm back, and I second the nomination of snowstalker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on August 26, 2011, 07:16:25 PM
I think Nathan and Scott will be back soon.

How soon? I would like to close the period for nominations soon.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 26, 2011, 07:18:26 PM
I think Nathan and Scott will be back soon.

How soon? I would like to close the period for nominations soon.

Nathan is back, and we have one nomination.  Just let us know when you plan to close the nomination stage, even though we might not receive anymore.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on August 26, 2011, 07:19:22 PM
I'll nominate myself.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 26, 2011, 09:47:53 PM
Greetings, gentlemen.

Snowstalker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 26, 2011, 09:54:26 PM

You just cut right to the chase don't you :P

I'll nominate myself as well, but if Snowstalker wants to step up, I'll support him.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on August 26, 2011, 11:58:11 PM
I decline to seek the nomination for Speaker.

I nominate Cincinnatus.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 27, 2011, 12:57:34 AM
I nominate Nathan.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 27, 2011, 01:03:51 AM
I will accept my nomination, but I myself nominate Scott.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 27, 2011, 01:18:26 AM
I accept my nomination.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 27, 2011, 08:08:52 AM
Just so everyone is aware, the following people have failed to Swear in as of yet;

FallenMorgan
Nathan

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=36934.0

(Technically, Nathan can't nominate, or be nominated until he swears in...)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on August 27, 2011, 08:37:17 AM
Just so everyone is aware, the following people have failed to Swear in as of yet;

FallenMorgan
Nathan

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=36934.0

(Technically, Nathan can't nominate, or be nominated until he swears in...)

I'll wait a bit for them.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 27, 2011, 10:08:06 AM
Just so everyone is aware, the following people have failed to Swear in as of yet;

FallenMorgan
Nathan

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=36934.0

(Technically, Nathan can't nominate, or be nominated until he swears in...)

I'll wait a bit for them.

Done.

I'd like to reiterate my acceptance of my nomination and my own nomination of Scott.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 27, 2011, 11:16:37 PM
I swore in.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on August 28, 2011, 03:47:13 PM
With all present and having made or not made nominations for Speaker, I think it is appropriate to end the nomination period and proceed with the balloting.

The nominees for Speaker of the Northeast Assembly are Rep. Nathan, Rep. Scott, and Rep. wormyguy

We shall now begin voting. Please cast your vote as promptly as is possible. If there is a tie, I, as Lt. Governor, will be required to cast the deciding vote.

BALLOT
SPEAKER of the NORTHEAST ASSEMBLY

[  ] Nathan
[  ] Scott
[  ] Wormyguy


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on August 28, 2011, 05:33:41 PM
X wormyguy


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on August 28, 2011, 05:45:25 PM
[1] wormyguy
[2] Nathan
[3] Scott


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 28, 2011, 07:32:02 PM
My goodness, this administration is conspiring to keep me off ballots :P

[1] Cincinnatus
[2] Snowstalker


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 28, 2011, 07:57:41 PM
My goodness, this administration is conspiring to keep me off ballots :P

[1] Cincinnatus
[2] Snowstalker

I was wondering why you were not on the ballot for Speaker. 

Cincinnatus, believe me, this had absolutely nothing to do with the Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 28, 2011, 08:01:18 PM
[1] Nathan
[2] Scott
[3] Cincinnatus


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 28, 2011, 08:09:46 PM
My goodness, this administration is conspiring to keep me off ballots :P

[1] Cincinnatus
[2] Snowstalker

I was wondering why you were not on the ballot for Speaker. 

Cincinnatus, believe me, this had absolutely nothing to do with the Governor.

Relax, I'm just joking :D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on August 28, 2011, 10:39:45 PM
Just so people know, the speaker is elected by FPTP, not IRV.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 29, 2011, 07:07:06 AM
Just so people know, the speaker is elected by FPTP, not IRV.

Thanks :D

X  Cincinnatus


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on August 29, 2011, 02:22:40 PM
[1] Cincinnatus
[2] Nathan
[3] Scott
[4] Wormyguy


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 29, 2011, 06:48:27 PM
X Cincinnatus


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on August 30, 2011, 04:57:24 AM
My deepest apologies Cincinnatus, I misinterpreted your comment about Snowstalker as meaning you wouldn't run. The fault is solely mine. I apologize for not clarifying sooner- my power has been out for the past two days and I have effectively been stuck in my house.Again, many apologies.

As Cincinnatus should have been on the ballot in the first place, and votes seem to have been mis-cast by some, I think that it would be wise to re-post the actual ballot so that the esteemed members know who is on the ballot.

BALLOT
For SPEAKER of the NORTHEAST ASSEMBLY

[  ] Cincinnatus
[  ] Nathan
[  ] Scott
[  ] wormyguy


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 30, 2011, 06:14:37 PM
X  Cincinnatus



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 31, 2011, 02:07:31 AM
X  Cincinnatus


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on August 31, 2011, 06:38:16 AM
X wormyguy


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Username MechaRFK on September 01, 2011, 08:35:00 PM

X  Cincinnatus


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on September 01, 2011, 09:26:52 PM
1. Cincinnatus.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on September 01, 2011, 11:00:25 PM
RFK, please swear in at the New office holders swearing in thread, otherwise, you cannot take part in Assembly votes or speak as a member of the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Username MechaRFK on September 02, 2011, 04:54:49 AM
I will now swear in as the Assembler of the Northeast.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 02, 2011, 03:54:30 PM
Mr. Lieutenant, get this chamber in order. Please.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 02, 2011, 03:59:41 PM
Mr. Lieutenant, get this chamber in order. Please.

I echo that sentiment.  I have previously sent a message to some who didn't vote, so I think it's safe to assume we can move on?  God forbid any legislation get to the floor this session :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on September 02, 2011, 06:56:46 PM
All votes have been cast.

The results are:

Cincinnatus: 4 votes
Wormyguy: 2 votes

Cincinnatus is elected Speaker of the Northeast Aseembly. Congratulations Speaker Cincinnatus.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on September 02, 2011, 07:04:06 PM
Let us now proceed with the Business of the Assembly. The Assembly will now consider the following constitutional amendment, proposed by the Governor of the Northeast, Winfield, during the last session.

Quote
iii) The Chief Judicial Officer is to be charged with the duties of interpreting the laws of the Northeast Region and is charged to hold trials for the convicted. If someone submits a case to him or her, then the Chief Judicial Officer must make a ruling on it, giving ample time to hear arguments from any side of the issue. The Chief Judicial Officer’s rulings are to be considered precedent for all future cases.


Debate will last 72 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 02, 2011, 07:25:27 PM
Debate CAN'T be shorter then 48 hours Mr. Lt Governor.

Please, if you have any questions as to proper procedure, ask Napoleon or myself (Both of which would gladly assist you).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on September 02, 2011, 08:24:03 PM
Why on earth did I put 24? I meant 72. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 02, 2011, 08:30:10 PM
The proper time is 48 hours and legislation would need reintroduced. Please let the Speaker handle this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on September 02, 2011, 09:02:34 PM
Let us now proceed with the Business of the Assembly. The Assembly will now consider the following constitutional amendment, proposed by the Governor of the Northeast, Winfield, during the last session.

Quote
iii) The Chief Judicial Officer is to be charged with the duties of interpreting the laws of the Northeast Region and is charged to hold trials for the convicted. If someone submits a case to him or her, then the Chief Judicial Officer must make a ruling on it, giving ample time to hear arguments from any side of the issue. The Chief Judicial Officer’s rulings are to be considered precedent for all future cases.


Debate will last 72 hours.

This wording is incorrect.  I had the concept but did not create the actual wording.  To hold trials for the convicted should clearly read to hold trials for the accused.  

One is not convicted before a trial.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on September 02, 2011, 10:16:01 PM
I would like to announce my absence from the legislature in the next three days, until noon most likely, for a review of regional procedure. I trust that the Speaker shall be capable of managing the affairs of the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 02, 2011, 11:36:19 PM
The Voluntary School Prayer Act

A BILL that will ensure religious freedom by allotting students one minute for prayer before classes

1. All schools shall schedule one minute per day for non-led student prayer, before or after students recite the Pledge of Allegiance

2. In no way shall teachers or school administrators influence how a student prays, or endorse any particular religious faith or view

3. Students who do not wish to partake in prayer may refrain from doing so


This is the first piece of legislation introduced under the new session.  If any laws under the last session were skipped due to the election, feel free to re-introduce them.

Debate will last 48 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 02, 2011, 11:46:48 PM
Success, finally.. Now I can soon proceed to take some Nyquil and sleep away this sickness.  I hope those uninvited guests I had earlier go home with the flu..that will teach them :P

As to the bill;

Not sure a minute is going to make any difference here.  Perhaps we would be better off encouraging our students to keep and open mind about religion in general, while focusing on what should be studied in school (Math, science, foreign languages, and practical classes.)  I respect freedom of religion, but I don't really care to say all of our schools need to conduct a minute of prayer.  Can these children not use a minute at home for school-led prayer?  I don't really oppose the purpose of this bill.  I just find it rather unnecessary.  Unless, of course, you can explain to me how this is to have a notable positive benefit?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on September 02, 2011, 11:49:12 PM
I find it useless; students have a ton of free time to do what they want, even during school.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on September 03, 2011, 12:04:02 AM
May I inquire as to current Northeast laws respecting the freedom of students, such as Muslims, who have to pray at certain times of day to do so? If they're not currently free to do so, I believe that we should take the opportunity to change that now and would support an amendment to the effect that schools must provide opportunities for any time-mandated prayer in accordance with the student's faith. If this is already provided for by Northeast law, I see no reason why this bill is at all necessary, though it's certainly not a bad thing by any means.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on September 03, 2011, 09:01:02 AM
I would like to introduce an amendment to change the word "shall" in the first clause to "may."


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 03, 2011, 06:22:19 PM
Assemblyman Scott, you have the ability to consider the gentleman's amendment friendly before debate ends.  If you don't consider the Gentleman's amendment friendly before debate ends, the amendment in question will come to a vote.

I would like to introduce an amendment to change the word "shall" in the first clause to "may."


As to the amendment;  This little change makes me view the bill more favorably.  I certainly don't wish to tell schools they MUST have prayer.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 03, 2011, 10:27:07 PM
The amendment is friendly.

I proposed this bill because I believe it would respect a student's right to pray freely, if he or she wishes to.  Schools should not be allowed to deny this right.  If you would like, I would probably support an amendment permitting prayer for Muslim students at certain times of the day.

On a side-note, sorry for coming back here late.  Week-long power outage...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on September 03, 2011, 10:37:28 PM
I'd like to propose an amendment altering Section 1 to read:

All schools shall allow any student the opportunity for non-led student prayer in accordance with the student's religious beliefs, and may schedule one additional minute per day for non-led student prayer, before or after students recite the Pledge of Allegiance.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 03, 2011, 11:00:52 PM
I'd like to propose an amendment altering Section 1 to read:

All schools shall allow any student the opportunity for non-led student prayer in accordance with the student's religious beliefs, and may schedule one additional minute per day for non-led student prayer, before or after students recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
Friendly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 05, 2011, 07:02:01 AM
Time for debate has ended.

The amendments were considered friendly.

The Assembly will now vote on the final bill.  This vote will last 24 hours.

The Voluntary School Prayer Act

A BILL that will ensure religious freedom by allotting students one minute for prayer before classes

1. All schools shall allow any student the opportunity for non-led student prayer in accordance with the student's religious beliefs, and may schedule one additional minute per day for non-led student prayer, before or after students recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

2. In no way shall teachers or school administrators influence how a student prays, or endorse any particular religious faith or view

3. Students who do not wish to partake in prayer may refrain from doing so




Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on September 05, 2011, 07:25:26 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 05, 2011, 09:28:30 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Username MechaRFK on September 05, 2011, 09:34:58 AM
Nay

Pray before you get to school and before the bell rings.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on September 05, 2011, 06:58:39 PM
I will like to inform that I, due to unforeseen circumstances, will have to extend my leave for another week. I will be available, however, to break ties and the like.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on September 05, 2011, 07:50:34 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 05, 2011, 08:05:13 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 06, 2011, 07:39:00 AM
On the previous questions the Ayes are 4 and Nays are 1.  The bill is passed.

The Assembly will now consider the Constitution written by the Senator from CT;

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=138801.0 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=138801.0)

Debate will last 48 hours.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 06, 2011, 09:49:41 AM
I believe this constitution would be a giant leap for this region.  Our current system is flawed in this region, and this new constitution addresses several key issues.  I hope that those who may be in minor disagreement with specific minor details, propose amendments to voice their disapproval, however, I sincerely hope we can all come together to fix our region, and ensure a better foundation for democracy.

If I have any issue with the text, it is moving the capital, which is of minor consequence in relation to the benefits I envision from the entirety of this proposal.  If someone introduces an amendment to alter the capital (back to NY), I will support it.  Otherwise, unless an issue I'm unaware of is brought up, I fully expect this to pass if we're truly determined to govern effectively.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 06, 2011, 02:15:18 PM
Mostly everything looks good, except I'm not so sure about one part.

Quote
2. Equality
All persons of the Northeast are born equal, and shall be treated as so under the law, no matter their age, gender, race or ethnicity, religion, disability, economic status or sexual orientation. No government institution may explicitly favor one group over another.

Would this make progressive taxation and welfare unconstitutional?  If it does, I'll propose an amendment making them not so.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 06, 2011, 02:42:17 PM
Mostly everything looks good, except I'm not so sure about one part.

Quote
2. Equality
All persons of the Northeast are born equal, and shall be treated as so under the law, no matter their age, gender, race or ethnicity, religion, disability, economic status or sexual orientation. No government institution may explicitly favor one group over another.

Would this make progressive taxation and welfare unconstitutional?  If it does, I'll propose an amendment making them not so.
No. It would not.

I might suggest increasing debate time for this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Username MechaRFK on September 06, 2011, 02:52:55 PM
Change my vote to Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 06, 2011, 04:28:29 PM

Changing your vote to Aye on what exactly..?  :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 06, 2011, 07:04:31 PM
Motion to extend debate on the Constitution to 120 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 06, 2011, 07:09:11 PM
The Gentleman from CT has motioned to extend debate to 120 hours

The Assembly will vote Aye or Nay on this motion.  Abstentions and absences will be consider a Nay vote.  Voting will last 24 hours, or until all members of this Assembly have voted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 06, 2011, 07:09:44 PM
Aye on the motion.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on September 06, 2011, 09:07:34 PM
Aye on the motion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 06, 2011, 09:09:37 PM
I apologize to the Assembly.  The member can't motion for extension beyond 72 hours. 



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 06, 2011, 09:11:00 PM
In that case, motion to extend the debate to 72 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 06, 2011, 09:11:41 PM

The Gentleman from CT has motioned to extend debate 72 hours

The Assembly will vote Aye or Nay on this motion.  Abstentions and absences will be consider a Nay vote.  Voting will last 24 hours, or until all members of this Assembly have voted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 06, 2011, 09:12:03 PM
Aye on the motion


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on September 06, 2011, 11:07:45 PM
Mr. Speaker, can you please point out to the honorable member from Rhode Island, Mr. RFK, that until he swears in at the New Office Holder's Swearing In Thread that he is not technically a member of the Assembly, and therefore, he is ineligible to cast votes in the Assembly.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 06, 2011, 11:11:20 PM
I believe I have done so on more than one occasion Mr. Governor.  Of course I'm more than willing to point him to the right thread again.  Thank you as always for your input.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=36934.0


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on September 07, 2011, 05:32:03 PM
Mr. Speaker, can you please point out to the honorable member from Rhode Island, Mr. RFK, that until he swears in at the New Office Holder's Swearing In Thread that he is not technically a member of the Assembly, and therefore, he is ineligible to cast votes in the Assembly.

Thank you.

It might also be prudent to inform him he is an Assemblyman, not an Assembler.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on September 07, 2011, 06:27:46 PM
Mr. Speaker, can you please point out to the honorable member from Rhode Island, Mr. RFK, that until he swears in at the New Office Holder's Swearing In Thread that he is not technically a member of the Assembly, and therefore, he is ineligible to cast votes in the Assembly.

Thank you.

It might also be prudent to inform him he is an Assemblyman, not an Assembler.

The proper term is actually Representative. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 07, 2011, 09:32:48 PM
Debate has been extended 72 hours and will end the morning of Sept 11th.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 08, 2011, 12:03:06 PM
This chamber needs more life.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 08, 2011, 02:02:18 PM
Maaaaaaybe I shouldn't have extended debate for that long.  Hardly anyone's talking about the Constitution, and it doesn't look like anyone has huge objections to it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 08, 2011, 02:26:07 PM
There was little debate last time and it failed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 08, 2011, 05:28:17 PM

Expect further response from me once I get my work clothes off and what not ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 08, 2011, 06:31:20 PM
If no one else will, I shall.  Proposing the following amendment;

Quote
Article I: The Region

The Northeast Region and the Constitution thereof shall be representative of the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

The administrative center for the government of the Northeast Region established in this Constitution shall be Hartford, Connecticut New York City, NY.

Had New York not already been the current center for government, I would have liked to keep whatever the current city was.  However, I don't really see it necessary to move, especially after I just bought that roomy apartment downtown ;)

I honestly can't say I have any crucial disagreements with this constitution.  I'm not to keen on a Lt. Gov existing at all, but this constitution basically changes how that position works.  The Assembly is directed by the Speaker as it should be, and the number of Rep's has been reduced.  Unless someone has any ideas as to giving the people more rights in Article V, I can't see much that needs adding at the moment.  Well done Senator.





Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 08, 2011, 07:46:24 PM
Who decides how many reps each region gets?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 08, 2011, 07:47:32 PM
Who decides how many reps each region gets?

There's five Representatives under this constitution.  Perhaps I'm not understanding your questions here..


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 08, 2011, 08:03:16 PM
Who decides how many reps each region gets?

There's five Representatives under this constitution.  Perhaps I'm not understanding your questions here..
Well, I mean, why did we lose Representatives? 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 08, 2011, 08:06:56 PM
Who decides how many reps each region gets?

There's five Representatives under this constitution.  Perhaps I'm not understanding your questions here..
Well, I mean, why did we lose Representatives? 

Why are we eliminating some?  Well, currently you can basically just declare and win.  This is an elections game, and you basically don't have to do anything to get into our Assembly.  Having a more limited number should help increase the activity and accessibility of the Representatives who want to be re-elected.  Trust me, five is still a rather large Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 08, 2011, 08:11:22 PM
Who decides how many reps each region gets?

There's five Representatives under this constitution.  Perhaps I'm not understanding your questions here..
Well, I mean, why did we lose Representatives? 

To make elections more competitive. Under the current set up anyone who runs can win. I accidentally won a seat with my own write in vote when I was first elected. I believe our Representatives should be elected on their merits as opposed to their presence. With current Representatives likely to move up the political ladder over time, a 7 member Assembly is unsustainable. At the same time, a 5 member Assembly works to ensure that we have adequate representation and difference in viewpoints to accommodate the diverse political leanings of our region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 08, 2011, 08:19:38 PM
Who decides how many reps each region gets?

There's five Representatives under this constitution.  Perhaps I'm not understanding your questions here..
Well, I mean, why did we lose Representatives? 

To make elections more competitive. Under the current set up anyone who runs can win. I accidentally won a seat with my own write in vote when I was first elected. I believe our Representatives should be elected on their merits as opposed to their presence. With current Representatives likely to move up the political ladder over time, a 7 member Assembly is unsustainable. At the same time, a 5 member Assembly works to ensure that we have adequate representation and difference in viewpoints to accommodate the diverse political leanings of our region.
Ah.  Gotcha.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 08, 2011, 08:29:50 PM
Anyways, on the amendment-- I personally don't believe it matters, and I don't really want to vote for or against it and take "sides" or whatever.  That's all I have to say about that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 08, 2011, 08:34:23 PM
I can't support this Constitution if the capital isn't moved.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 08, 2011, 08:36:17 PM
I can't support this Constitution if the capital isn't moved.

:P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 08, 2011, 08:36:46 PM
I can't support this Constitution if the capital isn't moved.
Why not?  This is a pretty minor thing.  It doesn't change procedure or anything significant.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 08, 2011, 08:39:52 PM
I can't support this Constitution if the capital isn't moved.
Why not?  This is a pretty minor thing.  It doesn't change procedure or anything significant.

Just joking man. I'm fine with changing this. Anything to help this pass is good enough for me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 08, 2011, 08:41:37 PM
Anyways, on the amendment-- I personally don't believe it matters, and I don't really want to vote for or against it and take "sides" or whatever.  That's all I have to say about that.

You don't have to vote for it.  As sponsor this amendment originated from me.  If I deemed it unfriendly (which I have asked already), then yes, it would be voted on at the end of the debate.

Edit:  Well, you do have to vote on it for the Final vote technically.  In the grand scheme of things, it's not a crucial point.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 08, 2011, 08:43:34 PM
Anyways, on the amendment-- I personally don't believe it matters, and I don't really want to vote for or against it and take "sides" or whatever.  That's all I have to say about that.

You don't have to vote for it.  As sponsor this amendment originated from me.  If I deemed it unfriendly (which I have asked already), then yes, it would be voted on at the end of the debate.
I'll probably abstain when the vote comes up.  I don't want to be on record for supporting or opposing something that I don't think will make any big changes.

Wait, I'm confused.  You can amend the bill, and it only comes to a vote if you deem it unfriendly?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 08, 2011, 08:47:35 PM
Anyways, on the amendment-- I personally don't believe it matters, and I don't really want to vote for or against it and take "sides" or whatever.  That's all I have to say about that.

You don't have to vote for it.  As sponsor this amendment originated from me.  If I deemed it unfriendly (which I have asked already), then yes, it would be voted on at the end of the debate.
I'll probably abstain when the vote comes up.  I don't want to be on record for supporting or opposing something that I don't think will make any big changes.

You misunderstand me.  There will be no vote on this amendment as it's friendly to the sponsor (me).  Therefore, it will be in the final version of this constitution, and you will vote on said constitution as a whole, when debate is over.  Of course, other amendments could be introduced n the time being.

FTR.. If you are the sponsor of a bill, during debate you can choose to accept an amendment as friendly, or unfriendly (If you're a Rep).  If unfriendly, it goes up for a vote at the end of debate.  If friendly, it's incorporated into the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 08, 2011, 08:49:30 PM
It is easy to get confused when discussing amendments to an amendment. :)

Totally understandable.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 08, 2011, 08:52:02 PM
It is easy to get confused when discussing amendments to an amendment. :)

Totally understandable.

It's not very hard to misunderstand the procedure anyway.  Indeed, when the wiki doesn't display the proper text, it's also rather annoying.

No big deal.  If you have any more questions they'll be answered ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 08, 2011, 09:23:49 PM
Anyways, on the amendment-- I personally don't believe it matters, and I don't really want to vote for or against it and take "sides" or whatever.  That's all I have to say about that.

You don't have to vote for it.  As sponsor this amendment originated from me.  If I deemed it unfriendly (which I have asked already), then yes, it would be voted on at the end of the debate.
I'll probably abstain when the vote comes up.  I don't want to be on record for supporting or opposing something that I don't think will make any big changes.

You misunderstand me.  There will be no vote on this amendment as it's friendly to the sponsor (me).  Therefore, it will be in the final version of this constitution, and you will vote on said constitution as a whole, when debate is over.  Of course, other amendments could be introduced n the time being.

FTR.. If you are the sponsor of a bill, during debate you can choose to accept an amendment as friendly, or unfriendly (If you're a Rep).  If unfriendly, it goes up for a vote at the end of debate.  If friendly, it's incorporated into the bill.
Oh, okay.  I assumed Napoleon was the sponsor, not you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on September 08, 2011, 09:41:52 PM
Mr. Speaker, can you clarify, the section dealing with impeachment, has the amendment that I proposed received approval to be included in the new constitution?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 09, 2011, 08:56:03 AM
Forgive me Governor, but only one amendment has been proposed during this debate.  If you are referring to your previous amendment in the "Legislation Introduction Thread", no, it was introduced under the last session, and was skipped.

Reason being, this new constitution take care of more then just this single issue.  However, I will point you to what I believe you are seeking in the new constitution;

Quote
3. The Chief Judicial Officer is to be charged with the duties of interpreting the laws of the Northeast Region and is charged to hold trials for the accused. If someone submits a case to him or her, then the Chief Judicial Officer must make a ruling on it, giving ample time to hear arguments from any side of the issue. The Chief Judicial Officer’s rulings are to be considered precedent for all future cases.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on September 09, 2011, 03:04:44 PM
I would like to formally introduce an amendment to the section in question that it may read as such.

Quote
3. The Chief Judicial Officer is to be charged with the duties of interpreting the laws of the Northeast Region and is charged to hold trials for the accused. If someone submits a case to him or her, then the Chief Judicial Officer must make a ruling on it, giving ample time to hear arguments from any side of the issue. The Chief Judicial Officer’s rulings are to be considered precedent for all future cases.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 09, 2011, 03:41:29 PM
The Governor would like to see the impeachment clause changed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 09, 2011, 05:09:15 PM
Forgive me, because I may not be reading it correctly just getting home, but can I ask how the amendment from the Gentleman from MA actually changes the text?  I'm fairly certain it's verbatim the text already included in the constitutions proposal.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 09, 2011, 05:15:02 PM
At the end of the recall section I'd like to add, for clarity purposes: Recalled officials shall forfeit their offices immediately.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 09, 2011, 05:19:44 PM
At the end of the recall section I'd like to add, for clarity purposes: Recalled officials shall forfeit their offices immediately.

Amendment introduced;  Origination

Quote
1.   The people of the Northeast Region shall have the power to recall any elected official by the process of petition. Petitions that collect seven or more signatures shall be considered valid. When a valid petition is presented, the appropriate election administrator shall open the voting booth on the nearest Friday at 12:00:00am EST and shall close said both the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm EST. The recall question is: “Shall [name of officer] be recalled from the office of [name of office held]?”. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote YES to recall and NO to retain during this time. Abstentions will not affect the results.  Recalled officials shall forfeit their offices immediately.



No vote will occur, and the amendment is incorporated.


Does the Governor have any further comments, or was his question fully answered?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on September 09, 2011, 07:36:18 PM
Article II: The Executive

6.  A Governor may be impeached at any time while he or she is in office by the will of two thirds of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region. Impeachment proceedings shall begin when a motion to impeach offered by a Representative is seconded by another Representative, excluding the Representative serving as Lieutenant Governor.

I am uncomfortable with the wording of Article II, Section 6 about impeachment.  Even if two thirds of the Assembly wish to impeach a Governor, they should have to have just cause to do so, not simply because some of them may think it is a good idea.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 09, 2011, 07:42:21 PM
Do you have a specific amendment you'd like to be introduced in regards to this?

Does the author have any comments?


Impeachment itself means you're being accused of doing something unlawful.  I would imagine this word would make the meaning clear, but I can understand your concerns. 



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on September 09, 2011, 09:07:08 PM
OK, just leave it.  I believe it could be more clear, however, I will not press the issue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 09, 2011, 09:32:06 PM
The Governor has a point.  The Constitution does not explain what qualifies for impeachment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 10, 2011, 08:37:34 AM
Does the Representative have an amendment to offer that would clarify? 


Debate will end in less than 24 hours, around 8:30 tomorrow (Sept 11th) morning.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on September 10, 2011, 08:38:49 AM
Given Napoleon was making the argument under the previous constitution that he could impeach any elected official for no reason, the fact that the wording of the clause in the proposed constitution he has authored says nothing about grounds for impeachment is extremely troubling.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 10, 2011, 08:43:03 AM
I doubt that was his intention.  However, I'm more than willing to consider an amendment friendly that would clarify this section.  All one needs to do is propose one..


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 10, 2011, 09:44:12 AM
I propose the following amendment.

Quote
Impeachment shall be pursued if an elected official commits an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the Region and that is legally prohibited.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on September 10, 2011, 11:19:26 AM
Forgive me, because I may not be reading it correctly just getting home, but can I ask how the amendment from the Gentleman from MA actually changes the text?  I'm fairly certain it's verbatim the text already included in the constitutions proposal.

Unless such amendment has already been carried and I missed it, it changes the word 'convicted' to 'accused'.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on September 10, 2011, 11:34:40 AM
I concur with the Governor's proposed amendment. If he will propose an exact text therefor I will officially introduce it.

Thank you Representative Nathan. 

Article II: The Executive

6.  A Governor may be impeached at any time while he or she is in office by the will of two thirds of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region following having been found guilty of an impeachable offence.  Impeachment proceedings shall begin when a motion to impeach offered by a Representative is seconded by another Representative, excluding the Representative serving as Lieutenant Governor.

Not part of the amendment:  That is assuming of course that a Representative is serving as the Lieutenant Governor.  If the office of Lieutenant Governor is elected as Lieutenant Governor in the election, then "excluding the Representative serving as Lieutenant Governor" will no longer part of Article II Section 6.

I made the following proposal on August 8, 2011.

When I asked if the impeachment matter had been introduced as an amendment and passed, this is what I was referring to.

My proposed changes to this section add clarity to this matter.  It is my hope that this has been adopted and passed by the assembly, or that at least it will be adopted and passed, in  fairness to all future Governors of the Northeast.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 10, 2011, 11:50:23 AM
My amendment defines "impeachable offense" and allows for the impeachment of other officials.  I didn't see anything in the Constitution that allows for non-governors to be impeached, which is a little unfair.  Both the proposals would work for the final bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on September 10, 2011, 01:36:28 PM
Still, my proposed amendment to Article II Section 6, referring specifically to the impeachment of the Governor, makes this article and section absolutely clear under what criteria the Governor can be impeached by a vote of two thirds of the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 10, 2011, 08:00:58 PM
Quote
Article II: The Executive

6.  A Governor may be impeached at any time while he or she is in office by the will of two thirds of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region following having been found guilty of an impeachable offence.  Impeachment proceedings shall begin when a motion to impeach offered by a Representative is seconded by another Representative, excluding the Representative serving as Lieutenant Governor.

Can't really impeach someone following them having been found guilty.  Impeachment involves guilt, followed by the removal from office. 

Will this amendment suffice?

Quote
6.  A Governor may be impeached at any time while he or she is in office by the will of two thirds of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region. Impeachment proceedings shall begin when a motion to impeach offered by a Representative is seconded by another Representative, excluding the Representative serving as Lieutenant Governor.  Impeachment proceeding shall be pursued if a committed action is legally prohibited and/or deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the Region.


Governor, I don't think your text actually describes an "impeachable" offense in the manner you want.  Nathan, if you'd accept this amendment instead, you are able to withdraw your own so that we don't have to vote on it, and can move onto a final vote (tomorrow morning).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on September 10, 2011, 08:39:23 PM
Yes Mr. Speaker.  I agree with your proposed wording for Article II, Section 6.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 11, 2011, 12:33:14 AM
Mr. Speaker, you did not say whether my amendment was friendly or unfriendly.  Is it friendly?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 11, 2011, 07:52:17 AM
Mr. Speaker, you did not say whether my amendment was friendly or unfriendly.  Is it friendly?

Forgive me.  I meant to address you when I mistakenly addressed Nathan. 



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 11, 2011, 08:04:55 AM
Amendments;

Quote
Article I: The Region

The Northeast Region and the Constitution thereof shall be representative of the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

The administrative center for the government of the Northeast Region established in this Constitution shall be Hartford, Connecticut New York City, NY.

Status; Origination.  Incorporated

Quote
3. The Chief Judicial Officer is to be charged with the duties of interpreting the laws of the Northeast Region and is charged to hold trials for the accused. If someone submits a case to him or her, then the Chief Judicial Officer must make a ruling on it, giving ample time to hear arguments from any side of the issue. The Chief Judicial Officer’s rulings are to be considered precedent for all future cases.

Status; Friendly.  Incorporated

Quote
1.   The people of the Northeast Region shall have the power to recall any elected official by the process of petition. Petitions that collect seven or more signatures shall be considered valid. When a valid petition is presented, the appropriate election administrator shall open the voting booth on the nearest Friday at 12:00:00am EST and shall close said both the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm EST. The recall question is: “Shall [name of officer] be recalled from the office of [name of office held]?”. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote YES to recall and NO to retain during this time. Abstentions will not affect the results.  Recalled officials shall forfeit their offices immediately.

Status;  Origination.  Incorporated

Quote
6.  A Governor may be impeached at any time while he or she is in office by the will of two thirds of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region. Impeachment proceedings shall begin when a motion to impeach offered by a Representative is seconded by another Representative, excluding the Representative serving as Lieutenant Governor.  Impeachment proceeding shall be pursued if a committed action is legally prohibited and/or deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the Region.

Status;  Origination.  Withdrawn

Quote
6.  A Governor may be impeached at any time while he or she is in office by the will of two thirds of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region. Impeachment proceedings shall begin when a motion to impeach offered by a Representative is seconded by another Representative, excluding the Representative serving as Lieutenant Governor.  Impeachment shall be pursued if an elected official commits an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the Region and that is legally prohibited.

Status;  Friendly.  Incorporated


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 11, 2011, 08:12:31 AM
Debate has ended.  This proposal will now come to a final vote.  A super majority is required to pass this constitution in the Assembly.  Voting will last 24 hours;



Quote
We the People of the Northeast Region, by acknowledging the right of governance for our granted territory, establish this Constitution to advance civil ordinance and individual opportunity for ourselves and our posterity. The Constitution of the Northeast Region is the supreme law of the region, in concert with the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia.

Article I: The Region


The Northeast Region and the Constitution thereof shall be representative of the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. 

The administrative center for the government of the Northeast Region established in this Constitution shall be New York City, NY.


Article II: The Legislature

1. The legislative power of the Northeast Region shall be granted to the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region.

2. Elected members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall be called Representatives.

3. Representatives are to be elected by all citizens registered to vote in the Northeast Region. Representatives are to be registered to vote in the Northeast Region.

4. Elections to the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall take place once every February, April, June, August, October, and December. The appropriate election administrator will open the voting booth on the third Friday at 12:00:00am EST of each election month and will close said both the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm EST. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote during this time. The Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region must accept any absentee ballot received no more than one week prior to the opening of the polls.
 
5. Candidates for the Legislative Assembly will be given until the Wednesday preceding the third Friday of the month in which he or she wishes to run in an election thereof to announce his candidacy. This is to be done by officially declaring his or her candidacy in the Candidate Declaration Thread.

6. When the polls close, the appropriate election administrator shall be given twenty-four (24) hours to count the votes and declare elected Representatives. The newly elected Representatives shall officially assume office on the Thursday following the election.

7. The number of Representatives to be elected shall be 5. The method of election shall be PR-STV, as specified in Sections 4 to 17 of the Atlasian Proportional Representation Act (F.L. 21-2), unless the Assembly shall provide otherwise by Law.

8. Vacancies in the Legislative Assembly shall be filled in a manner specified by Law, and until such determination is made, by Gubernatorial appointment. Vacancies occur upon resignation, recall, impeachment, failure to swear in within one week of the legislative session’s opening, failure to vote on three consecutive pieces of legislation without publicly declaring absence, or failure to participate in Assembly debate for one month.

9. The Legislative Assembly's sessions shall be conducted in public year-round.

10. All ordinary legislation shall first be considered in the Assembly. Legislation shall be considered by the Legislative Assembly upon petition of any Representative, the Governor, or two Northeast citizens.

11. Any piece of legislation attaining a majority of actual votes from Representatives shall be considered successful. Every piece of legislation shall relate to but one subject that is to be expressed in its title. All pieces of legislation and votes of support and consent by the Legislative Assembly must go through this process in order to become law.

12. The Lieutenant Governor of the Northeast Region shall be the Representative receiving the most votes in the most recent general election. He or she officially opens and closes the legislative sessions of the Northeast Legislative Assembly and shall ascend to the Governorship if that office becomes vacant for any reason. If the Governor is temporarily absent (no more than ten days), the Lieutenant Governor may exercise the powers of Governor, excluding the ability to sign or veto legislation.

13. The Speaker of the Northeast Legislative Assembly acts as the Presiding Officer of the Northeast Legislative Assembly. He or she organizes votes on legislation and notifies the Representatives of the results of any official vote.

14. The Legislative Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor’s veto. If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by more than a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor’s signature.

Article II: The Executive

1. The executive authority of the Northeast Region shall be vested in the Governor of the Northeast Region.

2. The Governor must be elected democratically by the people of the Northeast Region. Elections are to be held every February, June, and October for Governor. The appropriate election administrator will open the voting booth on the third Friday at 12:00:00am EST of each election month and will close said both the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm EST. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote during this time. The Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region must accept any absentee ballot received no more than one week prior to the opening of the polls.

3. Candidates for Governor will be given until the Wednesday preceding the third Friday of the month in which he or she wishes to run in an election thereof to announce his candidacy. This is to be done by officially declaring his or her's candidacy in the Candidate Declaration Thread.

4. When the polls close, the appropriate election administrator of the Northeast Region shall be given twenty-four hours to count the votes and declare a winner. The candidate with the most votes for the office of Governor shall be elected Governor. The newly elected Governor is to be officially sworn in on the Thursday following the election and shall immediately assume office at that point. In the case of a tie, all tied candidates are to run in a run-off election the following week to determine a winner. In the case of a tie, the previous Governor shall remain in office until a Governor is elected. There may only be one Governor at any point in time. Once a new Governor is sworn in, the old one forfeits his or her office.

5. If the office of Governor is to become vacant at some point while he or she is in office, the Lieutenant Governor is to be immediately sworn in as Governor of the Northeast Region.

6.  A Governor may be impeached at any time while he or she is in office by the will of two thirds of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region. Impeachment proceedings shall begin when a motion to impeach offered by a Representative is seconded by another Representative, excluding the Representative serving as Lieutenant Governor.  Impeachment shall be pursued if an elected official commits an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the Region and that is legally prohibited.

7. The Governor has the power to make political appointments and serve as the official representative of the Region to the rest of Atlasia. The primary responsibility of the Governor shall be to execute laws passed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast and to promote the interests of the region abroad.

8. The Governor has veto power over any piece of legislation that the Northeast Assembly shall successfully vote in favor. The Governor may not have the power to veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. The Governor is required to sign all pieces of legislation he supports into law after it passes a successful vote in the Legislative Assembly within one week of its passing. Once he or she has signed the legislation, it immediately becomes law unless otherwise stated in the legislation itself. If the Governor does not sign the successful legislation after one week, than it becomes law immediately.

9. The Governor is obligated to present the Legislative Assembly a budget every January, if he or she is in office at that time. The budget of all government activities is to be voted on by the Assembly in the same January. The Governor is obligated to ensure that the budget does not provide for any deficits excepting times of emergency or war, a condition the Legislative Assembly must successfully endorse.

10. The chain of command for the Governorship of the Northeast Region shall be as follows: Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the Northeast Assembly, Chief Judicial Officer, longest continuously serving Representative, followed by the next longest and the next and so on. The chain of command shall be used to fill sudden vacancies in the office of Governor.

11. The office of Governor is to be deemed vacant upon the resignation, recall, or impeachment of the sitting Governor. A Governor who takes no action over a ten (10) day period shall automatically forfeit his or her office unless an official leave of absence is acknowledged prior.

Article III: The Judiciary

1,The judicial branch of the Government of the Northeast Region shall be vested in the Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region. The Chief Judicial Officer must be a registered voter in the Northeast Region.

2. The Chief Judicial Officer is to be appointed by the Governor with the support of the Legislative Assembly. He or she shall have a term of six months. Whenever the office of Chief Judicial Officer becomes vacant, he or she must be replaced within two weeks.

3. The Chief Judicial Officer is to be charged with the duties of interpreting the laws of the Northeast Region and is charged to hold trials for the accused. If someone submits a case to him or her, then the Chief Judicial Officer must make a ruling on it, giving ample time to hear arguments from any side of the issue. The Chief Judicial Officer’s rulings are to be considered precedent for all future cases.

4. No persons shall hold the positions of Governor and Chief Judicial Officer at the same time, and no persons shall hold the positions of Representative and Chief Judicial Officer at the same time.

5. The Chief Judicial Officer is responsible for the opening of polling booths. If the Chief Judicial Officer is unavailable to open the booth at the designated start of an election, the Governor or Lieutenant Governor may assume this responsibility.




Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 11, 2011, 08:13:37 AM
Quote
Article IV: The People

1.   The people of the Northeast Region shall have the power to recall any elected official by the process of petition. Petitions that collect seven or more signatures shall be considered valid. When a valid petition is presented, the appropriate election administrator shall open the voting booth on the nearest Friday at 12:00:00am EST and shall close said both the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm EST. The recall question is: “Shall [name of officer] be recalled from the office of [name of office held]?”. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote YES to recall and NO to retain during this time. Abstentions will not affect the results.  Recalled officials shall forfeit their offices immediately.

2.   The people of the Northeast Region shall have the power to call a referendum on any law signed by the Governor during the legislative session in which it was passed by the process of petition. Petitions that collect seven or more signatures shall be considered valid. When a valid petition is presented, the appropriate election administrator shall open the voting booth on the nearest Friday at 12:00:00am EST and shall close said both the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm EST. The referendum question is: “Shall [name of law, followed by text] be upheld as law?”. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote YES to uphold and NO to repeal during this time. Abstentions will not affect the results.

3.   Legislation resulting in a tied vote in the Legislative Assembly may be forwarded to the people for a vote at the will of the Governor. Legislation not forwarded to the people shall be considered unsuccessful. When tied legislation is referred by the Governor, the appropriate election administrator shall open the voting booth on the nearest Friday at 12:00:00am EST and shall close said both the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm EST. The referendum question is: “Shall [name of law, followed by text] be made law?”. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote YES for passage and NO for failure during this time. Abstentions will not affect the results. Referred legislation shall automatically become law if voted in favor by the people.

4.   Only votes and signatures from registered Northeast voters shall be considered valid for these questions.

Article V: Bill of Rights

The people of the Northeast have born unto them certain inalienable rights that shall be protected by law:

1. Freedom of Speech
All persons of the Northeast are bound to their free expression of their ideas and thoughts. No laws shall be passed regulating or restraining the freedom of the press. Free speech of the individual shall be protected by the law with exceptions made for speech and expression which inflicts harm onto another.

2. Equality
All persons of the Northeast are born equal, and shall be treated as so under the law, no matter their age, gender, race or ethnicity, religion, disability, economic status or sexual orientation. No government institution may explicitly favor one group over another.

3. Democracy
The people of the Northeast live in a democracy, and therefore all law-abiding citizens shall be granted the right to vote.

4. Rights of the Accused
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have a right to legal counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation, and have a copy thereof; to have a speedy, public and impartial trial, and, except in trials of impeachment, by a jury of the vicinity. The accused shall not be compelled to furnish or give evidence against himself or herself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, property or privileges, but by judgment of that person's peers or the law of the land.
 
5.   Right to Privacy.
Citizens of the Northeast shall have the unabridged right to undertake any action without legal restraint by the government, through its laws, providing said action does not directly harm another citizen physically, mentally, or otherwise prevents another citizen from exercising this same freedom.

Article VI: Amending Procedure

1.   Amendments to this Constitution shall be proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region. A proposed Amendment shall be forwarded to be voted upon by the citizens of the Northeast upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of voting members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region and an affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly

2.    The appropriate election administrator shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Legislative Assembly before 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00am EST on the third Friday of the same month. The Governor or Chief Judicial Officer shall open the polling booth for all proposed Amendments approved by the Legislative Assembly after 12:00:00am EST of the second Friday of a month at 12:00:00 am EST on the third Friday of the following month. The appropriate election administrator shall close the polling booth at 11:59:59pm EST on the following Sunday. If the date for opening the polling booth coincides with another Northeast election, the Governor or Chief Judicial Officer shall include the vote on any proposed Amendments in the polling booth for that election.

3.   Any Amendment proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region shall only become effective upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of those citizens of the Northeast Region who vote for or against the proposed Amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 11, 2011, 08:17:45 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 11, 2011, 10:06:12 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 11, 2011, 02:03:33 PM
This is a bad time to ask, but does the Lt. Governor do much of anything, or does he just do what the Governor tells him to do?  Can he vote in the GA?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 11, 2011, 03:02:04 PM
This is a bad time to ask, but does the Lt. Governor do much of anything, or does he just do what the Governor tells him to do?  Can he vote in the GA?

The LG is an Assemblyman now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 12, 2011, 12:52:40 AM
Why do I have a really bad feeling it's going to be just two people passing this thing? :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 12, 2011, 07:15:25 AM
Somehow I'm disappointed, yet not in the least bit surprised.  We had the votes to really do something here, and blew it.  Perhaps I should resign as Speaker if that would mean some progress?  In any case, I hope those who failed to vote have a decent excuse.  Otherwise, I hope there's enough challengers to vote you out in the next election.  I don't expect the vote to be missed if I introduce it again, with the amendments incorporated..

Oh, and since I can't technically close voting before 24 hours, I won't be able to until I come home tonight.  I'm sure that's not a problem, as voting/debating isn't really this bodies forte.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on September 12, 2011, 09:30:56 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 12, 2011, 01:48:05 PM
Somehow I'm disappointed, yet not in the least bit surprised.  We had the votes to really do something here, and blew it.  Perhaps I should resign as Speaker if that would mean some progress?  In any case, I hope those who failed to vote have a decent excuse.  Otherwise, I hope there's enough challengers to vote you out in the next election.  I don't expect the vote to be missed if I introduce it again, with the amendments incorporated..

Oh, and since I can't technically close voting before 24 hours, I won't be able to until I come home tonight.  I'm sure that's not a problem, as voting/debating isn't really this bodies forte.
No, you've been doing a fine job as Speaker.  Don't blame yourself.  If people don't want to vote or debate, they won't vote or debate.  It's their loss.

Does this thing have to get a supermajority of the votes cast, or a supermajority of the entire GA?  If it's of the entire GA, including the people who didn't even vote, that's a crappy deal.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 12, 2011, 02:17:22 PM
It is a blessing in disguise really.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 12, 2011, 02:34:06 PM
How so?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 12, 2011, 02:39:58 PM

I don't think it would be likely to pass on a standalone September ballot due to turnout...trying again for the October ballot offers a better chance for passing.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 12, 2011, 05:30:35 PM
Voting has ended.  The constitution has failed to attain a supermajority, and thus fails.

Debate will now begin on The Northeast Loan Administration Act, introduced by the Gentleman from CT.  Debate will last 48 hours.

The Northeast Loan Administration Act

A BILL that will establish a loan-guarantee program for encouraging lending by backers (bank and non-bank lending institutions) and promoting job creation

1. This program may be referred to as 'The Northeast Loan Administration' or 'NLA'

2. The Northeast government will save $15 billion dollars and deposit it into a loan-guarantee program

3. The program will guarantee Northeast banks 75% of the loans that are issued to people, schools, student loans, businesses, hospitals, colleges, mortgages, and other entities

4. Loans must be $5 million or less to be eligible

5. Money will be guaranteed to all legal and valid loans from banks and non-bank lending institutions

6. Each loan will be checked to ensure its legality and approved by the NLA administrators before money is guaranteed



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 12, 2011, 07:20:03 PM
Just to sum up what I wrote about this earlier: basically, the idea is to make lenders feel certain that they'll get all or most of their money back by having the Northeast government guarantee them 75% of it, in case a person or entity can no longer pay a loan back.  More lending will mean new businesses can start and old ones can expand.  This will create millions of new jobs for the region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 12, 2011, 07:25:31 PM
Isn't this what led to the current economic situation?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 12, 2011, 07:31:58 PM
Isn't this what led to the current economic situation?
Well, basically, this would help prevent that from happening again.  It's very similar to how the Small Business Administration works.  The bank gets money back, no matter what, and so they are risking less by lending to people.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 12, 2011, 07:37:15 PM
This is just my two cents, but perhaps lowering the 15 billion to something less would be more suitable. If we see success, we can expand the program. The banks have an incentive to loan by having 75% guaranteed but also an incentive to make the right loans as to not lose the other 25%. Obviously that is a good thing. I also suggest removing other entities to protect against fraud. Add more to the list if you like but don't leave it that open ended.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 12, 2011, 07:45:26 PM
This is just my two cents, but perhaps lowering the 15 billion to something less would be more suitable. If we see success, we can expand the program. The banks have an incentive to loan by having 75% guaranteed but also an incentive to make the right loans as to not lose the other 25%. Obviously that is a good thing. I also suggest removing other entities to protect against fraud. Add more to the list if you like but don't leave it that open ended.
I have the limit at 75% so that we don't spend all the money in the program too quickly.  Would you suggest raising it to 100% and lowering the $15 billion?

All eligible loans already need to be approved by the program in case of fraud, so I don't think we need to remove that part.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 12, 2011, 07:50:24 PM
75% is fine. 100% would be a disaster.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 14, 2011, 12:57:04 AM
Great debate we're having, guys...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 14, 2011, 01:46:45 PM

It could be worse...at least we have a Senator that tries to help. We almost didn't even get that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 14, 2011, 01:51:12 PM

It could be worse...at least we have a Senator that tries to help. We almost didn't even get that.
I do appreciate that, haha.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 14, 2011, 02:20:43 PM
I won't be voting in favor of backing up loans with the public's money.  Using tax revenue in such a way is not a practice I agree, nor encourage.  What do we define as a non-bank lending institution in the Northeast by the way? 

Other entities and people is fairly broad IMO.  Guarantee 75% of loans?  Do I really want to encourage a practice that has proven to be catastrophic?  Do I want to tell banks "Hey.  Go ahead and give these loans that may or may not be smart in practice, because we'll guarantee them anyway."  Sure, you have a section that implies we will provide "oversight", but how well has such an intention worked in real life? 

I appreciate the Gentleman's want to introduce legislation.  However, I find myself unable to vote in favor, or offer an amendment that will allow me to vote in favor.  I plan to vote Nay on this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on September 14, 2011, 02:33:40 PM
I can't vote in favour of this bill either, for the same reasons as the Speaker. This isn't like an expansion of the FDIC or something. It's an expansion of the same policies that got us into this mess and it encourages the already-inherent risk of fractional-reserve banking to balloon by eliminating the consequences for the people making the loans.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 14, 2011, 02:41:47 PM
I won't be voting in favor of backing up loans with the public's money.  Using tax revenue in such a way is not a practice I agree, nor encourage.  What do we define as a non-bank lending institution in the Northeast by the way? 

Other entities and people is fairly broad IMO.  Guarantee 75% of loans?  Do I really want to encourage a practice that has proven to be catastrophic?  Do I want to tell banks "Hey.  Go ahead and give these loans that may or may not be smart in practice, because we'll guarantee them anyway."  Sure, you have a section that implies we will provide "oversight", but how well has such an intention worked in real life? 

I appreciate the Gentleman's want to introduce legislation.  However, I find myself unable to vote in favor, or offer an amendment that will allow me to vote in favor.  I plan to vote Nay on this bill.
Would you support minimizing this program, so that loans are only guaranteed for institutions (government buildings, schools, universities, hospitals) that we know will stay in use?  Perhaps the program could be "tested" on things that have smaller chances of defaulting.  So, the banks will be more likely to issue loans to these institutions, but we won't be encouraging bad practices or spending too much out of the program if we limit eligible institutions, first.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 14, 2011, 02:50:49 PM
I'd rather not go through a middle-man at all in that case.  Government spending doesn't need to go through an intermediary like a bank.  Government spending on things like schools, government buildings, universities, ect, can be directly given.  I would consider these types of issues as a matter of great debate in January, when the Governor has to propose a new budget for the year.  

Of course, if you want to talk about subsidies, that is another matter.  This bill doesn't seem to be intended, nor a framework for granting such.  This is why I won't support a bill that eliminates a banks risk in such a way.  It doesn't exactly encourage sound investments.

Beyond what you just mentioned, I think my bigger concern as far as public money, is what we can do about two things.  Those two factors being; Infrastructure, and the economy (small businesses and manufacturers, who employ the majority of our workforce).

Edit:  If you want to see some scary numbers, here (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/states).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 14, 2011, 02:59:11 PM
I'm withdrawing this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 14, 2011, 03:27:28 PM
The bill is withdrawn. 

The Assembly will now consider the bill proposed by the Gentleman from NY.  Debate will last 48 hours.  We will simultaneously nominate two Northeast citizens to the Northeast Wiki Reform Commission.

The Food Donation Protection Act

A bill to encourage food donations within the region.

The Northeast recognizes that supermarkets and restaraunts throw out millions of dollars of produce, grocery items, and food each year.  Many of these places of operation would gladly donate these items if not for the fear of litigation.


1.  A record of food donations shall be made by places of operation that provide food for the needy.  A receipt shall be issued to the donator for their records.

2.  These places of operation shall maintain responsibility for ensuring they comply with all regulations set by relevant Government agencies (Health Dept, FDA, ect).

3.  Those who willingly receive and/or consume the donated goods, shall not be able to obtain damages, unless malicious intent can be proven.

4.  Receipts issued under Section 1, may be used for tax purposes, if permitted by Northeast law.




Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 14, 2011, 03:30:28 PM
I actually just made this bill as soon as Scott announced he was withdrawing, so any amendments that may make it more effective would be considered friendly.  Basically, I personally know several restaurant owners, and I've heard several times that they worry about donating, because possible litigation could ruin them.

Now, I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with this draft, so I would be happy to hear any concerns, as well as a lengthy debate.  To much to ask?  I hope not ;)



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 14, 2011, 06:57:28 PM
Attention:

The following members of this Assembly are in danger of being expelled if they miss another consecutive vote;

Fallenmorgan
Snowstalker


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 14, 2011, 07:02:59 PM
I like the bill's intentions, except there's one thing we always need to worry about for these kinds of things: fraud.  Food donators could easily send in a list of food items they never actually donated, and then get money for it.  Somehow we would need to check that they're actually donating anything.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 14, 2011, 07:10:14 PM
You are correct that we should ensure risk of fraud is mitigated.  However, the section pertaining to that makes it reliant on the tax system, or further legislation regarding tax incentives for this bill.    Of course, if anyone has an amendment to offer that could in fact improve this bill, I encourage them to do so.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on September 14, 2011, 07:26:07 PM
Hai guis, I'm back.  Sorry for my absence, I was growing apathetic about the site again.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on September 14, 2011, 07:36:53 PM
I've been doing more stuff outside lately and forgot about this.

I share similar concerns with the gentleman from Connecticut.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on September 14, 2011, 07:38:11 PM
I'd like to introduce an amendment to change the word "shall" in the first clause to "may."

Food banks shouldn't be forced to participate in this program if they don't want to.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 14, 2011, 08:12:20 PM
I'd like to introduce an amendment to change the word "shall" in the first clause to "may."

Food banks shouldn't be forced to participate in this program if they don't want to.
Sounds reasonable.  I don't see why they would want to opt out, but they should be allowed to.  We'd save money that way, too.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 15, 2011, 08:50:54 AM
I'd like to introduce an amendment to change the word "shall" in the first clause to "may."

I have no problem with this.

Status:  Friendly;  Incorporated.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 15, 2011, 11:58:49 AM
I'm going to nominate Napoleon by the way ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 15, 2011, 08:42:23 PM
Debate and nominations (Wiki Reform Commission) are going to end tomorrow afternoon.  Are we happy with this bills current form?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 15, 2011, 09:02:24 PM
No objections here.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 16, 2011, 08:13:07 AM
We only have one nomination by the way.  If anyone else is interested nominate themselves for all I care :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 16, 2011, 05:28:41 PM
Debate has ended.  We will now vote on the final bill.  Voting will last 24 hours.  The only member nominated for the Wiki Commission was Napoleon.  We will vote to approve his nomination simultaneously.  Napoleon is also required to accept his nomination, which he can do during this period.

The Food Donation Protection Act

A bill to encourage food donations within the region.

The Northeast recognizes that supermarkets and restaurants throw out millions of dollars of produce, grocery items, and food each year.  Many of these places of operation would gladly donate these items if not for the fear of litigation.


1.  A record of food donations may be made by places of operation that provide food for the needy.  A receipt may be issued to the donator for their records.

2.  These places of operation shall maintain responsibility for ensuring they comply with all regulations set by relevant Government agencies (Health Dept, FDA, ect).

3.  Those who willingly receive and/or consume the donated goods, shall not be able to obtain damages, unless malicious intent can be proven.

4.  Receipts issued under Section 1, may be used for tax purposes, if permitted by Northeast law.





Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 16, 2011, 05:29:14 PM
Aye on the bill
Aye on Napoleon


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 16, 2011, 05:48:13 PM
Aye on the bill
Aye on Napoleon


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on September 16, 2011, 05:58:12 PM
Aye to both.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on September 16, 2011, 06:59:21 PM
Aye on the bill.
Aye on Napoleon.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on September 16, 2011, 07:59:51 PM
Aye on the bill
Nay on Napoleon (I believe the commission to be unconstitutional).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on September 16, 2011, 08:05:46 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Username MechaRFK on September 16, 2011, 08:24:31 PM
Aye to both the bill and Napoleon


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 16, 2011, 08:35:56 PM
All representatives have voted, this bill passes unanimously.  Napoleon is also confirmed. 

The Assembly will now debate the Castle Law, proposed by the Representative from CT.  Debate will last 48 hours.

Castle Law

A BILL that enforces the Castle Doctrine, to protect owners of homes, businesses, vehicles, or pets, who use deadly or non-deadly force against intruders, from prosecution.

1. An intruder(s) must have made an attempt to unlawfully enter a person's home, business, or vehicle without the consent of the owner

2. The owner of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder(s) had intended to commit a crime (murder, rape, robbery, or arson).

3. The owner may apply force if his or her pet is being harmed by intruder(s)

4. The intruder(s) must have acted illegally; i.e. the owner does not have the right to attack a police officer acting in the course of their legal duties.

5. The owner is not required to retreat from their home before using deadly or non-deadly force.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 16, 2011, 09:28:28 PM
I have proposed this bill because I believe it is necessary to ensure that people are not charged with murder or assault for defending themselves against criminals.

Here's an article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine) in case someone doesn't know what the Castle Doctrine is, but this bill explains it pretty clearly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 16, 2011, 09:35:19 PM
Is this meant to replace the Self Defense Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly#Self_Defense_Act)?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 16, 2011, 09:44:37 PM
Is this meant to replace the Self Defense Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly#Self_Defense_Act)?
Shoot.  I searched the wiki to see if there was a bill like this, and I didn't see that come up.

Originally, no, it was not.  Though my bill does expand on this somewhat, and defines what "justifiable" means for this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 16, 2011, 09:47:32 PM
It definitely expands on it, yes.  I would just amend either this act, or the Self Defense Act in a way that prevents the two from conflicting.  Just thought I'd bring this to your attention ;) 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 16, 2011, 09:54:05 PM
It definitely expands on it, yes.  I would just amend either this act, or the Self Defense Act in a way that prevents the two from conflicting.  Just thought I'd bring this to your attention ;)  
I will amend this bill as legislation that makes amendments to the Self Defense Act.  The amendment is friendly.

The preamble will now read:
Quote
A BILL that amends the Self Defense Act, to protect owners of homes, businesses, vehicles, or pets, who use deadly or non-deadly force against intruders, from prosecution.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 17, 2011, 01:08:31 AM
I accept the nomination.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on September 17, 2011, 01:12:23 PM
Is the parenthetical list at the end of section 2 of the proposed bill meant to be exhaustive, or simply examples of what constitute crimes for this purpose?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 17, 2011, 03:03:04 PM
Is the parenthetical list at the end of section 2 of the proposed bill meant to be exhaustive, or simply examples of what constitute crimes for this purpose?
It's exhaustive.  You can't go ahead and kill someone for only, say, walking around on your lawn.  It's illegal if they're trespassing, but you can just call the cops for those kinds of things.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 17, 2011, 03:06:44 PM
The Self Defense Act was repealed underrated my term as Speaker FYI.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 17, 2011, 03:21:10 PM
The Self Defense Act was repealed underrated my term as Speaker FYI.
What legislation did that?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 17, 2011, 03:30:30 PM
The Self Defense Act was repealed underrated my term as Speaker FYI.
What legislation did that?

The SRC Report.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 17, 2011, 05:44:32 PM
Good.  This is fine as a separate bill then.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 17, 2011, 05:57:32 PM
I didn't see a report that repeals the previous bill, but if it's no longer in effect, then I am withdrawing my amendment.  This is now a separate bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on September 18, 2011, 01:05:02 AM
Is the parenthetical list at the end of section 2 of the proposed bill meant to be exhaustive, or simply examples of what constitute crimes for this purpose?
It's exhaustive.  You can't go ahead and kill someone for only, say, walking around on your lawn.  It's illegal if they're trespassing, but you can just call the cops for those kinds of things.

Good. In that case I would offer an amendment changing the wording of section 2 to:

Quote
2. The owner of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder(s) had intended to commit a violent crime (i.e. murder, rape, armed burglary, or arson).

I can certainly support this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 18, 2011, 01:09:12 AM
Is the parenthetical list at the end of section 2 of the proposed bill meant to be exhaustive, or simply examples of what constitute crimes for this purpose?
It's exhaustive.  You can't go ahead and kill someone for only, say, walking around on your lawn.  It's illegal if they're trespassing, but you can just call the cops for those kinds of things.

Good. In that case I would offer an amendment changing the wording of section 2 to:

Quote
2. The owner of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder(s) had intended to commit a violent crime (i.e. murder, rape, armed burglary, or arson).

I can certainly support this bill.
Doesn't the fact that someone's trying to rob you give you the right to fend them off, if they're armed or unarmed?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 18, 2011, 07:36:54 AM
Does the sponsor consider the amendment friendly or unfriendly?




Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 18, 2011, 10:41:22 AM
Does the sponsor consider the amendment friendly or unfriendly?



Unfriendly.

If someone is stealing from you, period, you have the right to defend yourself.  Also, say the person committing the burglary is unarmed, but ends up getting killed unintentionally, in a fight with the person he's stealing from.  The property owner would be held liable for using force to protect his property, just because the robber didn't have a gun on them.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on September 18, 2011, 04:25:50 PM
All right, I'll remove 'armed'. Though I don't personally believe that a person should use deadly force in those circumstances (mainly because I take a dim view of the concept of property as being somehow an extension of its owner), I also agree that one should be protected from prosecution in the situation laid out.

New proposed amendment:

Quote
2. The owner of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder(s) had intended to burgle and/or to commit a violent crime (i.e. murder, rape, or arson).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 18, 2011, 04:38:13 PM
Friendly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 18, 2011, 07:41:02 PM
This amendment seems fine to me.  I can certainly support this bill, and it provides good text that previous laws lacked.  I will be voting Aye on the final bill.  Northeast citizens should have the right to protect themselves, in a reasonable capacity.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 18, 2011, 09:06:36 PM
Debate has ended.  We will now vote on the final bill.  Voting will last 24 hours.  Note:  No bills exist in the introduction thread, so if you have one ready, or want to make a new one, please introduce it before voting closes tomorrow.

The amendment was considered friendly, and thus is incorporated into the bill.  The final text reads as;

Castle Law

A BILL that enforces the Castle Doctrine, to protect owners of homes, businesses, vehicles, or pets, who use deadly or non-deadly force against intruders, from prosecution.

1. An intruder(s) must have made an attempt to unlawfully enter a person's home, business, or vehicle without the consent of the owner

2. The owner of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder(s) had intended to burgle and/or to commit a violent crime (i.e. murder, rape, or arson).

3. The owner may apply force if his or her pet is being harmed by intruder(s)

4. The intruder(s) must have acted illegally; i.e. the owner does not have the right to attack a police officer acting in the course of their legal duties.

5. The owner is not required to retreat from their home before using deadly or non-deadly force.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 18, 2011, 09:08:17 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 18, 2011, 09:08:38 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on September 18, 2011, 11:14:58 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on September 19, 2011, 06:37:57 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 19, 2011, 09:30:40 PM
The Ayes are 4, and Nays are 0.  The bill passes.  We will now debate the bill proposed by the Speaker from NY.  Debate will last 48 hours.

Repeal Two Bills I don't like Act

A BILL to repeal two acts, that do not befit the great Northeast Region.

1.  The Prisoner Diet Reform Act is hereby repealed.
2.  The Northeastern Green Jobs Act is hereby repealed.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 19, 2011, 09:32:46 PM
I talked to dallasfan about the Prison reform act, and we both believe it's still law.  Wormyguy introduced a bill to repeal it a while back, but it failed.  If anyone has any knowledge of its repeal I'll withdraw that part, otherwise, the bill is awful and should no longer plague this region ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 19, 2011, 09:32:54 PM
I encourage Representatives to put the best interests of this region before all and oppose this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 19, 2011, 09:34:23 PM
I don't really see how The Prisoner Diet Reform Act was necessary, so I don't think much would change if we repealed it.  But why do you think we should repeal The Northeastern Green Jobs Act?  If this legislation repeals that bill, I plan on voting against this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 19, 2011, 09:46:55 PM
Quote
Northeastern Green Jobs Act

In order to maintain viable enviromental and employment considerations within the Northeast, the following is proposed.

   1. Within one year, it is the goal of the Northeast to convert 35% of non-green jobs into green ones.
   2. The Northeast shall convert all possible jobs of the government to green operation within two-five years.
   3.  The Northeast shall create new and green jobs to employ the currently unemployed with the goal of dropping the unemployment rate below 5% within five years.
   4.  Businesses will be given additional incentives to create, expand, and maintain green jobs.


Ok.  Well, I'll start by pointing out sections at a time.

Section 1; 35%, really?  We wanted to turn 35% of jobs into "Green" ones?  This doesn't seem to be free-market economics to me.  By the way, have we received any GM response to this?  I doubt we turned 35% of jobs into "Green" one's in a year.  That was ambitious, and no doubt unfruitful if any SOIA or GM responded to it.

Section 2;  Well, Ok.  I guess that's more acceptable than assuming the market wants 35% Green jobs.

Section 3;  Create new and green jobs?  To drop the unemployment below 5%?  That obvious didn't work.  Last I checked we were at what?  7.5 or there about?  Besides the fact that throwing out money for a highly expensive industry, for undoubtedly very little success, is ridiculous.

Section 4;  What incentives?  What are we offering?  Are we giving these businesses political favours, tax breaks,  bathroom quickies?  What's our bargain here exactly?  More importantly, what's it costing our citizens, and what's it costing the government? 

There's my quick mock up as to why I don't care for the bill.  I'm all for common sense approach to new fuels, infrastructure building, and smart forestry initiatives.  However, I don't much care for 35% of a market being taken over by Government induced "Green" jobs.  This bill lacks proper detail, initiative, and common-sense that would foster smart industrial innovation in this trade.  I'd rather consider offering subsidies or loans, then abide by such a strict 35%, much less one demanded by our Gov't. 



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 19, 2011, 09:49:53 PM
The bill was amended in the SRC report...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 19, 2011, 09:52:35 PM
The bill was amended in the SRC report...

Thanks, but unfortunately it doesn't change my opinion of it very much. 

Quote
18. The following amendment shall be made to the Northeastern Green Jobs Act:

Quote
5. A “green job”, for the purposes of this legislation, is defined as any full time employment in a business producing renewable energy, consumer or industrial products at least 50% more energy efficient than the market average, retrofits or installations intended to increase energy efficiency, or suppliers thereto.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 19, 2011, 09:58:23 PM
The time has come for us to review and vote on the report by the SRC.

Report of the Statutory Review Commission

The Statutory Review Commission of the Northeast, having concluded its review of the statute, recommends the following changes to Northeast law:

1. Section IV of the Northeastern Healthcare Act is amended to include:

Quote
- The provisions of this act shall not be construed to limit the award of compensatory damages.

- The loser of the said lawsuit is hereby required to pay the legal fees of the winning party up to a reasonable maximum.

2. Article B, Section 2 of the Northeast Medical Savings Account Act is hereby repealed.

3. The Northeast Pornography and Age of Consent Act is amended to include:

Quote
1.  Section 3, Clause 1 is deleted and replaced with the following "All those persons of 16 years of age or older, not incarcerated for crimes, shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons of 16 years of age or older."
2. "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 17 years or younger is guilty of statutory rape." is amended to read "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person younger than the age of 16 is guilty of statutory rape."

4. The Children's Healthcare Act is hereby repealed.

5. Sections 1, 2 and 3 of The Smoking Age Standardization Act are amended as follows:

Quote
SECTION 1.  Smoking age.  Except as provided in Section 3, no person under 18 years of age may do any of the following:
a. Buy or attempt to buy any cigarette or tobacco product.
b. Falsely represent his or her age for the purpose of receiving any cigarette or tobacco product.
c. Possess any cigarette or tobacco product.

SECTION 2.  Sale to persons under 18.  Except as provided in Section 3, no person may do any of the following:
a. Knowingly sell or otherwise distribute cigarettes to a person under the age of 18.
b. During the course of a sale of tobacco products, fail to perform a reasonable check of identification on persons appearing to be under the age of 28.

SECTION 3.  Exception.  A person under the age of 18 may purchase or possess cigarettes of tobacco products for the sole purpose of resale in the course of employment of a business registered under the tax code of the Northeast.


6. Section 4 of the Predatory Lending Prohibition Act is amended as follows:

Quote
SECTION 4.  Penalties.  The penalty for violation of any section of this act on the part of the lender shall be $10,000 per offense.

7. Section 1 of the Fair Property Valuation Act is hereby repealed.

8. The Northeast Speed Limit Standardization Act is hereby repealed.

9. The Northeast Region Legislation Standardization Act is hereby repealed.

10. The Preferential Voting Act is amended as follows:

Quote
Whereas preferential voting is more representative of the will of the voters than the current first-past-the-post plurality voting method used by the Northeast,

Be it resolved that future elections in the Northeast for Governor and Lieutenant Governor shall be done by preferential voting, wherein, if no candidate has a majority of first preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first preference votes is eliminated and his/her votes redistributed, until a candidate has reached a majority of votes or there is a tie between all remaining candidates, in which a case a run-off shall be held one week from the date of the opening of the polls in the regular election.

11. Subsections 1 and 2 of Section 1 of the The Campaigning for Invalidation of Votes Initiative are amended as follows:

Quote
1. It shall be a crime against the Northeast Region for any Northeast citizen to instruct or encourage a voter who has already cast his or her ballot in an election for a regional office to take an action that would have the effect of invalidating the ballot.
2. The above provision applies to any election for Northeast Governor or Lieutenant Governor, any vote on a Proposition, Initiative, Recall, Regional Constitutional Amendment or other regional referendum, election or plebiscite.

12. The Nullification Resolution is hereby repealed.

13. Section 2 of the Proposition on the Officialization of the Separation of Religion and State is amended as follows:

Quote
While education based upon religious law, dictates or dogma is hereby forbidden in all schools funded by the Regional government, any private educational institution not receiving funds from the Government shall not be subject to any controls regarding the religious nature of its curriculum.

14. Section 5 of the Northeast Assembly Speaker Act is amended as follows:

Quote
5. If the office of the Speaker becomes vacant for any reason, the Northeast Assembly shall elect a new Speaker from among its members by a majority vote of all members of the Northeast Assembly within three days of the vacancy arising, until which time no legislation may be brought to the floor.


15. Subsections a and c of Section 1 (Proposed Legislation Thread) of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure are hereby repealed and subsection e of Section 2 (Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor) of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure is hereby repealed.

16.  Section 2 (Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor) of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure is amended to replace all references to the Lieutenant Governor with references to the Speaker of the Assembly.

17. Section 2 (Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor) of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure is specifically amended as follows:

Quote
Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), the Speaker shall place legislation from the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread on the Northeast Assembly floor (on behalf and stating the name of the sponsor) in chronological order, starting with the earliest piece of proposed legislation.

18. The Northeast Tax Initiative of March 2005 is hereby repealed.

19. The following amendment shall be made to the Northeastern Green Jobs Act:

Quote
5. A “green job”, for the purposes of this legislation, is defined as any full time employment in a business producing renewable energy, consumer or industrial products at least 50% more energy efficient than the market average, retrofits or installations intended to increase energy efficiency, or suppliers thereto.

20. The Self Defense Act is hereby repealed.

21. The Wiki Emergency Act is hereby repealed.

22. The Northeast Order of Precedence Act is amended as follows:

Quote
1. The Northeast Region shall use following order for ceremonial purposes:
a. Governor;
b. Lieutenant Governor;
c. Chief Judicial Officer;
d. Speaker of the Assembly;
e. Current Representatives by length of service

23. Section 2 of the Vacancy Filling Act is amended as follows:

Quote
2. The special election must take place on the nearest Friday falling on or after the third day following the vacancy. The booth for the special election shall open at 12:00 AM EST on that Friday and shall close on the following Sunday at 11:59 PM EST, and shall be administered by the appropriate official.


We, the undersigned commissioners, do hereby endorse these recommendations and urge the Assembly to adopt them forthwith.

Signed this 11th day of May 2011,

x homelycooking, Commissioner
x Dallasfan65, Commissioner
x Polnut, Commissioner
x Napoleon, Commissioner


We will have 48 hours of debate, which will be extended if deemed necessary. I expect full participation, Representatives.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 19, 2011, 10:01:13 PM
The key word in the law being "goal"


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 19, 2011, 10:02:52 PM

So we agree the bill is a failure?  ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 19, 2011, 10:05:30 PM
Albeit, the bill has flaws because it doesn't lay out how to convert these jobs, but it should be a priority of the Northeast government to transition our fuel sources, and thus, the jobs that bring us our fuel.  For example, if we fund research that finds alternative fuel sources, there would consequentially be less jobs in the oil industry and more green jobs, instead.  Now, we don't have to do this by force, necessarily, but we ought to maintain the right economic environment that supports green jobs.

I would be open to amendments that improve the bill and lay out specifics, but The Northeastern Green Jobs Act sets one of our government's priorities; that being, promoting green jobs.  If we don't place green jobs as a priority, then we won't make any progress, at all.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 19, 2011, 10:06:13 PM

Not at all and it is a goal worth having until met. The wealthiest CDs in America are ones where green, high tech jobs have been encoruaged wend allowed to prosper. Places like Silicon Valley, excluding our own prominent financial industry of course. Plus with the ridiculous taxes in the Pacific, it would be very possible to lure these innovative pioneers to greener pastures. The Northeast is not contained in a vacuum.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 20, 2011, 04:37:42 PM
Mr. Speaker, I think I should remind you that the Castle Law still needs to be brought to the Governor's desk to be signed or vetoed before the deadline. (I'm assuming only the Speaker is allowed to bring legislation to the Governor.)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on September 20, 2011, 05:07:44 PM
Sorry for missing the last vote, but I'm glad it passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 20, 2011, 06:17:26 PM
Does anyone want to offer amendments, or should I assume we're all dead-set on our votes already?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on September 21, 2011, 12:41:41 AM
I could offer wrecking amendments, I suppose, but I'd rather just be honest and vote against the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 21, 2011, 04:53:03 PM
Well, I don't expect this to pass in its current state.  I also made the title purposefully in order to get some sort of response.  In effect, I'm glad we at least had some productive response, which is more often than not lacking in this body.  I propose the following amendment;

Repeal of The Prisoner Diet Reform Act

A BILL to repeal an act, that does not befit the great Northeast Region.

1.  The Prisoner Diet Reform Act is hereby repealed.




Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 21, 2011, 04:54:59 PM
Status:  Origination.  Incorporated.  This is the current and final text [unless another amendment is offered] of the bill;

Repeal of The Prisoner Diet Reform Act

A BILL to repeal an act, that does not befit the great Northeast Region.

1.  The Prisoner Diet Reform Act is hereby repealed.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Username MechaRFK on September 21, 2011, 05:01:26 PM
I support The Northeastern Green Jobs Act


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 21, 2011, 05:39:49 PM
I support The Northeastern Green Jobs Act

That's wonderful, but it's no longer a part of this legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 21, 2011, 05:42:45 PM
Why was The Prisoner Diet Reform Act passed, anyway?  Was it to save money, somehow?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 21, 2011, 05:44:45 PM
Why was The Prisoner Diet Reform Act passed, anyway?  Was it to save money, somehow?

I haven't read the debate about it, only the text.  Either way I don't care for the bill, and I hope we all vote to repeal it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 21, 2011, 06:52:50 PM
I might vote for the repeal or abstain, unless someone can convince me why we need it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on September 21, 2011, 07:47:39 PM
I would support repeal.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 21, 2011, 09:33:23 PM
Debate has ended.  We will now vote on the final bill.  Voting will last 24 hours.


Repeal of The Prisoner Diet Reform Act

A BILL to repeal an act, that does not befit the great Northeast Region.

1.  The Prisoner Diet Reform Act is hereby repealed.




Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 21, 2011, 09:34:28 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 21, 2011, 09:40:09 PM
Abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on September 22, 2011, 10:13:17 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on September 22, 2011, 05:06:58 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on September 22, 2011, 08:20:37 PM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 22, 2011, 10:16:03 PM
Voting has ended.  The Ayes are 3, Abstains 2, and Nays 0.  The bill passes. 

Debate will now begin on the bill introduced by the Representative from MA.  Debate will last 48 hours.

Undoing Unconstitutional, Undemocratic, and Evil "Review" (Binding Resolution)

The Northeast Assembly

1. Repeals the "Statutory Review Commission Report"
2. Expresses the sense of the Assembly that the creation of such a body in the first place, without any authority to do so in the Northeast constitution, is unconstitutional.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 22, 2011, 10:32:56 PM
The Constitution doesn't prohibit the creation of this body, so I don't feel this is unconstitutional.  I also believe the commission is necessary for our region.  I plan to vote nay on this, and I don't have any amendments to offer.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 22, 2011, 11:07:47 PM
I cannot support anyone who would vote Aye on this legislation. This will undo great forms pioneered by Homelycooking and I. A certain gubernatorial candidate may be interested. ;)

Going further, I'd like to point out that Former Vice President Dallasfan worked closely with us on the commission and signed off on the report.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on September 23, 2011, 07:43:12 AM
Vice President Dallasfan told me that he had no input in the report and was pressured into "signing off" on it.  The Northeast Assembly is given no such power to create such a commission in the Northeast Constitution.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 23, 2011, 10:41:05 AM
How could one have no input on the report?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on September 23, 2011, 10:43:50 AM
Nothing in the report was one of his suggestions, nor was he ever consulted by the other members assembling the partisan wish-list that was the final product.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 23, 2011, 10:46:47 AM
Nothing in the report was one of his suggestions, nor was he ever consulted by the other members assembling the partisan wish-list that was the final product.

That is, unfortunately, untrue.
Partisan wish list? You come up with that all by yourself?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on September 23, 2011, 12:04:26 PM
I plan to vote against this for substantive reasons as well, but it's my sense that a piece of legislation describing another piece of legislation as 'evil' is entirely unparliamentary and uncalled-for.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 23, 2011, 02:10:02 PM
I plan to vote against this for substantive reasons as well, but it's my sense that a piece of legislation describing another piece of legislation as 'evil' is entirely unparliamentary and uncalled-for.
I agree.  This body is far from something I would consider 'evil', and I would like some examples of how it may have impacted the region negatively.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 23, 2011, 04:51:11 PM
I understand you believe it to be unconstitutional, but I do not.  Repealing the SRC Report would be the single most devastating thing to happen to this region, next to our failure to pass a new constitution.  I would like to hear what Dallasfan has to say on this however, because he's become a big subject in this debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on September 23, 2011, 09:39:45 PM
More asleep at the wheel than anything else. I only read my portion and didn't bother to read anybody else's.. I was only involved in my own section, which I believe to have been 2005-2006.

Addendum: I admittedly still have not read the SRC report, and if there are some partisan measures than that is regrettable. With a toiling work day freshly behind me and another one right ahead of me, Atlasia languishes far on the bottom of my priorities list, so I'd like for this to be the the last word on my involvement.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Username MechaRFK on September 24, 2011, 07:23:27 AM
I cannot support anyone who would vote Aye on this legislation. This will undo great forms pioneered by Homelycooking and I. A certain gubernatorial candidate may be interested. ;)

 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 24, 2011, 11:20:40 PM
Debate has ended.  The Assembly will now vote on the bill in question.  Voting will last 24 hours.

Voting has ended.  The Ayes are 3, Abstains 2, and Nays 0.  The bill passes. 

Debate will now begin on the bill introduced by the Representative from MA.  Debate will last 48 hours.


Undoing Unconstitutional, Undemocratic, and Evil "Review" (Binding Resolution)

The Northeast Assembly

1. Repeals the "Statutory Review Commission Report"
2. Expresses the sense of the Assembly that the creation of such a body in the first place, without any authority to do so in the Northeast constitution, is unconstitutional.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 24, 2011, 11:28:19 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 24, 2011, 11:37:14 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on September 25, 2011, 12:21:55 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 25, 2011, 12:33:35 AM
Wormyguy you should say specifically what problems you have with this. Be mature about it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on September 25, 2011, 09:45:52 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on September 25, 2011, 10:41:58 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 25, 2011, 11:20:51 PM
The Ayes are 1, and Nays are 4.  The bill fails.  

The Assembly will now debate the Laptop Entitlement & Academic Reform Now Act proposed by the Representative from CT.  Debate will last 48 hours.

Laptop Entitlement & Academic Reform Now Act

A BILL to enrich education in the Northeast, by using both public funds and private donations for the creation of a new laptop distribution program.

This bill may be referred to as the LEARN Act.

Section 1.)
1. The Northeast government will accumulate $3.5 billion and fund it into a new program.

2. This program may be referred to the Northeast Student Laptop Distribution Agency (NSLDA).

3. Laptops that are distributed by this program may be obtained by either purchased or donated laptops from private companies.
3a. Private companies that donate laptops are entitled to tax credits per donation.

4. Eight years after the creation of this program, the Northeast government will determine if the NSLDA self-sustainable and whether or not it should be privatized.



Section 2.)
1. The NSLDA will distribute free laptops to students of all public schools in the Northeast (grades 6-12).

2. Parents/guardians of students who apply for a laptop must sign a written agreement to take full responsibility for the maintenance and condition of the laptop, during the time of which the laptop is entrusted with the student.  Parents/guardians must agree to pay all monetary costs if the laptop is damaged, lost, or stolen.

3. The laptops shall be in possession of the students who are enrolled in grades 6-12, and each student is responsible for returning the laptop (or paying all fines which may be owed) to his/her school before he/she graduates.

4. If the student should pay for loss or damage of the laptop, the money will be used to purchase a replacement.

5. Laptops that are returned may be given to future students.




Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 26, 2011, 06:05:44 PM
Would the sponsor like to take a moment and speak on behalf of his bill?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 26, 2011, 06:35:33 PM
I have proposed this bill because I believe the technology can play a key role in education in the Northeast.  Last year, a school in Michigan (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-08-24-classroomlaptops24_ST_N.htm) experimented with the idea by giving their students laptops.  Not only was their experiment cheap, as the cost only represented 1.5% of the total education budget, but the laptops resulted in better grades, better critical thinking, research, and writing skills, and increased collaboration among students.  For students with disabilities, they were able to get homework done much faster than they would normally and keep up in their classes.  If we pass this bill, we can modernize education in the Northeast.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on September 26, 2011, 08:38:12 PM
Damnit, sorry for missing another vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on September 26, 2011, 08:41:29 PM
http://www.wickedlocal.com/brookline/features/x1896055368/Brookline-Police-computers-stolen-from-second-public-school

http://www.wickedlocal.com/wellesley/news/x1804871418/Disappearance-of-20-000-worth-of-equipment-from-Wellesley-Middle-School-still-a-mystery

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/15500480/60-laptops-stolen-from-waianae-school

http://www.khon2.com/news/local/story/UPDATE-Police-recover-30-laptops-stolen-from/doYR3SJDv0Gl_ZIfVQRR9w.cspx

http://triblocal.com/oak-park-river-forest/2011/09/19/7-laptops-stolen-from-beye-school/

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-05-03/news/os-laptops-stolen-lakeland-high-schoo20110503_1_laptops-carts-lakeland-high-school

And this is just recently.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 26, 2011, 08:51:29 PM
Yes, computer skills are essential for our school children.  However, giving "personal" laptops to 6th graders is an invitation for not only wasted money that could be used in better ways, but a leap of faith.  More importantly, $3.5 billion is a substantial amount of money.  Without looking, I'm sure this is a sizable chunk of our education budget.  To me, the costs far outweigh the benefits.  We would be better off if schools created terminals that students could use to practice their computer skills, research, ect.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 26, 2011, 08:54:10 PM
If we pursue technology based education costs would have to be offset somehow. Lowering teacher salaries or lay offs. It would require a wholly new approach.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 26, 2011, 11:30:12 PM
http://www.wickedlocal.com/brookline/features/x1896055368/Brookline-Police-computers-stolen-from-second-public-school

http://www.wickedlocal.com/wellesley/news/x1804871418/Disappearance-of-20-000-worth-of-equipment-from-Wellesley-Middle-School-still-a-mystery

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/15500480/60-laptops-stolen-from-waianae-school

http://www.khon2.com/news/local/story/UPDATE-Police-recover-30-laptops-stolen-from/doYR3SJDv0Gl_ZIfVQRR9w.cspx

http://triblocal.com/oak-park-river-forest/2011/09/19/7-laptops-stolen-from-beye-school/

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-05-03/news/os-laptops-stolen-lakeland-high-schoo20110503_1_laptops-carts-lakeland-high-school

And this is just recently.
Hence why I said, personal responsibility.  Personally, I've used a laptop computer at the schools I've gone to for four years.  I've never lost it once, because it's never left my sight.  This bill does not mandate laptops for irresponsible students, but students who request them will be asked to take care of them and pay for loss or damage, if necessary.  If the guardian of the child does not believe they are capable of handling a laptop, they don't have to sign the permission slip.

Yes, computer skills are essential for our school children.  However, giving "personal" laptops to 6th graders is an invitation for not only wasted money that could be used in better ways, but a leap of faith.  More importantly, $3.5 billion is a substantial amount of money.  Without looking, I'm sure this is a sizable chunk of our education budget.  To me, the costs far outweigh the benefits.  We would be better off if schools created terminals that students could use to practice their computer skills, research, ect.
I realize now that 6th grade might be a bit too early to give students laptops, and I will be open to amendments that raise the minimum grade level for eligibility.  And if you believe costs are a problem, we can lower the money put into this program, too.  Walled Lake's program cost about $242 per student, or $17 million each year.  It sounds like a lot of money, but as I said, that was less than 1.5% of their education budget.

Schools have terminals, but students don't always have access to those.  Portable laptops would be more convenient.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Username MechaRFK on September 27, 2011, 02:28:51 PM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 27, 2011, 06:32:08 PM
I feel there will be very little debate on this prior to voting, so I am offering a motion to extend debate time by 48 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 27, 2011, 06:36:36 PM
Perhaps 24 hours would be more suitable?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 27, 2011, 06:44:51 PM
Sure.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 27, 2011, 06:45:56 PM
At the written Request of Representative Scott, debate is extended 24 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 27, 2011, 07:01:44 PM
Thank you.

I am considering amending this bill so that instead of requiring the government to acquire $3.5 billion for the program, it only requires that 1.5% or so of the total education budget is used to fund it.  However, I would like some input by the representatives before I go about doing that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 27, 2011, 07:08:52 PM
Two points;

1.  Yes, I'd rather have a percentage. 

2.  I understand laptops is the point of this bill, but I'd rather offer funding for schools to create accessible computer terminals, in which students could sign out computer time, ect.  This would allow students of earlier ages who I don't feel can be responsible for a laptop, to obtain necessary skills in a technological age.  Plus, it would reduce costs that would come from buying quite a large quantity of laptops.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 27, 2011, 07:21:03 PM
I am amending this bill to change the way the program is funded, and raise the minimum grade level requirement to seven.

Quote
Laptop Entitlement & Academic Reform Now Act

A BILL to enrich education in the Northeast, by using both public funds and private donations for the creation of a new laptop distribution program.

This bill may be referred to as the LEARN Act.

Section 1.)
1. The Northeast government will use 1.5% of the education budget to fund a laptop distribution program.

2. This program may be referred to the Northeast Student Laptop Distribution Agency (NSLDA).

3. Laptops that are distributed by this program may be obtained by either purchased or donated laptops from private companies.
3a. Private companies that donate laptops are entitled to tax credits per donation.

4. Eight years after the creation of this program, the Northeast government will determine if the NSLDA self-sustainable and whether or not it should be privatized.



Section 2.)
1. The NSLDA will distribute free laptops to students of all public schools in the Northeast (grades 7-12).

2. Parents/guardians of students who apply for a laptop must sign a written agreement to take full responsibility for the maintenance and condition of the laptop, during the time of which the laptop is entrusted with the student.  Parents/guardians must agree to pay all monetary costs if the laptop is damaged, lost, or stolen.

3. The laptops shall be in possession of the students who are enrolled in grades 6-12, and each student is responsible for returning the laptop (or paying all fines which may be owed) to his/her school before he/she graduates.

4. If the student should pay for loss or damage of the laptop, the money will be used to purchase a replacement.

5. Laptops that are returned may be given to future students.

Two points;

1.  Yes, I'd rather have a percentage.  

2.  I understand laptops is the point of this bill, but I'd rather offer funding for schools to create accessible computer terminals, in which students could sign out computer time, ect.  This would allow students of earlier ages who I don't feel can be responsible for a laptop, to obtain necessary skills in a technological age.  Plus, it would reduce costs that would come from buying quite a large quantity of laptops.
Many schools already do have computer terminals/labs for students.  I'm not objecting to that idea at all.  But that would be more useful to schools for lower grade levels (K-6), since those students have less of a need for personal laptops.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 28, 2011, 01:25:47 AM
I would appreciate opinions from people who haven't said anything about the legislation, yet.  I requested more debate time for that reason.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 28, 2011, 02:14:59 PM
I'd have no problem creating an on-campus technology room/computer terminal.  However, I don't feel we should spend money to give 7-12 graders personal laptops.  I like that we're including laptop donations here, but schools can already accept these donations via school board. 

Computer skills, and technological literacy are essential for today's school children.  I can agree with you that this bill acknowledges an important issue, I just don't agree with the way in which this bill responds to the issue. 

Also, it would be nice if someone in the Assembly besides Scott and myself participated in debate.  I believe we have several members missing a couple vote now, as well as another two that haven't participated in debate for about, oh say, a month?

Quote
xiii) Any Rep that does not take part in three consecutive votes on legislation without posting an official leave of absence beforehand, or that does not take part in any discussion of the Assembly for more than one month shall be expelled.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 30, 2011, 10:24:37 AM
Debate has ended.  The Assembly will now vote on the bill in question.  Voting will last 24 hours.  The final bill reads as follows;


Quote
Laptop Entitlement & Academic Reform Now Act

A BILL to enrich education in the Northeast, by using both public funds and private donations for the creation of a new laptop distribution program.

This bill may be referred to as the LEARN Act.

Section 1.)
1. The Northeast government will use 1.5% of the education budget to fund a laptop distribution program.

2. This program may be referred to the Northeast Student Laptop Distribution Agency (NSLDA).

3. Laptops that are distributed by this program may be obtained by either purchased or donated laptops from private companies.
3a. Private companies that donate laptops are entitled to tax credits per donation.

4. Eight years after the creation of this program, the Northeast government will determine if the NSLDA self-sustainable and whether or not it should be privatized.



Section 2.)
1. The NSLDA will distribute free laptops to students of all public schools in the Northeast (grades 7-12).

2. Parents/guardians of students who apply for a laptop must sign a written agreement to take full responsibility for the maintenance and condition of the laptop, during the time of which the laptop is entrusted with the student.  Parents/guardians must agree to pay all monetary costs if the laptop is damaged, lost, or stolen.

3. The laptops shall be in possession of the students who are enrolled in grades 6-12, and each student is responsible for returning the laptop (or paying all fines which may be owed) to his/her school before he/she graduates.

4. If the student should pay for loss or damage of the laptop, the money will be used to purchase a replacement.

5. Laptops that are returned may be given to future students.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on September 30, 2011, 10:30:53 AM
Nay

Frankly I don't see how a laptop aids in the acquisition of the "three R's," while I can see plenty of ways it can be used to goof off.  Plus there's the potential for/inevitability of theft, as I pointed out.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 30, 2011, 10:32:17 AM
Sadly, I'm also a Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on September 30, 2011, 12:03:48 PM
Nay.

We should be teaching children not to assume that technology can solve all their problems.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on September 30, 2011, 12:57:16 PM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 30, 2011, 01:51:26 PM
Withdrawing.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 30, 2011, 02:20:51 PM

Can't be withdrawn after the debate period has ended.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 30, 2011, 02:28:26 PM
Aye, then.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on September 30, 2011, 02:57:20 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on September 30, 2011, 08:09:25 PM
Had this bill passed and been sent to me, I wouild have vetoed it. 

Not that I do not support the intent of the bill, I do, however, I do agree with the statements against this bill.  The opposition to this bill is reasoned and logical.

I am sure that we all support our school age children becoming computer literate, however, there are better ways of achieving this.  Computer labs at school, as has been mentioned, are the logical approach.  As has been noted, laptops for all students will be far too costly, and the misuse and theft of these laptops is a very real possibility.

This bill should be rewritten in order to achieve the intent of the bill but without the tremendous cost this bill would put on the taxpayers.   


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 30, 2011, 09:25:49 PM
Had this bill passed and been sent to me, I wouild have vetoed it. 

Not that I do not support the intent of the bill, I do, however, I do agree with the statements against this bill.  The opposition to this bill is reasoned and logical.

I am sure that we all support our school age children becoming computer literate, however, there are better ways of achieving this.  Computer labs at school, as has been mentioned, are the logical approach.  As has been noted, laptops for all students will be far too costly, and the misuse and theft of these laptops is a very real possibility.

This bill should be rewritten in order to achieve the intent of the bill but without the tremendous cost this bill would put on the taxpayers.   
I've already addressed this.  If a student loses his or her laptop, they would be asked to pay for it in accordance with an agreement that a guardian would have signed.  This would teach personal responsibility as well as computer literacy.  After the student finishes high school, the laptop is returned and reused.  And this wouldn't have necessarily cost the taxpayers more if the funding comes from 1.5% of the education budget, since the region would have been required to save- not spend- the money for the program.  Ideally, it could be offset by cuts.  Many schools already have computer labs, and there would have been less of a need for them if a laptop program was in place.  Computer labs are great, but access is very limited, as labs do not contain enough computers for every student.

This is certainly an issue for another day, however, since the current bill is dead.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on September 30, 2011, 09:30:10 PM
I'm certainly willing to introduce a bill to address technology in schools.  Of course, I would offer Government funds to schools who would create student accessible terminals.  If anyone wants to work out the amount of funds, ect with me, all you need to do is message me :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 30, 2011, 09:32:57 PM
I'm certainly willing to introduce a bill to address technology in schools.  Of course, I would offer Government funds to schools who would create student accessible terminals.  If anyone wants to work out the amount of funds, ect with me, all you need to do is message me :P
Mr. Speaker, we already have terminals in schools.  Computer labs have been around for a while.  Are you referring to poorer schools that might not have them?  I might be getting a bit confused.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 01, 2011, 09:52:57 AM
Voting has ended.  The Ayes are 1, Nays are 4, with 1 Abstention.  The bill fails.  The Assembly will now consider the Scott Doctrine introduced by the Rep from Ct.  Debate will last 48 hours;

Scott Doctrine

It shall be policy of the Northeast Region that it will ensure, by any means necessary, that its ten states- Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont- are embodied together and that each shall be assimilated within the Republic of Atlasia.  States that secede shall receive no diplomatic recognition from the Northeast Region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 01, 2011, 09:53:40 AM
I'll make a statement on this when I get back home, so don't feel like your bill is being ignored ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 01, 2011, 02:03:12 PM
I wrote this bill in response to the recent "secessionist movements" happening in our country.  I believe this policy will further strengthen and unify the states of the region and signify our loyalty to Atlasia.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on October 01, 2011, 08:25:27 PM
Why shouldn't people be allowed self-determination?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 01, 2011, 08:45:12 PM
Why shouldn't people be allowed self-determination?

Self-determination?  I don't know why you're bringing that up.  The definition of self-determination is "the power or ability to make a decision for oneself without influence from outside".  Atlasia's government shouldn't be considered "outside", as this region is part of the Republic of Atlasia.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 01, 2011, 08:52:01 PM
While the constitution directly includes the states which are part of the region, and thus Atlasia, I support this bill.  No means should be off the table in order to preserve the country, unless division is brought on by the Senate.  Fringe seccessionists (Pointing to you Yelnoc ;) ), should be drawn and quartered dealt with swiftly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on October 01, 2011, 09:21:42 PM
Say every single person in the state of Massachusetts wants to secede.  Why shouldn't they be allowed to?  Should the government go into Massachusetts and start killing people until they give in?  If yes, why would that be right?

This bill (should be a resolution) is essentially enshrining the doctrine of "might makes right."


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 01, 2011, 09:42:59 PM
Say every single person in the state of Massachusetts wants to secede.  Why shouldn't they be allowed to?  Should the government go into Massachusetts and start killing people until they give then?  If yes, why would that be right?

This bill (should be a resolution) is essentially enshrining the doctrine of "might makes right."
Because Massachusetts is a part of the region.  States should not be allowed to simply wander off as they please, because that ruins the point of having government at all.  What's next?  Are counties going to declare independence?  Should towns with ten people start running off because every single person wants to?  That will just lead to anarchy.  And yes, if a state wishes to commit treason, it may, but it should be prepared to take the consequences that come with that.  That's been happening for thousands of years.  We should certainly not give diplomatic recognition to a state that rebels against its government, especially since neither the government of this region- or this Republic- has done anything in violation of the social contract.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on October 01, 2011, 11:20:58 PM
So you are saying that when Atlasia declared independence from Britlasia, the Britlasians would be justified in killing the entire population of Atlasia in order to prevent it from becoming independent.

Good to know we're taking such a strong stance against extremism!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 01, 2011, 11:39:31 PM
So you are saying that when Atlasia declared independence from Britlasia, the Britlasians would be justified in killing the entire population of Atlasia in order to prevent it from becoming independent.

Good to know we're taking such a strong stance against extremism!
When did I say that?  I'm saying that when a nation decides to become independent, it has to accept consequences that come with it.  This is actually quite consistent with the saying, "freedom isn't free".  If a government becomes corrupt and oppresses, its people have the moral right to establish a new one.  However, neither the regional or federal governments in Atlasia are doing that, and the current secessionist movements are happening now because of two things: political disagreements, and bored people acting out.

I must say, you are acting quite unstatesmanlike.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on October 01, 2011, 11:47:01 PM
How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on October 02, 2011, 12:02:49 AM
I might point out that the Soviet Union was a multinational empire and the nation-states that peeled off from it were just that. Nation-states.

Massachusetts is a region, not a nation-state. The nation-state is the Republic of Atlasia, which has done nothing wrong. Name one way in which Massachusetts or Vermont or any other state in the Northeast is being wronged or oppressed by the Republic of Atlasia (doing things that happen to be politically unpopular in the region does not count, since that's part and parcel of a nation-state being diverse).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 02, 2011, 12:06:14 AM
How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on October 02, 2011, 12:09:13 AM
How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 02, 2011, 12:15:31 AM
How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on October 02, 2011, 01:16:02 AM
I agree with wormyguy.

If a population within some sort of political entity wish to secede, there should be nothing to stop such a thing, as long as it is through due process.  Otherwise would be nothing short of tyranny in the highest form.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 02, 2011, 01:38:47 AM
I agree with wormyguy.

If a population within some sort of political entity wish to secede, there should be nothing to stop such a thing, as long as it is through due process.  Otherwise would be nothing short of tyranny in the highest form.
It's not tyranny at all, as long as the government is not oppressive and goes by the social contract.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on October 02, 2011, 09:31:26 AM
How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 02, 2011, 09:40:24 AM
How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?

The majority don't refuse to do so.  If they want to refuse to vote, that is their right.  The majority in REALITY however, do pay taxes, and do send their children to school.  Government, though it can very often be a hindrance to personal liberty, is also necessary to preserve it.  To say otherwise, in my opinion, is a fallacy.  Now, if a state wishes to seek division through legislative means, fine.  Perhaps we, or I, should make it clear that my argument regards those who should wish to revolt, with arms, in a manner that is prohibited already by the Regions and Atlasia's constitution. 



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 02, 2011, 04:02:58 PM
How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?
Cincinnatus said it best.  You are just changing the subject, now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 02, 2011, 04:31:43 PM
How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?

The majority don't refuse to do so.  If they want to refuse to vote, that is their right.  The majority in REALITY however, do pay taxes, and do send their children to school.  Government, though it can very often be a hindrance to personal liberty, is also necessary to preserve it.  To say otherwise, in my opinion, is a fallacy.  Now, if a state wishes to seek division through legislative means, fine.  Perhaps we, or I, should make it clear that my argument regards those who should wish to revolt, with arms, in a manner that is prohibited already by the Regions and Atlasia's constitution. 


It does say that?  I checked both constitutions and I couldn't find it.  This bill sets a policy for the Northeast government to keep its union together and not diplomatically recognize states that attempt to secede, so it's a tad different.  A law that simply says "don't rebel" isn't really effective, because states that declare independence wouldn't abide by our laws.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 02, 2011, 08:42:55 PM
How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?

The majority don't refuse to do so.  If they want to refuse to vote, that is their right.  The majority in REALITY however, do pay taxes, and do send their children to school.  Government, though it can very often be a hindrance to personal liberty, is also necessary to preserve it.  To say otherwise, in my opinion, is a fallacy.  Now, if a state wishes to seek division through legislative means, fine.  Perhaps we, or I, should make it clear that my argument regards those who should wish to revolt, with arms, in a manner that is prohibited already by the Regions and Atlasia's constitution. 


It does say that?  I checked both constitutions and I couldn't find it.  This bill sets a policy for the Northeast government to keep its union together and not diplomatically recognize states that attempt to secede, so it's a tad different.  A law that simply says "don't rebel" isn't really effective, because states that declare independence wouldn't abide by our laws.

It doesn't say the same as your "Resolution", but it includes the states that belong to the Region.  Plus, Federal law directly directly addresses this.  Not that this Resolution has no place, because it's a worthwhile debate in this Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on October 03, 2011, 07:42:54 AM
How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?
Cincinnatus said it best.  You are just changing the subject, now.

Answer the question.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 03, 2011, 02:09:34 PM
How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?
Cincinnatus said it best.  You are just changing the subject, now.

Answer the question.
He already did.  Most people do pay taxes and send their children to school.  If they don't want to vote, that's their right.  And in fact, if they choose not to vote, they are to blame for their dissatisfaction with the government.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on October 03, 2011, 06:15:46 PM
How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?
Cincinnatus said it best.  You are just changing the subject, now.

Answer the question.
He already did.  Most people do pay taxes and send their children to school.  If they don't want to vote, that's their right.  And in fact, if they choose not to vote, they are to blame for their dissatisfaction with the government.

Say they don't pay their taxes or send their kids to school.

(And yes, such things have happened - the aforementioned Soviet example, or Northern Ireland, would be two obvious ones).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 03, 2011, 07:37:52 PM
How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?
Cincinnatus said it best.  You are just changing the subject, now.

Answer the question.
He already did.  Most people do pay taxes and send their children to school.  If they don't want to vote, that's their right.  And in fact, if they choose not to vote, they are to blame for their dissatisfaction with the government.

Say they don't pay their taxes or send their kids to school.

(And yes, such things have happened - the aforementioned Soviet example, or Northern Ireland, would be two obvious ones).

Then they would be in violation of the law, obviously.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 03, 2011, 07:57:22 PM
Debate has ended.  The Assembly will now vote on the bill in question.  Voting will last 24 hours.  The final bill reads as follows;

Scott Doctrine

It shall be policy of the Northeast Region that it will ensure, by any means necessary, that its ten states- Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont- are embodied together and that each shall be assimilated within the Republic of Atlasia.  States that secede shall receive no diplomatic recognition from the Northeast Region.




Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 03, 2011, 07:58:32 PM
Sorry I couldn't do this earlier, my power went out around 10:30, and I had to go to work around 12:00.  Either way, at least we got some debate on this, for once.

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 03, 2011, 08:06:15 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on October 03, 2011, 08:11:15 PM
Nay.

I'd usually support this, but there are simply too many possible exceptions.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 03, 2011, 08:17:01 PM
Nay.

I'd usually support this, but there are simply too many possible exceptions.

Exceptions which you did not address or offer any amendments for.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 03, 2011, 08:19:00 PM
Nay.

I'd usually support this, but there are simply too many possible exceptions.

Exceptions which you did not address or offer any amendments for.

Sadly, I have to agree with Scott on this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on October 03, 2011, 08:46:45 PM
How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?
Cincinnatus said it best.  You are just changing the subject, now.

Answer the question.
He already did.  Most people do pay taxes and send their children to school.  If they don't want to vote, that's their right.  And in fact, if they choose not to vote, they are to blame for their dissatisfaction with the government.

Say they don't pay their taxes or send their kids to school.

(And yes, such things have happened - the aforementioned Soviet example, or Northern Ireland, would be two obvious ones).

Then they would be in violation of the law, obviously.

And what would you then do about it?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 03, 2011, 09:00:51 PM
How about when countries started declaring independence from the Soviet Union?  Gorbachev was a fairly non-oppressive figure who favored "democracy," should he have therefore sent in the Red Army to prevent any part of the Soviet Union from becoming independent, killing people if necessary?

The Soviet Union's system was based on communism and one-party rule, which, and I think you would agree, is oppressive.

I certainly favor peaceful approaches and negotiations being used first.  That would be a preferable option to be used for keeping the union together, and it is one this government would resort to if that ever happened.

"First?"  What happens second?

If negotiations fail, then military force would likely be resorted to.

Okay, say a majority of the population then refuses to pay taxes, send their children to school, or vote.  What then?
Cincinnatus said it best.  You are just changing the subject, now.

Answer the question.
He already did.  Most people do pay taxes and send their children to school.  If they don't want to vote, that's their right.  And in fact, if they choose not to vote, they are to blame for their dissatisfaction with the government.

Say they don't pay their taxes or send their kids to school.

(And yes, such things have happened - the aforementioned Soviet example, or Northern Ireland, would be two obvious ones).

Then they would be in violation of the law, obviously.

And what would you then do about it?

...Uh, well, like most lawbreakers, they would then be charged for it, I would assume.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on October 04, 2011, 01:44:16 AM
Look, debate is over, just vote, wormyguy.

Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on October 04, 2011, 06:05:27 AM
Nay.

I'd usually support this, but there are simply too many possible exceptions.

Exceptions which you did not address or offer any amendments for.

Honestly, I was thinking along the lines of wormyguy--what if a state's people really want to secede?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 04, 2011, 01:46:44 PM
Nay.

I'd usually support this, but there are simply too many possible exceptions.

Exceptions which you did not address or offer any amendments for.

Honestly, I was thinking along the lines of wormyguy--what if a state's people really want to secede?

Here are three good reasons.

1. As stated before, there's simply no reason for a state to secede because none of the governments of Atlasia are depriving anyone of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
2. What if someone ran for public office in one of the regions and, say, lost?  If they declare independence for their state, that person could just crown themselves king and basically ruin the point of the game.  This region should discourage that type of behavior by not diplomatically recognizing the independent state.
3. A divided house fails.  If the region dissolves, it loses citizens and thus becomes weaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 04, 2011, 01:59:05 PM
Nay.

I'd usually support this, but there are simply too many possible exceptions.

Exceptions which you did not address or offer any amendments for.

Honestly, I was thinking along the lines of wormyguy--what if a state's people really want to secede?

Here are three good reasons.

1. As stated before, there's simply no reason for a state to secede because none of the governments of Atlasia are depriving anyone of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
2. What if someone ran for public office in one of the regions and, say, lost?  If they declare independence for their state, that person could just crown themselves king and basically ruin the point of the game.  This region should discourage that type of behavior by not diplomatically recognizing the independent state.
3. A divided house fails.  If the region dissolves, it loses citizens and thus becomes weaker.

The Atlasian constitution prohibits both monarchs and secession, so..


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 04, 2011, 08:48:37 PM
Voting has ended.  The Ayes are 3, and Nays are 1.  The bill passes.  The Assembly will now consider the Resolution introduced by the Rep from MA.  Debate will last 48 hours;

I'd like to introduce a resolution to censure wormyguy for his use of unparliamentary language in the title of the Undoing Unconstitutional, Undemocratic, and Evil "Review" Binding Resolution.


On a side note, this is the last piece of legislation in the Queue so if anyone has something to propose, please do so.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on October 05, 2011, 08:48:32 AM
While I'm sure certain assemblymen have undoubtedly noble desires to institute censorship and only allow certain opinions to be expressed in this assembly, I would like to point out that if the Northeast public sees me as being excessively "unparliamentary" then they are free to vote me out of office.  Seeing as they never have, I think I'm pretty safe for now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 05, 2011, 08:50:51 AM
I have to agree with wormyguy here.  Though his debating methods may be aggressive and often condescending, I don't believe in censorship.  If the sponsor and those who agree with this bill dislike the Representative, they should work to get others elected over him.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on October 05, 2011, 03:40:55 PM
Censure is a parliamentary procedure, not a political one. In these cases, it instills the need for respect of oneself and others in public debate.

If we aren't generally going to be in the business of 'censoring' one another's vituperative and infantile attacks during debates, please let me know for the next time a bill that the gentleman from Massachusetts has authored comes to us for consideration.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on October 06, 2011, 09:50:34 AM
I oppose this measure.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on October 06, 2011, 12:59:07 PM
I'm withdrawing the motion of censure but reiterate for the record my disapproval of the gentleman from Massachusetts's debating style and my belief that we in the Northeast Assembly should have stricter guidelines for respecting ourselves and one another in the course of our public business.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 06, 2011, 01:18:14 PM
Withdrawn.  The Assembly will now consider the Resolution sponsored by the Rep from MA.  Debate will last 48 hours.

Resolution:

The "Scott Doctrine" is hereby repealed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 06, 2011, 01:19:57 PM
I wish I could just table this, but I can't.  Therefore, I'm requesting a reduction in debate time of 12 hours.  Simultaneously, I'm granting it ;)


Debate time reduced 12 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 06, 2011, 03:32:48 PM
I'll be honest.  I think it's pretty childish that now we're proposing bills to repeal legislation that was already passed in the same session.  Fortunately, I don't believe this resolution has very good chances of passing, and if it does, I expect that this will be vetoed, as the governor signed the Scott Doctrine soon after it was passed.

I strongly oppose this measure.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on October 06, 2011, 08:27:04 PM
Bills like this are the cancer that is killing representative democracy.

I would like to, not introduce a formal amendment as such, but express my general belief that the resolution should in a better world be changed to read as follows:

Quote
Resolution:

All states in the Northeast Region are required to declare all citizens who have travelled to Ruritania, San Lorenzo, or Uqbar, or are fluent in Sindarin, enemies of freedom, to be punished by singing the theme song to the Adam West Batman ten times a day at times to be set by the legislatures of the several states.

It has as much chance of passing and is exactly as serious as the original text.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 07, 2011, 02:33:53 AM
Should the Speaker assume this amendment is not intended for a final vote?  :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on October 07, 2011, 09:30:18 AM
He should. It's for rhetorical purposes only.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 07, 2011, 01:39:43 PM
He should. It's for rhetorical purposes only.

I know.  I just don't need anyone telling me I skipped a vote on an amendment ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on October 07, 2011, 05:34:46 PM
Honestly, though wormy's language was unneeded, censure is simply overreaction. Freedom of speech should apply to legislative bodies as well; we are citizens, after all.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 07, 2011, 05:42:52 PM
Honestly, though wormy's language was unneeded, censure is simply overreaction. Freedom of speech should apply to legislative bodies as well; we are citizens, after all.

We're not debating that Resolution anymore Representative Snowstalker.  It was withdrawn.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 08, 2011, 03:13:49 AM
Debate has ended.  The Assembly will now vote on the bill in question.  Voting will last 24 hours.  The final bill reads as follows;

Resolution:

The "Scott Doctrine" is hereby repealed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 08, 2011, 08:52:10 AM
A strong, and resounding, nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on October 08, 2011, 10:13:26 AM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on October 08, 2011, 11:43:56 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on October 08, 2011, 12:01:53 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 08, 2011, 01:46:49 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on October 08, 2011, 02:22:21 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Username MechaRFK on October 08, 2011, 11:45:31 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 08, 2011, 11:52:19 PM

I'm sorry, but you've been expelled.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 09, 2011, 03:30:48 AM
Voting has ended.  The Ayes are 1, Nays are 4, with Abstention.  The Bill fails.  The Assembly will now consider the Constitution introduced by the Rep from NY, and written by the Senator from MA.  Debate will last 48 hours;

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=138801.0


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 09, 2011, 03:49:55 PM
Introducing the following amendments and incorporating them as Sponsor;

Quote
Article I: The Region

The Northeast Region and the Constitution thereof shall be representative of the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

The administrative center for the government of the Northeast Region established in this Constitution shall be Hartford, Connecticut New York City, NY.

Status; Origination.  Incorporated

Quote
3. The Chief Judicial Officer is to be charged with the duties of interpreting the laws of the Northeast Region and is charged to hold trials for the accused. If someone submits a case to him or her, then the Chief Judicial Officer must make a ruling on it, giving ample time to hear arguments from any side of the issue. The Chief Judicial Officer’s rulings are to be considered precedent for all future cases.

Status; Origination.  Incorporated

Quote
1.   The people of the Northeast Region shall have the power to recall any elected official by the process of petition. Petitions that collect seven or more signatures shall be considered valid. When a valid petition is presented, the appropriate election administrator shall open the voting booth on the nearest Friday at 12:00:00am EST and shall close said both the following Sunday at 11:59:59pm EST. The recall question is: “Shall [name of officer] be recalled from the office of [name of office held]?”. Every citizen will be given the opportunity to vote YES to recall and NO to retain during this time. Abstentions will not affect the results.  Recalled officials shall forfeit their offices immediately.

Status;  Origination.  Incorporated

Quote
6.  A Governor may be impeached at any time while he or she is in office by the will of two thirds of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region. Impeachment proceedings shall begin when a motion to impeach offered by a Representative is seconded by another Representative, excluding the Representative serving as Lieutenant Governor.  Impeachment shall be pursued if an elected official commits an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the Region and that is legally prohibited.

Status;  Origination.  Incorporated




Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 10, 2011, 02:17:07 PM
Ahem..  Can I assume when voting comes everyone will vote Aye?  No one seems to have voiced any concerns... :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 10, 2011, 05:52:09 PM
I will vote aye.  I had a few ideas for amendments before this came up, but I have since changed my mind.  Unless I change my mind before the vote comes up, I think this Constitution is fine.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on October 10, 2011, 10:26:28 PM
I am going to continue to attempt to make this fail, as Napoleon came up with this while he and I were still underway with our legal dispute (that ended because cinyc has pretty much left the forum) and he tried to introduce legislation both in this chamber and nationally to make his side win.  I'm guessing he included some clause in this thing to do that.  Since I see absolutely no reason why the current constitution needs to be replaced, I will either not vote or vote no depending on which one is more likely to make it fail.  Offering amendments would be pointless, since with this current assembly nothing I propose would be adopted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on October 10, 2011, 10:28:02 PM
I am going to continue to attempt to make this fail, as Napoleon came up with this while he and I were still underway with our legal dispute (that ended because cinyc has pretty much left the forum) and he tried to introduce legislation both in this chamber and nationally to make his side win.  I'm guessing he included some clause in this thing to do that.  Since I see absolutely no reason why the current constitution needs to be replaced, I will either not vote or vote no depending on which one is more likely to make it fail.  Offering amendments would be pointless, since with this current assembly nothing I propose would be adopted.

What is this nonsense about me supposed to be attempting to convey?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on October 10, 2011, 10:33:43 PM
I am going to continue to attempt to make this fail, as Napoleon came up with this while he and I were still underway with our legal dispute (that ended because cinyc has pretty much left the forum) and he tried to introduce legislation both in this chamber and nationally to make his side win.  I'm guessing he included some clause in this thing to do that.  Since I see absolutely no reason why the current constitution needs to be replaced, I will either not vote or vote no depending on which one is more likely to make it fail.  Offering amendments would be pointless, since with this current assembly nothing I propose would be adopted.

What is this nonsense about me supposed to be attempting to convey?

That intentionally alienating people has consequences.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on October 10, 2011, 10:43:51 PM
I am going to continue to attempt to make this fail, as Napoleon came up with this while he and I were still underway with our legal dispute (that ended because cinyc has pretty much left the forum) and he tried to introduce legislation both in this chamber and nationally to make his side win.  I'm guessing he included some clause in this thing to do that.  Since I see absolutely no reason why the current constitution needs to be replaced, I will either not vote or vote no depending on which one is more likely to make it fail.  Offering amendments would be pointless, since with this current assembly nothing I propose would be adopted.

What is this nonsense about me supposed to be attempting to convey?

That intentionally alienating people has consequences.

Sounds mature.

The CJO deciding appointed by Ghostwhite determined an injunction was worthy. If that is me personally alienating you then I am sorry you feel that way.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 11, 2011, 03:28:08 AM
Debate has ended.  The Assembly will now vote on the Final text of the Constitution, which will include all added amendments during this debate.  Voting will last 24 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 11, 2011, 03:28:33 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 11, 2011, 06:06:40 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on October 11, 2011, 06:07:03 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on October 11, 2011, 09:31:18 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on October 11, 2011, 02:20:45 PM
Yay :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on October 11, 2011, 05:54:04 PM
Nay

I disagree with the inclusion of "morals" as a legitimate reason for impeachment of the governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 11, 2011, 05:56:15 PM
Nay

I disagree with the inclusion of "morals" as a legitimate reason for impeachment of the governor.

Remember that you are allowed to amend things...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on October 11, 2011, 08:32:01 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 12, 2011, 03:31:47 AM
Voting has ended.  2/3 of those voting have voted in favor.  A majority of the Assembly has also voted in favor.  The Constitution has obtained a super-majority.  The Constitution passes.

No legislation exists at this time.  Once a member of the Assembly introduces a bill, this Assembly shall continue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 12, 2011, 01:47:53 PM
*applauds*

Can senators introduce legislation?  Napoleon just did.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on October 12, 2011, 02:33:48 PM
*applauds*

Can senators introduce legislation?  Napoleon just did.

Citizens can with two signatures


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 12, 2011, 02:49:51 PM
The Assembly will now consider the Senate Vacancy Act Sponsored by the Speaker, and written by the Senator from CT.  Debate will last 48 hours;


Senate Vacancy Act

If a vacancy should arise for the Northeast Senate seat, a special election shall take place to fill the vacancy. The Governor shall open the polling booth within one week of the vacancy occurring. The victor shall be seated immediately.

If there is less than four weeks left of the term when the vacancy occurs, the Governor may forgo the special election and appoint a Senator subject to confirmation by the Legislative Assembly.




Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 12, 2011, 03:00:19 PM
I'm going to let the Senator speak on behalf of his bill before I comment ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on October 12, 2011, 04:46:18 PM

No it hasn't.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on October 12, 2011, 04:55:59 PM

What makes you say that?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 12, 2011, 08:43:26 PM

Quote
i) Amendments to this Constitution shall be proposed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region. A proposed Amendment shall be forwarded to be voted upon by the citizens of the Northeast upon:

a) An affirmative vote of two-thirds of voting members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region;

b) An affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly; and

c) Approval of the Governor in the form of his signature.

A)  4/6 voting Assemblyman have voted in the affirmative
B)  A majority have voted in the affirmitive
C)  The Constitution awaits the Governor's signature, whereupon the region will be allowed to vote on it in the voting booth.

The Constitution passes the Assembly.  Challenge me on this, I don't plan on changing my position of stating the Constitution has passed, when in fact it has passed the Assembly (The body I currently lead).  I suppose if you want me to clarify that it has passed the Assembly, I could edit my post (to include Assembly), but I doubt it's a big deal to anyone but yourself.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 14, 2011, 07:02:17 AM
I'm extending debate 24 hours on the bill in question.  Perhaps we'll hear some comments.  Whether anyone else makes a comment or not, I will be making one myself today.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 14, 2011, 01:44:20 PM
I have no issues with this bill or amendments to offer and will be voting aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 14, 2011, 01:58:27 PM
Quote
If a vacancy shall occur in a Class A Senate seat, then the Governor of that Region shall appoint a person to fill the remainder of that term.

Now, I approve of the purpose of this text.  I to want an election to fill the seat, instead of an appointment.  However, I don't think the law allows for this.  I think the only lawful alternative would be a governor appointment on the recommendation of the people, or the Assembly. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 14, 2011, 02:10:14 PM
Quote
If a vacancy shall occur in a Class A Senate seat, then the Governor of that Region shall appoint a person to fill the remainder of that term.

Now, I approve of the purpose of this text.  I to want an election to fill the seat, instead of an appointment.  However, I don't think the law allows for this.  I think the only lawful alternative would be a governor appointment on the recommendation of the people, or the Assembly. 

The Senator would need to be approved by the Assembly, so it is on our recommendation technically.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 14, 2011, 02:14:58 PM
Quote
If a vacancy shall occur in a Class A Senate seat, then the Governor of that Region shall appoint a person to fill the remainder of that term.

Now, I approve of the purpose of this text.  I to want an election to fill the seat, instead of an appointment.  However, I don't think the law allows for this.  I think the only lawful alternative would be a governor appointment on the recommendation of the people, or the Assembly. 

The Senator would need to be approved by the Assembly, so it is on our recommendation technically.

This is not what the bill does.  The bill in its current text, provides a special election, and no appointment by the Governor.  While, the constitution clearly states Class A vacancies shall be appointed by a regions Governor.  Thus, that is why I recommended having the Assembly or people make a recommendation to remain within the confines of our constitutional ability.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 14, 2011, 02:47:36 PM
Senator Napoleon has told me they passed a constitutional amendment that lets the regions decide how to handle vacancies.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 14, 2011, 02:49:31 PM
Senator Napoleon has told me they passed a constitutional amendment that lets the regions decide how to handle vacancies.

Can I have a cite so I can fully support this bill?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on October 14, 2011, 05:49:43 PM
Senator Napoleon has told me they passed a constitutional amendment that lets the regions decide how to handle vacancies.

Can I have a cite so I can fully support this bill?

How's this? (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=138271.msg2960236#msg2960236)

Come on don't make me do everything around here. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 14, 2011, 08:00:24 PM
Senator Napoleon has told me they passed a constitutional amendment that lets the regions decide how to handle vacancies.

Can I have a cite so I can fully support this bill?

How's this? (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=138271.msg2960236#msg2960236)


Come on don't make me do everything around here. :P


I'll have no problem supporting this.  Thanks for doing the heavy lifting, as I had no motivation at the time to look it up (Or remember a very recent amendment for that matter :P).  Plus, I tend to forget that we have a tendency not to update the wiki :(

Of course, I still wouldn't mind if you addressed the Assembly on your bill.  I need a speech Senator, I need a speech.  How else am I to spike any interest in this Assembly :P 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on October 14, 2011, 08:23:11 PM
Speech: I believe in democracy and you should too. Thank you.

How's that?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 14, 2011, 08:43:21 PM
Speech: I believe in democracy and you should too. Thank you.

How's that?

Fantastic.  I'm still in awe of such charisma :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on October 14, 2011, 11:45:50 PM
What's good fellas? :D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on October 15, 2011, 03:07:56 AM
I fully support this bill, my only concern being that it might still be a good idea for the governor to make interim appointments (if we can get those to be apolitical that would be good, but probably far easier said than done for obvious reasons) until special elections can be held.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on October 15, 2011, 11:06:33 AM
Now down to business.

I support the bill currently being debated solely on the premise that there is no other logical alternative.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 15, 2011, 02:38:06 PM
Debate has ended.  The Assembly will now vote on the bill in question.  Voting will last 24 hours.  The final bill reads as follows;


Senate Vacancy Act

If a vacancy should arise for the Northeast Senate seat, a special election shall take place to fill the vacancy. The Governor shall open the polling booth within one week of the vacancy occurring. The victor shall be seated immediately.

If there is less than four weeks left of the term when the vacancy occurs, the Governor may forgo the special election and appoint a Senator subject to confirmation by the Legislative Assembly.


Additionally, if anyone has any bills (Hopefully someone who hasn't introduced any) put them in the introduction thread, and they'll be introduced next.  If not, I'll find something to bring to the floor :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 15, 2011, 02:38:27 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 15, 2011, 05:56:07 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on October 15, 2011, 08:07:03 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on October 15, 2011, 08:08:44 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on October 16, 2011, 12:26:53 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on October 16, 2011, 11:43:25 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on October 16, 2011, 12:31:04 PM

Have you ever voted Aye to anything? At all?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 16, 2011, 01:05:52 PM

He voted for some of my bills.  I don't see why anyone would have any major objections to this bill, though.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 16, 2011, 01:47:24 PM

He voted for some of my bills.  I don't see why anyone would have any major objections to this bill, though.

He's voting Nay because Napoleon wrote it I'd imagine.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 16, 2011, 02:28:48 PM

He voted for some of my bills.  I don't see why anyone would have any major objections to this bill, though.

He's voting Nay because Napoleon wrote it I'd imagine.

Most likely.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on October 16, 2011, 06:01:25 PM
No, I just prefer having appointments for vacancies.  I would oppose this whether it were written by Napoleon or Morgan.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 16, 2011, 06:29:31 PM
No, I just prefer having appointments for vacancies.  I would oppose this whether it were written by Napoleon or Morgan.

That actually surprises me.  I would of that that you would be an ardent supporter of a special election.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 16, 2011, 08:21:13 PM
Voting has ended.  The Ayes are 5, and Nays are 1.  The bill passes.  The Assembly will now consider the bill sponsored by the Rep from PA.  Debate will last 48 hours;

Political Donation Disclosure Act of 2011

1. All persons running for any office in the Northeast are hereby required to report the amount of money raised per week in their campaign thread.

2. If a candidate chooses not to start a campaign thread, they must report their donations to the Governor of the region.

3. If a candidate is found to be improperly raising money either through bribery or other politically dishonest means, the candidate is to be penalized via a fine, which shall be decided upon by the adjourned Northeast Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 16, 2011, 08:33:12 PM
I sort of like the concept of this bill, except why would the governor be entrusted to this kind of information if no one else is allowed to know about it?  And I'm not sure if this law would apply to everyone.  Personally, I don't do fundraisers. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on October 16, 2011, 09:59:00 PM
Since when did we raise money?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on October 17, 2011, 08:06:18 AM

shhhhh :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 17, 2011, 02:42:11 PM

Officially?  We really don't.  Which is why this bill gives campaigners something to do.  I'm in favor of it. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on October 17, 2011, 06:05:29 PM
No, I just prefer having appointments for vacancies.  I would oppose this whether it were written by Napoleon or Morgan.

Yay someone said my name.  :P

Sorry for missing another vote, guys.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 18, 2011, 09:03:27 PM
Debate has ended.  The Assembly will now vote on the bill in question.  Voting will last 24 hours.  The final bill reads as follows;

Political Donation Disclosure Act of 2011

1. All persons running for any office in the Northeast are hereby required to report the amount of money raised per week in their campaign thread.

2. If a candidate chooses not to start a campaign thread, they must report their donations to the Governor of the region.

3. If a candidate is found to be improperly raising money either through bribery or other politically dishonest means, the candidate is to be penalized via a fine, which shall be decided upon by the adjourned Northeast Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 18, 2011, 09:03:54 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 18, 2011, 11:39:03 PM
I'm really kinda neutral on this.  Abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on October 19, 2011, 01:00:49 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on October 19, 2011, 07:45:10 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on October 19, 2011, 03:47:39 PM
Abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 19, 2011, 09:01:05 PM
Voting has ended.  The Ayes are 2, Nays are 1, with 2 abstentions.  The bill passes.  The Assembly will now consider the bill sponsored by the Rep from CT.  Debate will last 48 hours;

The Healthy Students Act of 2011

A BILL to promote healthy lifestyles in Northeast schools.

All standards are applicable at the start of the next school year.

Section 1.) Condoms
1. All schools in the Northeast, public and private, are hereby permitted to dispense condoms for students.

2. Condoms may be dispensed in the nurse's office or restrooms.


Section 2.) Medication
1. Students are permitted to bring in and keep any medication, prescription and non-prescription, at schools in the nurse's office.
2. All medication must be appropriately labeled by kind of medication and student name.
3. Students may not request medication that belongs to another student.


Section 3.) Physical Education
1. Public school students shall be required to take physical education classes through years K-12.

Section 4.) Time
1. All high schools in the Northeast may begin no earlier than 8:30 AM each day.

Section 5.) Lunch
1. TV dinners and prepackaged meals are hereby prohibited from being served in school lunchrooms.  All lunches must be fully prepared by cafeteria workers.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 19, 2011, 09:17:35 PM
Quote
Yesterday, I sponsored a bill that sets new standards for our schools.  The bill requires that all students take PE from kindergarten to the end of high school, so that we are consistent in our support of encouraging healthy, active lifestyles, and it disallows oily, fatty pre-packaged meals from being served to students in schools.  Furthermore, it requires that schools in the region start no earlier than 8:30, so that students (which are reportedly staying up much later nowadays) may sleep slightly later.

The medical provision of the bill makes it easier for students who are sick to get the medicine they need faster, without having to wait for a relative to bring the medicine down to the school, and lastly, it gives schools the option of dispensing condoms without having to worry about legal disputes for doing so.

I am hopeful that this legislation will pass.

-Representative Scott

That's basically what I have to say for this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on October 20, 2011, 10:38:03 PM
I'm not sure it's a great idea to put condoms in restrooms. Those places tend to be filthy in schools.

Out of curiosity, is this intended to permit a K-5 or K-8 school to provide condoms as well as 6-8 and 9-12 ones?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 20, 2011, 11:00:24 PM
I'm not sure it's a great idea to put condoms in restrooms. Those places tend to be filthy in schools.

Out of curiosity, is this intended to permit a K-5 or K-8 school to provide condoms as well as 6-8 and 9-12 ones?

I specified them for bathrooms so that students would feel more comfortable grabbing condoms without having to go through the awkwardness of asking the nurse or taking some in a place where so many people can see them.

Not exactly.  This is definitely targeted for high school students.  Do you feel we should amend the bill so that it's only for high schools?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 21, 2011, 06:12:26 AM
I'm not sure it's a great idea to put condoms in restrooms. Those places tend to be filthy in schools.

Out of curiosity, is this intended to permit a K-5 or K-8 school to provide condoms as well as 6-8 and 9-12 ones?

For sure.  Kids these days are prone to abusing a dispenser, in manner unfit for discussion.  I can see a school nurse being permitted to hand them out, but that's all.

I don't have a bad feeling about this bill as a whole, but I'm not particularly fond of Section 4 and 5.  I started school at 7:50 every day from 6-12, and I thought it was fine.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on October 21, 2011, 08:12:46 AM
I oppose condoms in restrooms at schools for the reasons Nathan gave. The Nurse's office is a more sanitary place to dispense them. I support this bill though.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 21, 2011, 01:49:43 PM
I'm not sure it's a great idea to put condoms in restrooms. Those places tend to be filthy in schools.

Out of curiosity, is this intended to permit a K-5 or K-8 school to provide condoms as well as 6-8 and 9-12 ones?

For sure.  Kids these days are prone to abusing a dispenser, in manner unfit for discussion.  I can see a school nurse being permitted to hand them out, but that's all.

I don't have a bad feeling about this bill as a whole, but I'm not particularly fond of Section 4 and 5.  I started school at 7:50 every day from 6-12, and I thought it was fine.

Because today's generation of students tend to stay up later in the evenings, many (not all) are likely to get lower grades.  If the starting time for school is raised by an hour, we would likely see at least some improvement in test scores.

Like I said, I felt the bathroom was the best room in the school for condom dispensers because kids will feel awkward going to the nurse's office to get them.  It is the most private place for it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 21, 2011, 10:15:20 PM
Debate has ended.  The Assembly will now vote on the bill in question.  Voting will last 24 hours.  The final bill reads as follows;


The Healthy Students Act of 2011

A BILL to promote healthy lifestyles in Northeast schools.

All standards are applicable at the start of the next school year.

Section 1.) Condoms
1. All schools in the Northeast, public and private, are hereby permitted to dispense condoms for students.

2. Condoms may be dispensed in the nurse's office or restrooms.


Section 2.) Medication
1. Students are permitted to bring in and keep any medication, prescription and non-prescription, at schools in the nurse's office.
2. All medication must be appropriately labeled by kind of medication and student name.
3. Students may not request medication that belongs to another student.


Section 3.) Physical Education
1. Public school students shall be required to take physical education classes through years K-12.

Section 4.) Time
1. All high schools in the Northeast may begin no earlier than 8:30 AM each day.

Section 5.) Lunch
1. TV dinners and prepackaged meals are hereby prohibited from being served in school lunchrooms.  All lunches must be fully prepared by cafeteria workers.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 21, 2011, 10:26:21 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on October 21, 2011, 10:30:36 PM
1.  Perhaps they can also distribute bongs, to prevent the spread of oral herpes?  Or perhaps pure Purple Dragon, so that they make sure the kids aren't smoking something cut with anything poisonous.  Maybe they can have the school nurse supervise autoerotic asphyxiation, to prevent any of the tykes from David Carradining themselves.

3.  What's Sally in a wheelchair supposed to do?

4.  This sounds really crazy, but many parents actually need to, you know, work and sh**t.  And 8:30 is, believe it or not, an incredibly inconvenient time for them!

5.  You can have cafeteria workers digging their unwashed hands into yesterday's Philly cheesesteaks to make Philly cheesesteak stew, and giving all the little kiddies E. Coli in the process, or you can have that unsung miracle of modern technology; the sterile, pre-packaged meal.  I'll take the latter.

Nay of course.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 21, 2011, 10:36:11 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 21, 2011, 10:50:37 PM
1.  Perhaps they can also distribute bongs, to prevent the spread of oral herpes?  Or perhaps pure Purple Dragon, so that they make sure the kids aren't smoking something cut with anything poisonous.  Maybe they can have the school nurse supervise autoerotic asphyxiation, to prevent any of the tykes from David Carradining themselves.

3.  What's Sally in a wheelchair supposed to do?

4.  This sounds really crazy, but many parents actually need to, you know, work and sh**t.  And 8:30 is, believe it or not, an incredibly inconvenient time for them!

5.  You can have cafeteria workers digging their unwashed hands into yesterday's Philly cheesesteaks to make Philly cheesesteak stew, and giving all the little kiddies E. Coli in the process, or you can have that unsung miracle of modern technology; the sterile, pre-packaged meal.  I'll take the latter.

Nay of course.

Thank you for addressing these concerns right after the debate ended. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on October 22, 2011, 08:27:52 AM
1.  Perhaps they can also distribute bongs, to prevent the spread of oral herpes?  Or perhaps pure Purple Dragon, so that they make sure the kids aren't smoking something cut with anything poisonous.  Maybe they can have the school nurse supervise autoerotic asphyxiation, to prevent any of the tykes from David Carradining themselves.

3.  What's Sally in a wheelchair supposed to do?

4.  This sounds really crazy, but many parents actually need to, you know, work and sh**t.  And 8:30 is, believe it or not, an incredibly inconvenient time for them!

5.  You can have cafeteria workers digging their unwashed hands into yesterday's Philly cheesesteaks to make Philly cheesesteak stew, and giving all the little kiddies E. Coli in the process, or you can have that unsung miracle of modern technology; the sterile, pre-packaged meal.  I'll take the latter.

Nay of course.

This might be one of the most idiotic posts you have ever made.

As for the bill, Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on October 22, 2011, 04:26:29 PM
Aye.

While I would have liked a clarified and amended section 1, I am confident that schools in the region will be at least somewhat judicious in their implementation, if any, of this new allowance.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on October 22, 2011, 05:29:56 PM
Sections 3, 4, and 5 kill it for me.

NAY


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 23, 2011, 04:32:00 AM
Voting has ended.  The Ayes are 3, and Nays are 3.  The bill fails.  The Assembly will now consider the Resolution sponsored by the Rep from PA.  Debate will last 48 hours;

Commending The Libyan Rebels

1. The adjourned Northeast Assembly hereby commend the Libyan Rebels on overthrowing their dictator after months of civil war.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on October 23, 2011, 05:21:30 AM
Inappropriate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on October 23, 2011, 11:13:58 AM
Perhaps we can commend the Mujahideen, the Khmer Rouge, and the contras while we're at it.  How 'bout that Ahmed Chalabi!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 23, 2011, 11:26:16 AM
Mr. Speaker, the voting on my bill was tied, so I was surprised to see that it was declared defeated  I won't say that it should have passed legally, however, the Political Donation Disclosure Act passed with only a plurality of the vote (Ayes:2, Nays:1, Abstentions:2), less than 50%.  If my bill failed, shouldn't that one have also?  I feel it's relevant to mention that the regional Constitution requires that all bills pass with a majority of the voting representatives.  And abstaining is like voting against, simply because it's not voting for something.  If that makes sense.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 23, 2011, 01:17:31 PM
Had the Healthy Students Act of 2011 come to my office for signature for approval or for veto, I would have vetoed it in my last act as Governor.

This proposal is a disaster waiting to happen.

 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 23, 2011, 01:55:28 PM
Had the Healthy Students Act of 2011 come to my office for signature for approval or for veto, I would have vetoed it in my last act as Governor.

This proposal is a disaster waiting to happen.

 

Regardless, we need consistency.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 23, 2011, 02:28:13 PM
Mr. Speaker, the voting on my bill was tied, so I was surprised to see that it was declared defeated  I won't say that it should have passed legally, however, the Political Donation Disclosure Act passed with only a plurality of the vote (Ayes:2, Nays:1, Abstentions:2), less than 50%.  If my bill failed, shouldn't that one have also?  I feel it's relevant to mention that the regional Constitution requires that all bills pass with a majority of the voting representatives.  And abstaining is like voting against, simply because it's not voting for something.  If that makes sense.

Your concerns are legitimate, however;

Quote
(f) A final vote on the proposed legislation shall take place after the Lt. Governor certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period). Such votes shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours, or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. A piece of proposed legislation shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).

Standing Order on Assembly Procedure (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Legislative_work_of_the_Northeast_Assembly#Standing_Order_on_Assembly_Procedure)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on October 23, 2011, 05:11:58 PM
Out of curiosity, is there any kind of government or political action whatsoever of which the gentleman from Massachusetts would actually approve?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on October 23, 2011, 05:58:13 PM
Out of curiosity, is there any kind of government or political action whatsoever of which the gentleman from Massachusetts would actually approve?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 23, 2011, 06:03:12 PM
Out of curiosity, is there any kind of government or political action whatsoever of which the gentleman from Massachusetts would actually approve?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on October 23, 2011, 06:04:35 PM
Scott's bill did not fail. Uhh...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 23, 2011, 06:43:31 PM

3  Ayes, and 3 Nays does not allow the bill to pass.  Unless you know something I do not, which is entirely possible...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on October 23, 2011, 06:46:16 PM
Article V Section xiv


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 23, 2011, 06:49:57 PM

Ahh yes.  Thus goes closing the vote quickly while trying to get to bed.  I apologize to the Rep and the Senator ;)

Since the session is basically over, we'll continue debate will waiting for the Lt. Governor's vote, which may or may not come, one never knows with him :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on October 23, 2011, 07:26:10 PM
Out of curiosity, is there any kind of government or political action whatsoever of which the gentleman from Massachusetts would actually approve?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on October 24, 2011, 10:20:48 AM

Ahh yes.  Thus goes closing the vote quickly while trying to get to bed.  I apologize to the Rep and the Senator ;)

Since the session is basically over, we'll continue debate will waiting for the Lt. Governor's vote, which may or may not come, one never knows with him :)

Such little faith, Mr. Speaker!

I have been asked to break a tie, and thus I will execute my duty as Lieutenant Governor. However, I feel obliged to give my rationale.

The distribution of condoms, in my opinion, sends a signal, if tacit, that pre-majority, pre-age of consent intercourse is accepted, if not encouraged. Thus I am opposed.

Free permission of medication without oversight, which the bill did not mandate, could easily lead to abuse and a free rein to over-medicate. Thus I am opposed. 

I have personally considered high-school physical education to be little more than a token gesture to actual physical fitness, and as such I oppose mandating it. Thus I am opposed.

Many schools have valid reasons for starting at the times they do, my high school started at 7:34. If it's to give students sleep, I guarantee they'll simply be up later; and so again it is a mere token gesture. Thus I am opposed.

Lastly, if one has actually seen the quality of school cafeteria food, not to speak of the methods in which it was prepared,  one might see the benefits of prepackaged food. One cannot even fathom to think of the additional time and expense preparing all food would involve. Anyways, have you ever actually had school cafeteria pizza? Thus I am opposed.

It is rare that I find such a proposal, but this bill leaves me strongly opposed to each and every of its provisions.

Thus my vote is NAY.

Additionally, I would like to lend my support to the Bill Commending The Libyan Rebels.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 25, 2011, 09:17:53 PM
I would like to take this opportunity, before the new session of the Northeast Assembly gets into full swing, to thank all of the candidates in the October election for offering themselves as candidates to serve the people of the Northeast region.

I would like to congratulate the winners and wish them all the best for the coming term.

I would as well like to thank all the officials from the last session, the Lieutenant Governor,  the Representatives, and our Regional Senator, for all their work and contributions to move the Northeast forward, and for their work with me as Governor.

All the best to one and all.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on October 26, 2011, 05:32:32 AM
Thank you, Mr. Governor. Your service to the region was beyond great. You will be missed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on October 26, 2011, 03:06:43 PM
Looks like it's a new session, fellas :D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on October 26, 2011, 04:00:27 PM
Looks like it's a new session, fellas :D

Tomorrow


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on October 26, 2011, 04:44:47 PM
Thank you, Governor. Here's to a smooth transition.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on October 26, 2011, 05:21:21 PM

Yep :D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 26, 2011, 08:23:12 PM
Thank you, Mr. Governor. Your service to the region was beyond great. You will be missed.

Thank you.  You are too kind.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 26, 2011, 08:27:54 PM
Thank you, Governor. Here's to a smooth transition.

Congratulations Governor.  All the best.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 26, 2011, 10:10:41 PM
Swear in if you haven't yet, people. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on October 26, 2011, 10:53:05 PM
Congratulations, Winfield. You were a great governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 27, 2011, 10:08:47 PM
Congratulations, Winfield. You were a great governor.

Thank you very much for your kind words. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on October 28, 2011, 09:06:05 AM
Alright let's get the ball rolling on a new session!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 28, 2011, 12:56:06 PM
Alright let's get the ball rolling on a new session!

The Governor has to start the nomination period for Speaker...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 28, 2011, 02:19:47 PM
Speaking of which, I would like to nominate myself for Speaker, if I may do so early.  As you all probably know, there's going to be a hell of a snowstorm tonight and I just wanted to do that in case I am without power for the next few days.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on October 28, 2011, 02:29:21 PM
Alright let's get the ball rolling on a new session!

The Governor has to start the nomination period for Speaker...

My post was more intended for the Governor :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on October 29, 2011, 08:54:57 AM
Oh, crap.

Anyway, I would first like to welcome all new members to the Assembly

We begin this session of the Northeast Assembly with a vote to elect a Speaker. Please give nominations, and once all nominations are in the Northeast Assembly will vote on a speaker.

The nomination period begins now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on October 29, 2011, 09:11:46 AM
I nominate Cincinnatus to be our speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Junkie on October 29, 2011, 12:10:29 PM
Still getting used to the region, but I had already posted in the election area my intrepetation of the constiutional issue.  In short, since the new constitution is now in effect with no sunset provision for the old legislature (like these changes will take effect in the next regional election after the constitution is ratified by the people), the new legislature is now in effect.  This means 5 with one of them being the Lt. Gov. 

Hope you do not mind the interuption, but I find the issue very interesting and wanted to let people know what I thought.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 29, 2011, 01:36:00 PM
Already nominated.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 29, 2011, 01:44:37 PM
Still getting used to the region, but I had already posted in the election area my intrepetation of the constiutional issue.  In short, since the new constitution is now in effect with no sunset provision for the old legislature (like these changes will take effect in the next regional election after the constitution is ratified by the people), the new legislature is now in effect.  This means 5 with one of them being the Lt. Gov.  

Hope you do not mind the interuption, but I find the issue very interesting and wanted to let people know what I thought.

It was a mistake that we didn't include a provision that would have solved this conflict, but basically this is the way we're interpreting it: the new Constitution applies, but the part of it that reduces the number of seats in the legislature will have to come into effect when the next election comes around.  If we only put up five seats in the last election, that would have been in violation of the older Constitution which had been in effect at that time.  If you disagree, however, you are free to take this issue to the courts.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 29, 2011, 03:39:27 PM
Ugh.  Casting an early vote for myself, in case I lose power.  Sigh.

My house has been getting tons of power surges, so I do not plan on being here, most likely for the rest of the day.  If I lose power and I am unable to get on and have not been elected Speaker, I would like to ask the person who's been elected not to bring up any of my own legislation (such as The Northeast Cabinet Act) until I return.  Thanks.  I must be cursed or something, seeing as how every time the election for the Speaker comes up, I have power issues.

See ya.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Junkie on October 29, 2011, 07:22:09 PM
Still getting used to the region, but I had already posted in the election area my interpretation of the constitutional issue. IN short, since the new constitution is now in effect with no sunset provision for the old legislature (like these changes will take effect in the next regional election after the constitution is ratified by the people), the new legislature is now in effect. This means 5 with one of them being the Lt. Gov.  

Hope you do not mind the interuption, but I find the issue very interesting and wanted to let people know what I thought.

It was a mistake that we didn't include a provision that would have solved this conflict, but basically this is the way we're interpreting it: the new Constitution applies, but the part of it that reduces the number of seats in the legislature will have to come into effect when the next election comes around. If we only put up five seats in the last election, that would have been in violation of the older Constitution which had been in effect at that time. If you disagree, however, you are free to take this issue to the courts.

You are right that only putting up 5 seats would have been wrong.  My point is that once the constitution was ratified, the legislature was changed and the two seats were dissolved.  Not trying to pick an argument, I just was catching up on the region that I joined, saw the discussion and thought I would let you know what I thought.  More than anything else, it is A very interesting legal dilemma.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on October 29, 2011, 07:30:16 PM
I second Scott


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 30, 2011, 07:05:42 AM
I nominate Cincinnatus to be our speaker.

Thanks, but I already promised Scott I'd support him before this session.  As much as I'd like to be Speaker, I'd rather not go back on my word ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on October 30, 2011, 09:18:38 AM
I nominate Cincinnatus to be our speaker.

Thanks, but I already promised Scott I'd support him before this session.  As much as I'd like to be Speaker, I'd rather not go back on my word ;)

Fine :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on October 30, 2011, 01:18:37 PM
I nominate myself.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on October 30, 2011, 01:24:49 PM
I'll be supporting Scott.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on October 30, 2011, 05:39:14 PM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on October 30, 2011, 07:07:55 PM
Unless there are any final nominations, I intend to begin a vote on the next Speaker by tomorrow.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on October 30, 2011, 07:35:32 PM
Unless there are any final nominations, I intend to begin a vote on the next Speaker by tomorrow.

Sweet!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on October 31, 2011, 04:01:02 PM
The nomination period is over. Please vote on the next speaker. You have until either everyone has voted or when I close the election.

[ ] Scott
[ ] Wormyguy


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on October 31, 2011, 04:11:20 PM
[1] Scott
[ ] Wormyguy
Write-in: [2] Lee Van Cleef


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on October 31, 2011, 04:50:02 PM
Wait a minute, did I get re-elected?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on November 01, 2011, 01:08:45 PM
[1] Scott
[3] Wormyguy

[2] Write-in: King Ghamera


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 01, 2011, 07:59:00 PM
[1] Scott


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 01, 2011, 08:01:17 PM
x Me


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 03, 2011, 11:28:53 AM
Can we move forward today?..


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 03, 2011, 02:51:11 PM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on November 03, 2011, 03:23:26 PM
Scott is speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 03, 2011, 04:39:23 PM
Alrightie let's get this session going :D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 05, 2011, 05:29:10 PM
Thank you very much for the opportunity to be your Speaker.  I am happy to announce that tonight, my power has finally been restored and we're back to business. :)

If I am not mistaken, I believe The Anti-Conscription Act is the first legislation that is to be brought up for this session.  Debate will last for 48 hours.

Anti-Conscription Act

1) The government of the Northeast region may not conscript it's citizens, whether for military or civil purposes.

2) The Northeast Assembly affirms that conscription is a form of forced labor, and thus should not be allowed in any progressive society.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 05, 2011, 05:31:19 PM
On this legislation, personally I support this wholeheartedly.  My only concern is that this bill might be challenged in the courts if this conflicts with federal law.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 05, 2011, 05:39:02 PM
I won't be making any long winded arguments, as I have several times explained my position on conscription.  I will simply mention, that I plan to vote Aye for this text.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 05, 2011, 05:47:59 PM
I of course support this bill.  Minor change I'd suggest - since the second part is a statement rather than a binding act, this bill should be a Binding Resolution, not an Act.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on November 05, 2011, 05:57:09 PM
I'd like to introduce an amendment to remove the apostrophe from section 1.

I fully support this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 05, 2011, 06:44:55 PM
Also, on an unrelated note... do we have a Lieutenant Governor?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on November 05, 2011, 07:29:25 PM
Congrats Scott


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 05, 2011, 09:18:41 PM
Thank you, Napoleon.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 07, 2011, 05:30:04 PM
I'd like to introduce an amendment to remove the apostrophe from section 1.

I fully support this bill.

Is that a serious amendment proposal? :P  Otherwise, I would like to carry this to a vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on November 07, 2011, 08:52:20 PM
Nathan is correct; the correct word would be its (it's implies possession).

I'll hop out of this now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 07, 2011, 09:54:00 PM
Then I should ask Morgan: is this amendment friendly or unfriendly?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 08, 2011, 12:14:18 AM
I'm so sorry for my absence.  I didn't know I was reelected.  :P

Nathan's amendment is deemed friendly by me, yes.  Grammar my sucks.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 08, 2011, 12:16:34 AM
Excellent.  Members will now cast their votes on the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

Anti-Conscription Act

1) The government of the Northeast region may not conscript its citizens, whether for military or civil purposes.

2) The Northeast Assembly affirms that conscription is a form of forced labor, and thus should not be allowed in any progressive society.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 08, 2011, 12:18:37 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 08, 2011, 12:25:35 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 08, 2011, 01:10:14 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on November 08, 2011, 03:13:17 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 08, 2011, 09:53:44 AM
For all that is holy and Libertarian, Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Username MechaRFK on November 08, 2011, 02:52:33 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on November 08, 2011, 05:24:03 PM
After the assembly concludes its vote, I hereby appoint Giovanni as my Lieutenant Governor. I ask the body to vote to confirm him after this vote has concluded.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 08, 2011, 06:06:48 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 08, 2011, 06:19:44 PM
With all members having voted, voting time is expired.  Ayes are seven, with no members voting against or abstaining.  The bill is passed.

The Assembly will now consider the appointment of Giovanni as Lieutenant Governor.  I suggest that all questions members might have for him be asked here.  Should any questions be asked by members, I will tell Giovanni to answer them in this thread.

Debate will last for 48 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 08, 2011, 07:24:30 PM
Giovanni, do you like Godfather's Pizza?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 09, 2011, 12:42:40 AM
Giovanni, are you or have you ever been a magnet?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 09, 2011, 09:25:33 AM
Giovanni, you have a history here of not actually caring.  Actually, I'm quite surprised in fact, that you've been appointed to be Lt. Gov.  Why should we expect you to be any different than the "carpetbagger" you've admitted you are..?  :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on November 09, 2011, 10:45:10 AM
I think Giovanni deserves a chance to demonstrate that he is an asset to this region. So long as he can work together well with the Governor, he will do fine. Seeing as Snowstalker supports Giovanni, we should see what they can do together.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 09, 2011, 02:35:37 PM
Giovanni, you have a history here of not actually caring.  Actually, I'm quite surprised in fact, that you've been appointed to be Lt. Gov.  Why should we expect you to be any different than the "carpetbagger" you've admitted you are..?  :P

This is the only question I think is worth answering.  Just saying.

I share the same concerns.  Also, he's been a little snotty to me lately, so I'm not sure how I will vote on confirmation right now, to be completely honest. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on November 09, 2011, 03:19:58 PM
I appointed Giovanni simply due to the fact that he was the only person interested. However, the fact that he wants the slot likely means he's willing to work in it...I hope.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 09, 2011, 10:06:25 PM
Him answering the question would help to prove that...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on November 10, 2011, 08:28:55 AM
I appointed Giovanni simply due to the fact that he was the only person interested. However, the fact that he wants the slot likely means he's willing to work in it...I hope.

Just to give you some friendly advice, when you need stuff like that, sometimes you gotta go out and start PMing people who you think might do the job well. Thats what I did when I had to fill vacancies to the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 10, 2011, 09:58:27 AM
Giovanni, if you are or ever have been a magnet, how the f**k do you work?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 10, 2011, 08:14:32 PM
Debate has concluded.  Members will now cast their votes on confirmation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

On the motion that Giovanni be confirmed to the office of the Lieutenant Governor


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 10, 2011, 08:15:05 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 10, 2011, 08:24:16 PM
Had he given a response, my vote would have probably been different.  Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 10, 2011, 11:41:47 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on November 11, 2011, 12:28:47 AM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 11, 2011, 06:27:09 AM
Someone needs to do the damn job, Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on November 11, 2011, 09:58:56 AM
As Giovanni has declined to respond, I hereby rescind my nomination.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 11, 2011, 02:46:34 PM
The Governor has rescinded his nomination.  The voting period is over and the motion is not agreed to.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.  Debate will last for more than 48 hours, because I will be in Boston this weekend and return presumably late on Sunday.

The Preventing HxC Dancing In Public To Protect Citizen Safety Act of 2011

1. All "HxC" or "Hardcore" dancing is hereby prohibited in public.

2. "HxC" or "Hardcore" dancing is defined as:

  • Floorpunching
  • Windmilling
  • Moshing
  • Any other form of limb flailing that may cause passersby to become injured

3. Citizens may Hardcore dance at concerts, but at their own risk of being injured or injuring someone else.

4. If someone is caught Hardcore dancing in public, they shall have to pay a $500 dollar fine.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 11, 2011, 02:49:27 PM
I don't really know what to think about this, to be completely honest.  I'd strongly be against a ban on public dancing, but people should always be courteous to the safety of others when doing anything.  Would the sponsor like to say a few words about his bill?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 11, 2011, 03:15:04 PM
I don't really know what to think about this, to be completely honest.  I'd strongly be against a ban on public dancing, but people should always be courteous to the safety of others when doing anything.  Would the sponsor like to say a few words about his bill?

Mr. Speaker, let me take the liberty of introducing this violent form of "dance":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSb3HMr3nz4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSb3HMr3nz4)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Username MechaRFK on November 11, 2011, 03:33:57 PM
 banni ng moshing or hxc.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 11, 2011, 03:40:11 PM
I see your point.  Still, I would like to offer an amendment that changes the language of section one to "All dangerous forms of "HxC" or "Hardcore" dancing are hereby prohibited in public", just so we can clarify that we're not banning dancing in public altogether.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 11, 2011, 04:54:49 PM
The Governor should still be able to close debates while there's no Lt. Governor Scott.  So if you're away, Snowstalker should have the authority to close the debate and start a vote at 48 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 11, 2011, 04:58:23 PM
The Governor should still be able to close debates while there's no Lt. Governor Scott.  So if you're away, Snowstalker should have the authority to close the debate and start a vote at 48 hours.

Good point.

Governor, I am requesting that you conclude debate at 2:46 PM on Sunday (or, you know, around that time) and start the vote, please.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 11, 2011, 05:06:37 PM
I guess I should give an opinion;

This is a fun bill, but obviously I can't vote in favor of banning such practice.  Not much else to say, as I'm not much of a hardcore fan anyway.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 11, 2011, 05:49:18 PM
I see your point.  Still, I would like to offer an amendment that changes the language of section one to "All dangerous forms of "HxC" or "Hardcore" dancing are hereby prohibited in public", just so we can clarify that we're not banning dancing in public altogether.

Accepted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 11, 2011, 06:40:11 PM
Say, where can I find the tax brackets for the Region?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on November 11, 2011, 06:43:58 PM
I am fairly certain Giovanni is Lt. Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Oakvale on November 11, 2011, 06:54:45 PM
I'd like to humbly suggest we place a blanket ban on the playing of or listening to any music popularly described with a name ending in a "-core" suffix. This will save lives.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 11, 2011, 08:12:20 PM
I'd like to humbly suggest we place a blanket ban on the playing of or listening to any music popularly described with a name ending in a "-core" suffix. This will save lives.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean.

No.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 11, 2011, 08:54:33 PM
I am fairly certain Giovanni is Lt. Governor.

You would be correct.  Seeing as how Lt. Governor never had to be confirmed by us in the first place ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 11, 2011, 09:00:04 PM
Well, first I thought the vacancy had to be filled by special election, like with other offices.  Then Napoleon told me someone would have to be appointed and then confirmed by the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 11, 2011, 09:03:22 PM
Well, first I thought the vacancy had to be filled by special election, like with other offices.  Then Napoleon told me someone would have to be appointed and then confirmed by the Assembly.

As far as I know the Assembly just recommends a Lt. Governor.  Realistically, The Governor can appoint whoever he wants after that.  So..  we should of had a period to recommend someone to fill the position, before a Lt. Governor was ever chosen.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 11, 2011, 09:36:50 PM
Well, first I thought the vacancy had to be filled by special election, like with other offices.  Then Napoleon told me someone would have to be appointed and then confirmed by the Assembly.

As far as I know the Assembly just recommends a Lt. Governor.  Realistically, The Governor can appoint whoever he wants after that.  So..  we should of had a period to recommend someone to fill the position, before a Lt. Governor was ever chosen.

Ah.  You appear to be right, because it has been done this way before.  Still, he technically doesn't have the position because the Governor rescinded his nomination.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on November 12, 2011, 11:32:57 AM
I now nominate AndrewPA; the Assembly may take up this proposal after the vote.

I will close the debate on Sunday, as requested.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 12, 2011, 11:37:16 AM
Guys, BRTD is not a citizen of the Northeast as far as I know.  We don't need this sh*t.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 12, 2011, 01:07:25 PM
Say, where can I find the tax brackets for the Region?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on November 13, 2011, 04:31:40 PM
The assembly will now vote on The Preventing HxC Dancing In Public To Protect Citizen Safety Act of 2011

Voting will last for 48 hours. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 13, 2011, 04:54:20 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 13, 2011, 06:26:28 PM
I'm back.

Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 13, 2011, 08:05:38 PM
Back, and the bill on the floor is naytarded.

(Or, more specifically, injuries caused by such activities would already be covered under assault and battery laws).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 13, 2011, 09:00:35 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 13, 2011, 09:01:04 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on November 13, 2011, 09:45:50 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Username MechaRFK on November 13, 2011, 09:54:24 PM
abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on November 13, 2011, 09:59:18 PM
Now that all members of the assembly have voted, the vote is closed. Since there's no Lt. Gov, what happens now?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on November 13, 2011, 10:04:35 PM
Now that all members of the assembly have voted, the vote is closed. Since there's no Lt. Gov, what happens now?

It is my understanding that the bill fails because it has not attained a majority of the Assemblymen's votes.

SOAP 3.5:

Quote
A piece of proposed legislation shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 13, 2011, 10:18:20 PM
With all members having voted, voting time is expired.  The ayes are 3, nays are 3, and abstentions are 1.  The bill fails.

The Assembly will now consider the appointment of AndrewPA as Lieutenant Governor.  I suggest that all questions members might have for him be asked here.  Should any questions be asked by members, I will tell AndrewPA to answer them in this thread.

Debate will last for 48 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 13, 2011, 10:19:15 PM
AndrewPA seems to be a fairly active citizen of the Northeast with a clean record.  So far, I do not have any objections to this nomination.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 14, 2011, 06:22:31 AM
Andrew, are you a juggalo?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on November 14, 2011, 07:53:28 AM

At one point I was, yes. But than they stopped selling Faygo in the CT area.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 14, 2011, 08:10:06 AM
Now that all members of the assembly have voted, the vote is closed. Since there's no Lt. Gov, what happens now?

It is my understanding that the bill fails because it has not attained a majority of the Assemblymen's votes.

SOAP 3.5:

Quote
A piece of proposed legislation shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).


The Governor is acting Lt. Governor at the moment, if we're assuming Giovanni isn't.  So he should have to break the tie...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 14, 2011, 09:45:24 AM
Giovanni is the Lt. Governor, the Governor does not have the power to hire and fire Lt. Governors.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 14, 2011, 10:06:14 AM
Giovanni is the Lt. Governor, the Governor does not have the power to hire and fire Lt. Governors.

()


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on November 14, 2011, 10:41:19 AM
Giovanni is the Lt. Governor, the Governor does not have the power to hire and fire Lt. Governors.

Except he hasnt sworn in. And thus for now he isnt. He didnt answer any questions, and his last known post on here was when he was declaring himself Lt. Governor. Now, if he shows up and swears in, great.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 14, 2011, 11:23:31 AM
Giovanni is the Lt. Governor, the Governor does not have the power to hire and fire Lt. Governors.

Except he hasnt sworn in. And thus for now he isnt. He didnt answer any questions, and his last known post on here was when he was declaring himself Lt. Governor. Now, if he shows up and swears in, great.

Pretty sure there aren't any Atlasian laws on the matter, but since US laws are presumed to apply where Atlasian ones do not, he's Lt. Governor as soon as he's chosen whether or not he swears in, which is a formality.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 14, 2011, 02:42:31 PM
Giovanni is the Lt. Governor, the Governor does not have the power to hire and fire Lt. Governors.

Except he hasnt sworn in. And thus for now he isnt. He didnt answer any questions, and his last known post on here was when he was declaring himself Lt. Governor. Now, if he shows up and swears in, great.

And we all know the odds of that actually happening.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on November 14, 2011, 02:49:56 PM
Giovanni is the Lt. Governor, the Governor does not have the power to hire and fire Lt. Governors.

Except he hasnt sworn in. And thus for now he isnt. He didnt answer any questions, and his last known post on here was when he was declaring himself Lt. Governor. Now, if he shows up and swears in, great.

Pretty sure there aren't any Atlasian laws on the matter, but since US laws are presumed to apply where Atlasian ones do not, he's Lt. Governor as soon as he's chosen whether or not he swears in, which is a formality.

You can lose office if you are not active within it for 10 days, unless given prior notice. So if 10 days after he was appointed, he does not swear in or take office in some manner, he would lose it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 14, 2011, 06:35:52 PM
Giovanni is the Lt. Governor, the Governor does not have the power to hire and fire Lt. Governors.

Except he hasnt sworn in. And thus for now he isnt. He didnt answer any questions, and his last known post on here was when he was declaring himself Lt. Governor. Now, if he shows up and swears in, great.


Pretty sure there aren't any Atlasian laws on the matter, but since US laws are presumed to apply where Atlasian ones do not, he's Lt. Governor as soon as he's chosen whether or not he swears in, which is a formality.

This is challenging, considering the Assembly wasn't given time to make a recommendation before Giovanni was appointed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 15, 2011, 12:31:12 AM
If Giovanni doesn't swear in before the deadline, it would be most logical to just confirm Andrew and call it a done deal.  However, the Governor rescinded his nomination before everything was set and done, so he doesn't really have much ground on this.  But I sort of think it was a mistake on my part to even open up consideration in the Assembly for either of these appointments, since Lt. Governors are normally appointed without confirmation.

Our regional constitution only specifies that the Lt. Governor may substitute for the Governor, nothing about the other way around.  Snowstalker would still not have a vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 15, 2011, 08:54:50 AM
If Giovanni doesn't swear in before the deadline, it would be most logical to just confirm Andrew and call it a done deal.  However, the Governor rescinded his nomination before everything was set and done, so he doesn't really have much ground on this.  But I sort of think it was a mistake on my part to even open up consideration in the Assembly for either of these appointments, since Lt. Governors are normally appointed without confirmation.

Our regional constitution only specifies that the Lt. Governor may substitute for the Governor, nothing about the other way around.  Snowstalker would still not have a vote.

You are right, we don't confirm.  In the past, the Assembly has simply had a period to recommend a Lt. Governor before one was appointed.  Giovanni was appointed without any open recommendation that has been precedent in the past, so this would be the challenge against him.  You could always PM CJO cinyc and let him know the situation.  He gives his opinion when asked.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 15, 2011, 03:17:25 PM
Cynic has informed me that the fourth Constitution, does not, in fact, address vacancies.  This is a huge oversight.  He also said that the Assembly sent a recommendation to the governor, but the governor would not have to approve it.

I have already written legislation that addresses the issue of vacancies, but I see now that I should revise it and propose it as a constitutional amendment instead of a resolution.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 15, 2011, 03:19:39 PM
Well, first I thought the vacancy had to be filled by special election, like with other offices.  Then Napoleon told me someone would have to be appointed and then confirmed by the Assembly.

As far as I know the Assembly just recommends a Lt. Governor.  Realistically, The Governor can appoint whoever he wants after that.  So..  we should of had a period to recommend someone to fill the position, before a Lt. Governor was ever chosen.

Yes, that is the way things were done under the old (third) Northeast Constitution.   The Fourth Northeast Constitution is silent on how to deal with a vacancy in the Lt. Governor's office.  Someone should propose a constitutional amendment to fix that before it becomes a real problem (Next highest vote-getter?  Assembly vote?  Gubernatorial appointment?).

Because the elections were held under the old constitution, treating those provisions as if they are in force for the Lt. Governor's office this session can't hurt.  In the absence of any provision in the new constitution, we might as well follow the old.  If the office is truly vacant, the Assembly should recommend a new Lt. Governor to the Governor.  The Governor should act upon that recommendation as he sees fit.

Before that, I can't follow the history here.  Why is the Lt. Governor's office is vacant instead of merely unclaimed?  Did Giovanni move to another region or otherwise make himself ineligible for the office?  Or did he just not swear in yet?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 15, 2011, 03:27:28 PM
Well, first I thought the vacancy had to be filled by special election, like with other offices.  Then Napoleon told me someone would have to be appointed and then confirmed by the Assembly.

As far as I know the Assembly just recommends a Lt. Governor.  Realistically, The Governor can appoint whoever he wants after that.  So..  we should of had a period to recommend someone to fill the position, before a Lt. Governor was ever chosen.

Yes, that is the way things were done under the old (third) Northeast Constitution.   The Fourth Northeast Constitution is silent on how to deal with a vacancy in the Lt. Governor's office.  Someone should propose a constitutional amendment to fix that before it becomes a real problem (Next highest vote-getter?  Assembly vote?  Gubernatorial appointment?).

Because the elections were held under the old constitution, treating those provisions as if they are in force for the Lt. Governor's office this session can't hurt.  In the absence of any provision in the new constitution, we might as well follow the old.  If the office is truly vacant, the Assembly should recommend a new Lt. Governor to the Governor.  The Governor should act upon that recommendation as he sees fit.

Before that, I can't follow the history here.  Why is the Lt. Governor's office is vacant instead of merely unclaimed?  Did Giovanni move to another region or otherwise make himself ineligible for the office?  Or did he just not swear in yet?

My assumption has been based off the precedence set under the old constitution.  Wherein, we recommended a Lt. Governor before an appointment was made.  Giovanni was appointed without any period for recommendation by this body, hasn't sworn in, and Snowstalker whether legally or illegally, rescinded his appointment.  Had the Assembly openly recommended a Lt. Governor before the appointment, I would have no qualms with Giovanni's appointment.  However, lacking the ability to nominate, and vote on a recommendation in this body, I object to the argument in favor of Giovanni.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 15, 2011, 03:29:42 PM
I suppose that when it becomes time for a vote, the motion will be on whether to recommend AndrewPA for the position, then.

Originally, Cincinnatus ran for the position and got the most votes.  Instead of taking the position, he swore in as a Representative.  Giovanni has not swore in yet, but even if he does, it won't really be legitimate since the Governor rescinded his nomination and the Assembly didn't vote to approve his appointment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 15, 2011, 03:34:02 PM
I suppose that when it becomes time for a vote, the motion will be on whether to recommend AndrewPA for the position, then.

Originally, Cincinnatus ran for the position and got the most votes.  Instead of taking the position, he swore in as a Representative.  Giovanni has not swore in yet, but even if he does, it won't really be legitimate since the Governor rescinded his nomination and the Assembly didn't vote to approve his appointment.

The Assembly doesn't have to approve his appointment.  We can only make a recommendation, not confirm or deny an appointment.  As stated in my previous post, I'm only concerned with the Assembly not having submitted a recommendation before an appointment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: cinyc on November 15, 2011, 04:01:29 PM
Thanks for explaining the situation.  So there is a vacancy in the Lt. Governor's office.  Under the old constitution, the Governor could not appoint a new Lt. Governor until a recommendation was received from the Assembly.  Since that didn't happen, elections were held under the old constitution and the new constitution is silent on how to fill a Lt. Governors' vacancy, Giovanni's appointment is void.

The Assembly should recommend a new Lt. Governor.  The Governor need not appoint the person recommended, but cannot appoint anyone to fill the office until the recommendation is made.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 15, 2011, 04:52:56 PM
Thanks for explaining the situation.  So there is a vacancy in the Lt. Governor's office.  Under the old constitution, the Governor could not appoint a new Lt. Governor until a recommendation was received from the Assembly.  Since that didn't happen, elections were held under the old constitution and the new constitution is silent on how to fill a Lt. Governors' vacancy, Giovanni's appointment is void.

The Assembly should recommend a new Lt. Governor.  The Governor need not appoint the person recommended, but cannot appoint anyone to fill the office until the recommendation is made.

The Assembly will vote on recommending AndrewPA, since he was the Governor's second choice for the position anyway.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 15, 2011, 05:18:05 PM
Thanks for explaining the situation.  So there is a vacancy in the Lt. Governor's office.  Under the old constitution, the Governor could not appoint a new Lt. Governor until a recommendation was received from the Assembly.  Since that didn't happen, elections were held under the old constitution and the new constitution is silent on how to fill a Lt. Governors' vacancy, Giovanni's appointment is void.

The Assembly should recommend a new Lt. Governor.  The Governor need not appoint the person recommended, but cannot appoint anyone to fill the office until the recommendation is made.

The Assembly will vote on recommending AndrewPA, since he was the Governor's second choice for the position anyway.

As stated by myself, and Cinyc, we must recommend a Lt. Governor before an appointment.  We can't just vote to recommend Andrew, or not recommend him.  Start with nominations, and then a vote.  Once we have voted on our recommendation the Governor is free to make an appointment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 15, 2011, 05:21:59 PM
In that case, I will cancel the vote on AndrewPA's confirmation.  If any member would like to nominate a recommendation for Lt. Governor, please state who you would prefer.  This nominating period will last 24 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 15, 2011, 05:23:33 PM
Now we're on the same page. 

I nominate Andrew, obviously.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 15, 2011, 05:27:11 PM
I second Andrew's nomination.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Username MechaRFK on November 15, 2011, 08:19:39 PM
Select Andrew


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 15, 2011, 08:33:04 PM
I third Andrew's nomination.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on November 15, 2011, 11:55:58 PM
I have no objections to Andrew's nomination.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 16, 2011, 01:33:25 AM
I nominate the reanimated corpse of Senator Libertas.

Seriously though, I have no problem with Andrew's nomination.  He's a pretty cool guy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 16, 2011, 01:17:27 PM
No objections.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 16, 2011, 01:26:58 PM
All members have spoken.  The Assembly will now vote on recommendation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

Lieutenant Governor Recommendation Preference

[ ] AndrewPA
[ ] Write-In:_____________
[ ] None of these candidates
[ ] Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 16, 2011, 01:28:09 PM
Lieutenant Governor Recommendation Preference

[ x ] AndrewPA
[ ] Write-In:_____________
[ ] None of these candidates
[ ] Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 16, 2011, 03:33:40 PM
Lieutenant Governor Recommendation Preference

[1] AndrewPA
[2] Write-In: Les Claypool
[ ] None of these candidates
[ ] Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 16, 2011, 05:09:30 PM
[ X ] AndrewPA


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 16, 2011, 08:37:38 PM
[1]  Andrew PA
[2]  Dallasfan


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 17, 2011, 01:39:57 PM
Voting time has expired.  The Assembly hereby recommends AndrewPA for Lieutenant Governor, with all four votes in favor of him.

The Assembly will now consider The Northeast Cabinet Act, introduced by myself.

The Northeast Cabinet Act

A BILL to establish a board of non-legislating advisers, which will work in the Northeast Executive Branch

1. The Governor may nominate an elected or non-elected Northeast citizen to each regional department.  Citizens who are selected must accept their nominations to each department, before being confirmed by the General Assembly at the beginning of the Governor’s term.

2. The Governor may fire a Secretary of any department at any time during his or her tenure, and the replacement(s) shall be confirmed by the General Assembly.

3. The secretaries shall advise the Governor, as well as the General Assembly, on legislation relevant to their department assignment(s) or recommend policy initiatives, but shall have no legislative power or vote in the General Assembly unless the Secretary is a member of such.  The Governor may appoint a secretary to oversee multiple departments at a time and the secretary shall work in the Cabinet until he or she resigns, is removed from their position by the Governor, or after the Governor’s term expires.  A secretary may serve under multiple governors without limitations on how many times he or she may be appointed.

4. The Governor may leave some or all departments vacant if he or she chooses.

5. The Departments will be as follows:

  • Department of the State (will advise on legislation regarding election law, game reform)
  • Department of the Treasury (will advise on legislation regarding money, budgeting, banking, consumer protection, loans)
  • Department of Agriculture and the Interior (will advise on legislation regarding farm bills & compensation, rural development, regional parks, environmental regulation, energy policy, food stamps)
  • Department of Commerce (will advise on legislation regarding economic growth)
  • Department of Urban Development (will advise on legislation regarding urban development, maintenance, infrastructure)
  • Department of Education (will advise on legislation regarding education policy, health standards for schools, school development, teacher pay)
  • Department of Labor (will advise on legislation regarding labor, unions, worker pay, worker protection, worker conditions)
  • Department of Veterans Affairs (will advise on legislation regarding support for veterans, region’s military force)
  • Department of Health and Human Services (will advise on legislation regarding public health care, hospitals, health, safety regulations)
  • Department of Justice (will advise on legislation regarding the administration of law, enforcement of justice)

6. The Governor may establish a new Cabinet position with the consent of the General Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 17, 2011, 01:42:50 PM
Here's what I had to say about my legislation in my office thread.

Quote
For my first act in my second full term, I have proposed a new piece of legislation, this time which will focus on game reform.  To encourage activity and involvement in the Northeast government, the bill I have proposed will establish a board of advisers to Northeast governors, all of which would be nominated and then confirmed by the Assembly.  It is important to note that, if this law is enacted, these advisers will have no legislative power or vote in the Assembly, unless they are, themselves, elected members of the Assembly.  However, I believe it will increase activism if the Governor is allowed to have both elected and non-elected Northeast citizens help in his or her policy-making decisions.  I urge the Assembly to pass this measure when it comes up to a vote, and I would appreciate input from people who oppose this as well as support this, and as always, I encourage amendment proposals as long as they are good ideas.

So in a nut shell, it's a fun way of increasing involvement in NE government with both the legislators and the citizens. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 17, 2011, 02:05:13 PM
I have several issues with this bill.

Nominate an elected official?  The law would allow him to nominate anyone, yes.  However, can an already elected official hold dual positions?  This bill might find itself in trouble with Federal law here.

Next, "Citizens who are selected must accept their nominations to each department, before being confirmed by the General Assembly at the beginning of the Governor’s term."  This almost makes it sound like I have no choice to deny a nomination.  I understand what you mean, but the term "must accept their nomination" worries me.

As a side note, we already have a CJO, so I don't understand why we need a Dept of Justice.


Ultimately, I understand the purpose of this bill, but the biggest problem is dual office holding.  I think that would be the biggest flaw in this legislation. 





Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 17, 2011, 02:06:23 PM
Not in favor, we have a hard enough time filling every position as is and every one of these "advisory comissions" has ended up being used as a backdoor to introduce some awful piece of extreme government-expanding legislation that wouldn't be passed normally.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 17, 2011, 02:27:34 PM
I have several issues with this bill.

Nominate an elected official?  The law would allow him to nominate anyone, yes.  However, can an already elected official hold dual positions?  This bill might find itself in trouble with Federal law here.

Next, "Citizens who are selected must accept their nominations to each department, before being confirmed by the General Assembly at the beginning of the Governor’s term."  This almost makes it sound like I have no choice to deny a nomination.  I understand what you mean, but the term "must accept their nomination" worries me.

As a side note, we already have a CJO, so I don't understand why we need a Dept of Justice.


Ultimately, I understand the purpose of this bill, but the biggest problem is dual office holding.  I think that would be the biggest flaw in this legislation.  


The bill is basically a way of giving citizens and legislators titles/obligations to advise on certain policies and issues.  People can already advise policy by posting in the legislation introduction thread, and either another citizen will support it or Representative will sponsor it for them.  This simply a way of getting more ideas and involvement from people.  I don't see how this would conflict with federal law if people on the positions technically don't have a final say on anything, and can't even vote unless they've been elected.

That part of the bill is simply saying that you can't be forced into having a position, and would have to accept it before it's valid.  If you would like to change the wording so that it clarifies what it means, I would be open to amending it.

The CJO, I also became slightly unsure about soon after writing this.  I would be open to eliminating this position if the Assembly would like to.

Not in favor, we have a hard enough time filling every position as is and every one of these "advisory comissions" has ended up being used as a backdoor to introduce some awful piece of extreme government-expanding legislation that wouldn't be passed normally.

Not every position has to be filled.  Originally, this bill had probably about fifteen departments or so before I chose to eliminate or merge some when I drafted it.  Also, you can't just assume that all legislation proposed by the advisers would be bad.  Promoting involvement in local government gives the citizens more of a say and makes it more open, as a whole.  And if something gets proposed that the Assembly doesn't like, it will get voted down just as when Representatives propose legislation the Assembly doesn't like.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 17, 2011, 02:33:17 PM
Yes, but it is a position nonetheless.  Presidential cabinet's are considered a position, and that was why the cabinet flexibility amendment was necessary.  As I said before, this is my biggest potential problem with this bill. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 17, 2011, 02:44:42 PM
Yes, but it is a position nonetheless.  Presidential cabinet's are considered a position, and that was why the cabinet flexibility amendment was necessary.  As I said before, this is my biggest potential problem with this bill. 

Members of the presidential cabinet typically have more requirements and responsibilities other than to just advise on things.  Basically, all this legislation does is encourage the Governor to say to people, "We're looking for ideas on how our region should set policy on this particular issue.  Why don't you oversee what the Assembly does on something and give input, as well as share your ideas?".  So I don't really consider it a position in the sense that secretaries have control over anything.  If your problem with this bill is merely the use of the word 'cabinet position', then I suppose the wording could be altered, but other than that I don't see how this violates federal law.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 17, 2011, 03:06:50 PM
Yes, but it is a position nonetheless.  Presidential cabinet's are considered a position, and that was why the cabinet flexibility amendment was necessary.  As I said before, this is my biggest potential problem with this bill. 

Members of the presidential cabinet typically have more requirements and responsibilities other than to just advise on things.  Basically, all this legislation does is encourage the Governor to say to people, "We're looking for ideas on how our region should set policy on this particular issue.  Why don't you oversee what the Assembly does on something and give input, as well as share your ideas?".  So I don't really consider it a position in the sense that secretaries have control over anything.  If your problem with this bill is merely the use of the word 'cabinet position', then I suppose the wording could be altered, but other than that I don't see how this violates federal law.

Whether it has that wording in it or not, I consider these to be positions.  Federal law does prohibit dual office holding.  I think it would pretty irresponsible for me to support this without having a compelling argument why this is lawful.     


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 17, 2011, 03:13:40 PM
Yes, but it is a position nonetheless.  Presidential cabinet's are considered a position, and that was why the cabinet flexibility amendment was necessary.  As I said before, this is my biggest potential problem with this bill. 

Members of the presidential cabinet typically have more requirements and responsibilities other than to just advise on things.  Basically, all this legislation does is encourage the Governor to say to people, "We're looking for ideas on how our region should set policy on this particular issue.  Why don't you oversee what the Assembly does on something and give input, as well as share your ideas?".  So I don't really consider it a position in the sense that secretaries have control over anything.  If your problem with this bill is merely the use of the word 'cabinet position', then I suppose the wording could be altered, but other than that I don't see how this violates federal law.

Whether it has that wording in it or not, I consider these to be positions.  Federal law does prohibit dual office holding.  I think it would pretty irresponsible for me to support this without having a compelling argument why this is lawful.     

Because as I've said, this bill is primarily for giving people titles, and thus, obligations to give suggestions.  The key word being, obligations.  Obviously, there are no legal restrictions on suggesting legislation, as it is.  However, most of the bills the Assembly considers are written by the Representatives and not the citizens themselves, which is what I'm trying to fix.  I suppose that if you still believe these are formal positions, we should get an opinion from the CJO or someone like that.  If this bill still might face legal conflicts with the federal government, I can change it so that only unelected citizens may be secretaries.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 17, 2011, 03:15:42 PM
Yes, but it is a position nonetheless.  Presidential cabinet's are considered a position, and that was why the cabinet flexibility amendment was necessary.  As I said before, this is my biggest potential problem with this bill. 

Members of the presidential cabinet typically have more requirements and responsibilities other than to just advise on things.  Basically, all this legislation does is encourage the Governor to say to people, "We're looking for ideas on how our region should set policy on this particular issue.  Why don't you oversee what the Assembly does on something and give input, as well as share your ideas?".  So I don't really consider it a position in the sense that secretaries have control over anything.  If your problem with this bill is merely the use of the word 'cabinet position', then I suppose the wording could be altered, but other than that I don't see how this violates federal law.

Whether it has that wording in it or not, I consider these to be positions.  Federal law does prohibit dual office holding.  I think it would pretty irresponsible for me to support this without having a compelling argument why this is lawful.     

Because as I've said, this bill is primarily for giving people titles, and thus, obligations to give suggestions.  The key word being, obligations.  Obviously, there are no legal restrictions on suggesting legislation, as it is.  However, most of the bills the Assembly considers are written by the Representatives and not the citizens themselves, which is what I'm trying to fix.  I suppose that if you still believe these are formal positions, we should get an opinion from the CJO or someone like that.  If this bill still might face legal conflicts with the federal government, I can change it so that only unelected citizens may be secretaries.

I would actually rather have Bacon King give his view on the matter, as he has a handle on Federal law.  Or you could just get Snowguy to make a comment on it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 18, 2011, 06:03:47 PM
Quote
Section 3, subsection (a) of the SOAP is hereby amended to read: All proposed legislation shall be open for debate for forty-eight (48) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor. The Lt. Governor shall have the authority to extend or shorten the debating period upon the written request of any Representative. No extension of the debate period shall exceed 72 hours, and no shortening shall exceed 12 hours.

Motioning to extend debate time 24 hours, to a total of 72.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Bacon King on November 18, 2011, 08:03:53 PM
This bill is not technically unconstitutional with regard to the Federal Constitution's dual-office holding provisions, since it only clarifies who the governor can nominate- not who can actually fill these positions.

However, anyone who's already holding office must certainly resign from their old job if they want to accept the nomination to this regional cabinet; see Article V, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution. Even these advisory positions would be considered an "office of the Republic of Atlasia at any level of government."

Also, I agree with Cincinnatus that the first section of this bill should be reworded; I don't think anyone wants Northeasterners being shanghaied into cabinet service :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 18, 2011, 08:30:35 PM
This bill is not technically unconstitutional with regard to the Federal Constitution's dual-office holding provisions, since it only clarifies who the governor can nominate- not who can actually fill these positions.

However, anyone who's already holding office must certainly resign from their old job if they want to accept the nomination to this regional cabinet; see Article V, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution. Even these advisory positions would be considered an "office of the Republic of Atlasia at any level of government."

Also, I agree with Cincinnatus that the first section of this bill should be reworded; I don't think anyone wants Northeasterners being shanghaied into cabinet service :P

Then we are in agreement.  Thank you :)


I propose the following amendment;


Quote

The Northeast Cabinet Act

A BILL to establish a board of non-legislating advisers, which will work in the Northeast Executive Branch

1. The Governor may nominate a Northeast citizen to each regional department.  If a nominee wishes to accept their nomination, they shall do so in the current Governor's office, or in the Northeast Assembly thread.

2.  Upon receiving acceptance from the nominee the Assembly will proceed with a confirmation hearing and vote.  The hearing shall last 48 hours, followed by a 24 hour voting period.  Motions for extension or reduction of such periods shall follow the guidelines of the SOAP of the Northeast Assembly.  If a majority of voting Representatives vote in favor, the nominee will be confirmed.

3. The Governor may fire a Secretary of any department at any time during his or her tenure, and the replacement(s) shall be confirmed by the General Assembly.

4. The secretaries shall advise the Governor, as well as the General Assembly, on legislation relevant to their department assignment(s) or recommend policy initiatives, but shall have no legislative power or vote in the General Assembly.  A secretary may serve under multiple governors without limitations on how many times he or she may be appointed.  However, the Secretary must accept and be confirmed by the Assembly in accordance with Section 1 and 2 of this bill every new term of office [which shall coincide with the term of office of the Northeast Governor].

4. The Governor may leave some or all departments vacant if he or she chooses.

5. The Departments will be as follows:

  • Department of the State (will advise on legislation regarding election law, game reform)
  • Department of the Treasury (will advise on legislation regarding money, budgeting, banking, consumer protection, loans)
  • Department of Agriculture and the Interior (will advise on legislation regarding farm bills & compensation, rural development, regional parks, environmental regulation, energy policy, food stamps)
  • Department of Commerce (will advise on legislation regarding economic growth)
  • Department of Urban Development (will advise on legislation regarding urban development, maintenance, infrastructure)
  • Department of Education (will advise on legislation regarding education policy, health standards for schools, school development, teacher pay)
  • Department of Labor (will advise on legislation regarding labor, unions, worker pay, worker protection, worker conditions)
  • Department of Veterans Affairs (will advise on legislation regarding support for veterans, region’s military force)
  • Department of Health and Human Services (will advise on legislation regarding public health care, hospitals, health, safety regulations)

6. The Governor may establish a new Cabinet position with the consent of the General Assembly.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 18, 2011, 08:51:39 PM
Thank you for your input, Mr. Vice President.

The amendment is friendly.

Debate time is extended.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on November 19, 2011, 12:54:11 AM
As the current governor, I have no problems with the proposed amendment. However, I doubt I'd appoint any formal advisers.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 19, 2011, 01:14:26 AM
As the current governor, I have no problems with the proposed amendment. However, I doubt I'd appoint any formal advisers.

Okay, but I believe Representative RFK mentioned something about being appointed to your cabinet, just so you know.  Of course, I'm not sure he'd be willing to resign his seat for that position if this bill passes, though.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 19, 2011, 11:49:54 PM
Any chance someone else has something to say on this?  You know, someone besides the 3/7  Rep's that have already given an opinion?  :D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on November 20, 2011, 12:32:22 AM
I have no problems with this, and I think it might help quite a bit with regional administration.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 20, 2011, 01:15:16 AM
I am writing in an additional provision to this bill, just to make it official that this is a formal office position within the Northeast.

Quote

The Northeast Cabinet Act

A BILL to establish a board of non-legislating advisers, which will work in the Northeast Executive Branch

1. The Governor may nominate a Northeast citizen to each regional department.  If a nominee wishes to accept their nomination, they shall do so in the current Governor's office, or in the Northeast Assembly thread.

2.  Upon receiving acceptance from the nominee the Assembly will proceed with a confirmation hearing and vote.  The hearing shall last 48 hours, followed by a 24 hour voting period.  Motions for extension or reduction of such periods shall follow the guidelines of the SOAP of the Northeast Assembly.  If a majority of voting Representatives vote in favor, the nominee will be confirmed.

3. The Governor may fire a Secretary of any department at any time during his or her tenure, and the replacement(s) shall be confirmed by the General Assembly.

4. The secretaries shall swear in to their accepted department positions in the appropriate thread.

5. The secretaries shall advise the Governor, as well as the General Assembly, on legislation relevant to their department assignment(s) or recommend policy initiatives, but shall have no legislative power or vote in the General Assembly.  A secretary may serve under multiple governors without limitations on how many times he or she may be appointed.  However, the Secretary must accept and be confirmed by the Assembly in accordance with Section 1 and 2 of this bill every new term of office [which shall coincide with the term of office of the Northeast Governor].

6. The Governor may leave some or all departments vacant if he or she chooses.

7. The Departments will be as follows:

  • Department of the State (will advise on legislation regarding election law, game reform)
  • Department of the Treasury (will advise on legislation regarding money, budgeting, banking, consumer protection, loans)
  • Department of Agriculture and the Interior (will advise on legislation regarding farm bills & compensation, rural development, regional parks, environmental regulation, energy policy, food stamps)
  • Department of Commerce (will advise on legislation regarding economic growth)
  • Department of Urban Development (will advise on legislation regarding urban development, maintenance, infrastructure)
  • Department of Education (will advise on legislation regarding education policy, health standards for schools, school development, teacher pay)
  • Department of Labor (will advise on legislation regarding labor, unions, worker pay, worker protection, worker conditions)
  • Department of Veterans Affairs (will advise on legislation regarding support for veterans, region’s military force)
  • Department of Health and Human Services (will advise on legislation regarding public health care, hospitals, health, safety regulations)

8. The Governor may establish a new Cabinet position with the consent of the General Assembly.

The bill is amended.

Also, thank you Cincinnatus for cleaning up the wording in this bill earlier. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 20, 2011, 01:33:21 PM
Debate time has expired.  Members will now cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

Quote
The Northeast Cabinet Act

A BILL to establish a board of non-legislating advisers, which will work in the Northeast Executive Branch

1. The Governor may nominate a Northeast citizen to each regional department.  If a nominee wishes to accept their nomination, they shall do so in the current Governor's office, or in the Northeast Assembly thread.

2.  Upon receiving acceptance from the nominee the Assembly will proceed with a confirmation hearing and vote.  The hearing shall last 48 hours, followed by a 24 hour voting period.  Motions for extension or reduction of such periods shall follow the guidelines of the SOAP of the Northeast Assembly.  If a majority of voting Representatives vote in favor, the nominee will be confirmed.

3. The Governor may fire a Secretary of any department at any time during his or her tenure, and the replacement(s) shall be confirmed by the General Assembly.

4. The secretaries shall swear in to their accepted department positions in the appropriate thread.

5. The secretaries shall advise the Governor, as well as the General Assembly, on legislation relevant to their department assignment(s) or recommend policy initiatives, but shall have no legislative power or vote in the General Assembly.  A secretary may serve under multiple governors without limitations on how many times he or she may be appointed.  However, the Secretary must accept and be confirmed by the Assembly in accordance with Section 1 and 2 of this bill every new term of office [which shall coincide with the term of office of the Northeast Governor].

6. The Governor may leave some or all departments vacant if he or she chooses.

7. The Departments will be as follows:

  • Department of the State (will advise on legislation regarding election law, game reform)
  • Department of the Treasury (will advise on legislation regarding money, budgeting, banking, consumer protection, loans)
  • Department of Agriculture and the Interior (will advise on legislation regarding farm bills & compensation, rural development, regional parks, environmental regulation, energy policy, food stamps)
  • Department of Commerce (will advise on legislation regarding economic growth)
  • Department of Urban Development (will advise on legislation regarding urban development, maintenance, infrastructure)
  • Department of Education (will advise on legislation regarding education policy, health standards for schools, school development, teacher pay)
  • Department of Labor (will advise on legislation regarding labor, unions, worker pay, worker protection, worker conditions)
  • Department of Veterans Affairs (will advise on legislation regarding support for veterans, region’s military force)
  • Department of Health and Human Services (will advise on legislation regarding public health care, hospitals, health, safety regulations)

8. The Governor may establish a new Cabinet position with the consent of the General Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 20, 2011, 01:34:30 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 20, 2011, 05:12:13 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 20, 2011, 05:32:18 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on November 20, 2011, 05:52:54 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Username MechaRFK on November 20, 2011, 09:17:35 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 21, 2011, 06:54:57 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 21, 2011, 07:03:54 PM
Sorry for being late tonight.  I was in Boston... again.

Voting time has expired.  The ayes are four (including Cincinnatus' late vote) and the nays are two.  The bill is passed.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.  Debate will last for 48 hours.

The Making Recycling Fun And Cool Because Nobody Likes To Do It Other Than Hippies Act of 2011

1. In order to increase desire to recycle, special recycling cans shall be placed throughout the region.

2. These special cans shall be capable of the following:

  • When a recyclable item is placed in the can, a buzzer, similar to a basketball buzzer, shall sound.
  • There shall be a point counter at the top of the can that records high scores. If someone breaks a high score, an automated voice shall shout "High score!" and the person will recieve a coupon to a store of their choice.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 21, 2011, 07:07:49 PM
I'm afraid I cannot support this bill.  The concept is fun and creative and I am glad that an issue relating to the environment is being addressed, however the bill does not specify where we will get the funding for producing these special recycling cans and putting the law into effect.  This would not be a fiscally responsible move for our region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 21, 2011, 07:37:18 PM
I'm afraid I cannot support this bill.  The concept is fun and creative and I am glad that an issue relating to the environment is being addressed, however the bill does not specify where we will get the funding for producing these special recycling cans and putting the law into effect.  This would not be a fiscally responsible move for our region.

Perhaps we could work with some eco-friendly organizations to raise the funds for a few prototypes?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 21, 2011, 07:49:05 PM
I'm afraid I cannot support this bill.  The concept is fun and creative and I am glad that an issue relating to the environment is being addressed, however the bill does not specify where we will get the funding for producing these special recycling cans and putting the law into effect.  This would not be a fiscally responsible move for our region.

Perhaps we could work with some eco-friendly organizations to raise the funds for a few prototypes?

I suppose as long as it doesn't require government spending, that would be a better alternative.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 21, 2011, 08:00:04 PM
I'm afraid I cannot support this bill.  The concept is fun and creative and I am glad that an issue relating to the environment is being addressed, however the bill does not specify where we will get the funding for producing these special recycling cans and putting the law into effect.  This would not be a fiscally responsible move for our region.

Perhaps we could work with some eco-friendly organizations to raise the funds for a few prototypes?

I suppose as long as it doesn't require government spending, that would be a better alternative.

Well perhaps we could find one that would sponsor the idea :D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on November 22, 2011, 01:32:05 AM
As my last act as an Assemblyman, I would like to ask what precisely constitutes a 'high score'. Weight of material recycled at one time?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 22, 2011, 12:54:40 PM
As my last act as an Assemblyman, I would like to ask what precisely constitutes a 'high score'. Weight of material recycled at one time?

Most recycled items. Anything recyclable counts :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 22, 2011, 04:13:08 PM
Would anybody else like to speak on this bill or offer amendments to improve it?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 22, 2011, 04:25:58 PM
I will not be supporting this bill, and I don't think any amendment can persuade me to do so, unfortunately.   


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 22, 2011, 04:37:23 PM
I will not be supporting this bill, and I don't think any amendment can persuade me to do so, unfortunately.   

Might I ask why?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 22, 2011, 05:08:22 PM
I will not be supporting this bill, and I don't think any amendment can persuade me to do so, unfortunately.   

Might I ask why?

You may.  How are we paying for this?  What store plans to contribute a desired prize in order to actual make this "buzzer" effective?  Obviously we will have to pay a bunch of money to install these recycling bins, and maintain the "lottery" system.  We should be focusing on recycling efforts inside school's, where children may obtain a life-long appreciation for eco-friendly habits.  Not setting up lottery recycling systems that seem dangerously susceptible to fraud, and require state funding (that hasn't been specified how we shall pay for it).  Fun bill, interesting title, but other than that, I view it as an ineffective proposal that won't provide a suitable solution.   


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 22, 2011, 05:14:27 PM
I will not be supporting this bill, and I don't think any amendment can persuade me to do so, unfortunately.   

Might I ask why?

You may.  How are we paying for this?  What store plans to contribute a desired prize in order to actual make this "buzzer" effective?  Obviously we will have to pay a bunch of money to install these recycling bins, and maintain the "lottery" system.  We should be focusing on recycling efforts inside school's, where children may obtain a life-long appreciation for eco-friendly habits.  Not setting up lottery recycling systems that seem dangerously susceptible to fraud, and require state funding (that hasn't been specified how we shall pay for it).  Fun bill, interesting title, but other than that, I view it as an ineffective proposal that won't provide a suitable solution.   

Well how do we get kids involved in recycling at school? That would also require state funding.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 22, 2011, 05:54:40 PM
I will not be supporting this bill, and I don't think any amendment can persuade me to do so, unfortunately.   

Might I ask why?

You may.  How are we paying for this?  What store plans to contribute a desired prize in order to actual make this "buzzer" effective?  Obviously we will have to pay a bunch of money to install these recycling bins, and maintain the "lottery" system.  We should be focusing on recycling efforts inside school's, where children may obtain a life-long appreciation for eco-friendly habits.  Not setting up lottery recycling systems that seem dangerously susceptible to fraud, and require state funding (that hasn't been specified how we shall pay for it).  Fun bill, interesting title, but other than that, I view it as an ineffective proposal that won't provide a suitable solution.   

Well how do we get kids involved in recycling at school? That would also require state funding.

You are correct.  However, it would be an alternative to this state funded proposal.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 22, 2011, 06:36:01 PM
Any interest in working with me to create a better bill?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 22, 2011, 06:43:44 PM
Any interest in working with me to create a better bill?

I don't support the lottery system, but I'd certainly work with you on a different proposal.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 22, 2011, 08:18:15 PM
Any interest in working with me to create a better bill?

I don't support the lottery system, but I'd certainly work with you on a different proposal.

Well alright :D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 22, 2011, 09:55:25 PM
I think it would be simpler to just have recycling containers placed alongside regular trash cans.  The reason most people don't recycle is because you have to carry your trash ten feet to get to a public recycling bin.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 22, 2011, 09:58:17 PM
I think it would be simpler to just have recycling containers placed alongside regular trash cans.  The reason most people don't recycle is because you have to carry your trash ten feet to get to a public recycling bin.

This is a better idea.  Having to develop, produce, and maintain these special trash cans wouldn't be very cost effective.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 22, 2011, 11:17:19 PM
I think it would be simpler to just have recycling containers placed alongside regular trash cans.  The reason most people don't recycle is because you have to carry your trash ten feet to get to a public recycling bin.

This is a better idea.  Having to develop, produce, and maintain these special trash cans wouldn't be very cost effective.

Fair enough.

Motion to table the bill currently being debated?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 22, 2011, 11:24:48 PM
I think it would be simpler to just have recycling containers placed alongside regular trash cans.  The reason most people don't recycle is because you have to carry your trash ten feet to get to a public recycling bin.

This is a better idea.  Having to develop, produce, and maintain these special trash cans wouldn't be very cost effective.

Fair enough.

Motion to table the bill currently being debated?

You can withdraw a bill at any time before a vote, as you are the sponsor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 22, 2011, 11:46:51 PM
The gentleman withdraws his bill from consideration.  The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from New York.  Debate will last for 48 hours.

Stone Wall Preservation Act

The Northeast Assembly acknowledges that stone walls constructed as agricultural and administrative boundaries are tangible legacies of the generations that lived and died before the present day, and in so doing, declares the following:

1. That to knowingly deface, damage or dismantle a stone wall on public property is prohibited, and punishable by a $500 fine on the first offense;
2. That subsequent offenses shall entail four hours of community service for each subsequent offense and an increase in the fine by an additional $250 for each subsequent offense;
3. That any land sold by the Northeast or by any municipal or local government therein to a private landowner may only be sold on the condition that all stone walls located upon the property may not be defaced, damaged or dismantled in the process of the development of the land; and
4. That the Northeast Government shall offer grants totaling $250,000 to historians and scholars who aim to develop registries, maps and archives of ancient stone walls within the Northeast Region.

x homelycooking

X  Cincinnatus


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on November 22, 2011, 11:48:48 PM
I encourage representatives to support this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 22, 2011, 11:54:56 PM
()


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 23, 2011, 12:11:01 AM
I have no objection to this bill, and I don't see any reason not to support it.  The Northeast should protect these ancient stone walls.  I assume the stone walls this bill is referring to are the ones made to memorialize people, is that correct?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on November 23, 2011, 12:58:36 PM
I have no objection to this bill, and I don't see any reason not to support it.  The Northeast should protect these ancient stone walls.  I assume the stone walls this bill is referring to are the ones made to memorialize people, is that correct?

I'm not sure what you are referring to. My bill is intended to protect walls constructed centuries ago that, at one point, demarcated boundary lines or pastures.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 23, 2011, 01:10:06 PM
I have no objection to this bill, and I don't see any reason not to support it.  The Northeast should protect these ancient stone walls.  I assume the stone walls this bill is referring to are the ones made to memorialize people, is that correct?

I'm not sure what you are referring to. My bill is intended to protect walls constructed centuries ago that, at one point, demarcated boundary lines or pastures.

Ah, I see.  Thank you for clarifying.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 23, 2011, 03:50:11 PM
Once you've seen one stone wall you've seen every stone wall.  I suppose it doesn't really matter because the Northeast government doesn't have any "public" land anymore anyway.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on November 23, 2011, 04:28:32 PM
Once you've seen one stone wall you've seen every stone wall.  I suppose it doesn't really matter because the Northeast government doesn't have any "public" land anymore anyway.

Wrong. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on November 23, 2011, 04:54:30 PM
Don't we still have state parks?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 23, 2011, 06:11:02 PM

I found one bill on the wiki that refers to state parks, but nothing that specifies where the parks are.  So no, technically.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: homelycooking on November 23, 2011, 07:30:14 PM
Once you've seen one stone wall you've seen every stone wall.  I suppose it doesn't really matter because the Northeast government doesn't have any "public" land anymore anyway.

A stone wall is more than just some historical oddity or trinket: its function is embedded within the landscape. Stone walls lose their meaning without a spatial context. The state has the responsibility to act to preserve this element of the Northeast's cultural heritage because each wall, since it is located at a unique place, has historical value.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 23, 2011, 07:33:53 PM
Not sure if serious...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 24, 2011, 03:27:12 PM
Seriously, this makes less sense than the people saying nobody should be allowed to cut down trees.  There is nothing special or architecturally unique about a stone wall.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on November 24, 2011, 03:38:01 PM
Seriously, this makes less sense than the people saying nobody should be allowed to cut down trees.  There is nothing special or architecturally unique about a stone wall.
It makes perfect sense to have areas where no one is allowed to cut down trees. Thankfully we have a great regional park system.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 24, 2011, 03:39:24 PM
I'm very neutral on this bill. Not quite sure how I'm gonna vote yet.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 24, 2011, 04:12:30 PM
Seriously, this makes less sense than the people saying nobody should be allowed to cut down trees.  There is nothing special or architecturally unique about a stone wall.

Like Napoleon said, it does make sense to protect trees.  No, not banning the practice of it entirely, but preserving nature in select areas.  This bill preserves remnants of history.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 24, 2011, 11:53:42 PM
Debate time has expired.  Members will now cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

Stone Wall Preservation Act

The Northeast Assembly acknowledges that stone walls constructed as agricultural and administrative boundaries are tangible legacies of the generations that lived and died before the present day, and in so doing, declares the following:

1. That to knowingly deface, damage or dismantle a stone wall on public property is prohibited, and punishable by a $500 fine on the first offense;
2. That subsequent offenses shall entail four hours of community service for each subsequent offense and an increase in the fine by an additional $250 for each subsequent offense;
3. That any land sold by the Northeast or by any municipal or local government therein to a private landowner may only be sold on the condition that all stone walls located upon the property may not be defaced, damaged or dismantled in the process of the development of the land; and
4. That the Northeast Government shall offer grants totaling $250,000 to historians and scholars who aim to develop registries, maps and archives of ancient stone walls within the Northeast Region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 24, 2011, 11:54:36 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 25, 2011, 12:00:22 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 25, 2011, 12:11:00 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 25, 2011, 12:22:36 AM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 25, 2011, 11:59:56 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are one and the nays are two, with one member abstaining.  The bill fails.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.  Debate will last for 48 hours.

The Music Piracy Decriminalization Act of 2011

1. Downloading music on the internet is hereby legal.

2. Websites such as LimeWire, FrostWire and related websites are no longer at risk of persecution from the Northeast Government in any way, shape or form.

3. Illegal downloading is hereby discouraged by the adjourned Assembly.

4. Musicians may not sue any illegal downloading websites if a court case would be brought before a Northeast Court.

5. All persons forced to pay an illegal downloading fine are to have said fine repaid in it's entirety.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 26, 2011, 12:11:59 AM
Right off the bat, this is a bill that I just can't support.  First of all, when music is illegally downloaded from the internet, the artists receive no payment for their work.  If artists aren't profiting off of their songs, they won't want to continuing making music.  Not only is this unfair, but it's counterproductive to the music industry and musicians themselves.  Piracy is no different from stealing from a store, and the bill's language allows just that.

Secondly, this bill is very confusing.  The third provision discourages - but doesn't prohibit - the illegal downloading of music, but the fourth and fifth provisions let people who are guilty of doing so off the hook and bars musicians from suing these websites.  I don't really understand how the purpose of this bill is to legalize piracy, but discourages illegal downloading in one of the provisions.  Or maybe I'm misinterpreting it.  I would certainly like some clarification or revisions made to this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 26, 2011, 09:43:14 AM
I support this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 26, 2011, 09:44:39 AM
I'm not sure I can support barring anyone's right to litigation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 26, 2011, 11:08:50 AM
Hmm.  Copyrights are difficult from a libertarian perspective.  There is the matter of course that it is already de facto legal to freely download copyrighted material, and the existing copyright laws are well beyond the state's ability to enforce.

Uploading copyrighted material should probably be illegal; a copyright is essentially a binding contract similar to a confidentiality or nondisclosure agreement.  Downloading it is much more murky, the downloader is not a party to any contract, and what they are "stealing" is a commodity that is infinitely and freely reproducable and whose copying does not cause any direct harm to anyone.

Laws about receipt of stolen property can be quickly subject to reducto ad absurdam; should doing business with someone who you know receives stolen property be illegal?  Obviously, the number of degrees of separation considered necessary before it would no longer be considered illegal would be completely arbitrary.

In any event, whether uploading or downloading ought to be legal or illegal, it's clear that the existing record company business model is completely untenable and future musical acts can probably expect to receive all their income from live tours (as most of their income currently and historically has come from) with digital distribution existing as a marketing tactic.

I would support this bill but saying that certain entities may not be prosecuted for any reason is not exactly something I can support.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on November 26, 2011, 11:22:40 AM
Fix the language. :P

How are artists supposed to be rewarded for their labor?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 26, 2011, 11:46:58 AM
Right off the bat, this is a bill that I just can't support.  First of all, when music is illegally downloaded from the internet, the artists receive no payment for their work.  If artists aren't profiting off of their songs, they won't want to continuing making music.  Not only is this unfair, but it's counterproductive to the music industry and musicians themselves.  Piracy is no different from stealing from a store, and the bill's language allows just that.

Secondly, this bill is very confusing.  The third provision discourages - but doesn't prohibit - the illegal downloading of music, but the fourth and fifth provisions let people who are guilty of doing so off the hook and bars musicians from suing these websites.  I don't really understand how the purpose of this bill is to legalize piracy, but discourages illegal downloading in one of the provisions.  Or maybe I'm misinterpreting it.  I would certainly like some clarification or revisions made to this bill.

I'll answer chronologically--

First off, plenty of artists nowadays have come out in support of illegal downloading. The popular television show South Park even came out in favor of illegal downloading making the point that if fans are listening to the music, they'll still go to see the band in concert. The profit is still there. If more people are listening to the music, more people are likely to go see the band live. That can't happen if people are locked up for downloading.

Secondly, I'd be happy to make revisions, as the language is a bit confusing even to me. I believe my original intent was just for the Assembly to say "Don't do it, it's not right." but not arrest anyone for it. Similar to the idea that when women get abortions it is not "morally justified" and is "discouraged" but they still do it. Just perhaps an issued warning to think twice before downloading and perhaps consider buying the CD.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 26, 2011, 12:23:49 PM
Right off the bat, this is a bill that I just can't support.  First of all, when music is illegally downloaded from the internet, the artists receive no payment for their work.  If artists aren't profiting off of their songs, they won't want to continuing making music.  Not only is this unfair, but it's counterproductive to the music industry and musicians themselves.  Piracy is no different from stealing from a store, and the bill's language allows just that.

Secondly, this bill is very confusing.  The third provision discourages - but doesn't prohibit - the illegal downloading of music, but the fourth and fifth provisions let people who are guilty of doing so off the hook and bars musicians from suing these websites.  I don't really understand how the purpose of this bill is to legalize piracy, but discourages illegal downloading in one of the provisions.  Or maybe I'm misinterpreting it.  I would certainly like some clarification or revisions made to this bill.

I'll answer chronologically--

First off, plenty of artists nowadays have come out in support of illegal downloading. The popular television show South Park even came out in favor of illegal downloading making the point that if fans are listening to the music, they'll still go to see the band in concert. The profit is still there. If more people are listening to the music, more people are likely to go see the band live. That can't happen if people are locked up for downloading.

Secondly, I'd be happy to make revisions, as the language is a bit confusing even to me. I believe my original intent was just for the Assembly to say "Don't do it, it's not right." but not arrest anyone for it. Similar to the idea that when women get abortions it is not "morally justified" and is "discouraged" but they still do it. Just perhaps an issued warning to think twice before downloading and perhaps consider buying the CD.

Not every musician agrees with the creators of South Park on this.  Particularly Metallica, Dr. Dre, Madonna, Elton John, Lily Allen, and several others.  And those are just the big names.  What if you're a little-known artist who lives off every penny you make?  Just for the sake of argument, what if you don't do any live shows at all and solely depend on profit from online buyers?  Denying musicians the right to litigation under the assumption that the illegal downloaders will go to live shows is not just because it deprives them of compensation for their labor.  If a musician wants their music to be downloaded for free, for any intention, they ought to be entitled to making that decision.  Taking that choice out of their hands will discourage newer artists from making more music.

If we're going to pass a bill that legalizes piracy, we may as well not have a provision discouraging its practice.  If anything, we are only encouraging it this way.  So yes, there is definitely room for revision in this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 26, 2011, 12:31:02 PM
Big artists make plenty of money. More people come to their shows than anyone else. Boohoo Metallica can't make $400 million from a tour and they have to settle for $375 million because not everybody bought their CD. I'm all for keeping the money you earn, but not everybody can afford to buy CDs nowadays. I can't afford to go out and buy every CD and go to every concert. Don't you think I wish I could? Absolutely. But it's just not possible.

If an artist makes music and doesn't do live shows then that's their problem. It's part of being a musician. 50% of making music is recording it, the other 50 is playing live shows.

I'd be happy to make revisions though.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 26, 2011, 12:56:20 PM
Big artists make plenty of money. More people come to their shows than anyone else. Boohoo Metallica can't make $400 million from a tour and they have to settle for $375 million because not everybody bought their CD. I'm all for keeping the money you earn, but not everybody can afford to buy CDs nowadays. I can't afford to go out and buy every CD and go to every concert. Don't you think I wish I could? Absolutely. But it's just not possible.

If an artist makes music and doesn't do live shows then that's their problem. It's part of being a musician. 50% of making music is recording it, the other 50 is playing live shows.

I'd be happy to make revisions though.

That doesn't mean we should legalize stealing.  Can big artists live without some of that money?  Sure.  But that doesn't give consumers the right to take as they please.  Using that logic, it should be okay to steal from all major companies: Toyota, Wal-Mart, Apple, Microsoft, Gap, et cetera.  I believe Kid Rock (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpCADfZD-eg) said it best.  If we tell people it's okay to take things and not pay the producers for their hard work, fewer people will want to find careers in music.  And remember: this bill doesn't only affect the wealthy artists, this affects low-income artists, as well.  If a smaller artist's music is illegally downloaded, that person or band sees a much greater loss.

No.  If an artist doesn't want to do live shows, that's their decision.  They're still entitled to making a profit off of the work that they did.  Why shouldn't they be allowed to profit just because they're strictly internet-based?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on November 26, 2011, 01:06:29 PM
I can't afford to go to every band's concert- let's make those free and buy CDs.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 26, 2011, 01:27:43 PM
Big artists make plenty of money. More people come to their shows than anyone else. Boohoo Metallica can't make $400 million from a tour and they have to settle for $375 million because not everybody bought their CD. I'm all for keeping the money you earn, but not everybody can afford to buy CDs nowadays. I can't afford to go out and buy every CD and go to every concert. Don't you think I wish I could? Absolutely. But it's just not possible.

If an artist makes music and doesn't do live shows then that's their problem. It's part of being a musician. 50% of making music is recording it, the other 50 is playing live shows.

I'd be happy to make revisions though.

That doesn't mean we should legalize stealing.  Can big artists live without some of that money?  Sure.  But that doesn't give consumers the right to take as they please.  Using that logic, it should be okay to steal from all major companies: Toyota, Wal-Mart, Apple, Microsoft, Gap, et cetera.  I believe Kid Rock (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpCADfZD-eg) said it best.  If we tell people it's okay to take things and not pay the producers for their hard work, fewer people will want to find careers in music.  And remember: this bill doesn't only affect the wealthy artists, this affects low-income artists, as well.  If a smaller artist's music is illegally downloaded, that person or band sees a much greater loss.

No.  If an artist doesn't want to do live shows, that's their decision.  They're still entitled to making a profit off of the work that they did.  Why shouldn't they be allowed to profit just because they're strictly internet-based?

I think you're overestimating the amount of people that download music. It's not like CD downloads outweigh the amount of CDs bought. I'd put the ratio at somewhere around 1:300 or 400 for downloads to purchases.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on November 26, 2011, 01:30:32 PM
Anyways my point is that artists deserve to profit off of their work. Free music downloads should take place from sites where artists earn profits from advertising, not unregulated third party sharing sites. You can't really legislate that into existence but you could encourage it using tax breaks for labels and cracking down harder on third party sharing involving copyrighted material that has its own free download available officially.


Oh, btw, that ratio couldn't be more off from reality. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 26, 2011, 01:37:54 PM
Big artists make plenty of money. More people come to their shows than anyone else. Boohoo Metallica can't make $400 million from a tour and they have to settle for $375 million because not everybody bought their CD. I'm all for keeping the money you earn, but not everybody can afford to buy CDs nowadays. I can't afford to go out and buy every CD and go to every concert. Don't you think I wish I could? Absolutely. But it's just not possible.

If an artist makes music and doesn't do live shows then that's their problem. It's part of being a musician. 50% of making music is recording it, the other 50 is playing live shows.

I'd be happy to make revisions though.

That doesn't mean we should legalize stealing.  Can big artists live without some of that money?  Sure.  But that doesn't give consumers the right to take as they please.  Using that logic, it should be okay to steal from all major companies: Toyota, Wal-Mart, Apple, Microsoft, Gap, et cetera.  I believe Kid Rock (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpCADfZD-eg) said it best.  If we tell people it's okay to take things and not pay the producers for their hard work, fewer people will want to find careers in music.  And remember: this bill doesn't only affect the wealthy artists, this affects low-income artists, as well.  If a smaller artist's music is illegally downloaded, that person or band sees a much greater loss.

No.  If an artist doesn't want to do live shows, that's their decision.  They're still entitled to making a profit off of the work that they did.  Why shouldn't they be allowed to profit just because they're strictly internet-based?

I think you're overestimating the amount of people that download music. It's not like CD downloads outweigh the amount of CDs bought. I'd put the ratio at somewhere around 1:300 or 400 for downloads to purchases.

CD sales have been decreasing. (http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2011/01/06/132694660/2010-was-a-very-bad-year-for-trying-to-sell-music)  Here are three important statistics taken from this article.

Quote
  • The total number of albums sold in 2010, 326.2 million, was the lowest since SoundScan began compiling the data in 1993.
  • Total album sales dropped off nearly 13% when measured against sales in 2009. That's the same rate of decrease sales saw last year over 2008.
  • Digital track sales grew just one percent. This category, which saw stratospheric growth in the early part of the last decade yet never made up for the decline in physical album sales, has essentially plateaued.

CDs may still be more popular, but digital music sales are increasing.  Many people who buy physical albums are older generation.  But regardless of the ratio, I still don't see this as justification for stealing music.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 26, 2011, 06:29:10 PM
Well major labels are stopping CD production after 2012 so if you're going to continue on the physical CD argument, it's moot after a year. Online CD sales are better anyway. I could buy an album on iTunes for $9.99 instead of going to Target and spending $13.99. Plus it's convenient. But that's beyond the point. For those who can't afford the music, the option should be available. Plus the prohibition strategy never works. It didn't work with alcohol in the 20's, it's not working drugs and it's not working with music downloading. Human psychology leads us to believe that when told not to do something, we are more likely to do it. Therefore, I believe my colleagues should vote "aye" on this bill. Do we really want to continue to arrest our citizens? Theft is wrong, I agree. I honestly agree. But decriminalizing illegal downloading will likely result in less people doing it. It's a matter of how you want to look at it. Do you want to force people not to buy music because they can't afford it? Or do you want them to be able to enjoy music and go to concerts as per their budget allows? It's all a matter of how you want to look at it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on November 26, 2011, 06:39:27 PM
They didn't make alcohol free after ending prohibition.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 26, 2011, 06:42:00 PM
They didn't make alcohol free after ending prohibition.

And music won't be totally free.

Alcohol and music are different substances. Alcohol is regulated by the Government for a reason, whereas music is not.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 26, 2011, 06:44:33 PM
Forgive me, but your ratio is absurd.  Also, just because CD's won't be sold eventually, the point isn't mute.  Artists still profit off iTunes sales, as well as other such marketplaces.  And the argument that decriminalization of music downloading will reduce it is ridiculous.  All the people that currently do it, will continue, and the legalization of such will only increase if a change occurs.

And for those who can't afford the music, it should be an option?  I can't afford a Mercedes Benz, can I just take one of those with nothing but "words of discouragement".  If consumers want to add music to their budget, they have the freedom to do so.  They don't however, have the freedom to steal from, and have legal protection against, an artist(s).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 26, 2011, 06:57:16 PM
Well major labels are stopping CD production after 2012 so if you're going to continue on the physical CD argument, it's moot after a year. Online CD sales are better anyway. I could buy an album on iTunes for $9.99 instead of going to Target and spending $13.99. Plus it's convenient. But that's beyond the point. For those who can't afford the music, the option should be available. Plus the prohibition strategy never works. It didn't work with alcohol in the 20's, it's not working drugs and it's not working with music downloading. Human psychology leads us to believe that when told not to do something, we are more likely to do it. Therefore, I believe my colleagues should vote "aye" on this bill. Do we really want to continue to arrest our citizens? Theft is wrong, I agree. I honestly agree. But decriminalizing illegal downloading will likely result in less people doing it. It's a matter of how you want to look at it. Do you want to force people not to buy music because they can't afford it? Or do you want them to be able to enjoy music and go to concerts as per their budget allows? It's all a matter of how you want to look at it.

As Cincinnatus mentioned, artists will still profit off of online sales when CDs are no longer sold.

So now you're saying that people who can't afford to buy music legally are entitled to just go ahead and steal?  If we go by this attitude, people won't have the incentive to go out and work, at all.  Stealing from a person should never be an option.

Telling people they aren't allowed to break the law and steal things from people is not 'Prohibition'.  That's completely different.  Prohibition and the War on Drugs are wrong because they infringe on civil liberties.  Passing this bill would permit people to infringe on the musicians' civil liberties and property rights.  To say you are against theft would not be credible, because your bill decriminalizes just that.  I also strongly disagree that less people will steal music if we legalize that very practice.  This bill replaces ancient law that prohibits theft with a friendly request to not partake in it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 26, 2011, 09:51:15 PM
Whatever.

I withdraw my proposal.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on November 26, 2011, 09:52:28 PM

You don't want to consider any of the things I suggested?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 26, 2011, 09:58:11 PM

It seems I'm alone here. I'm not going to pursue a lost cause. It's a waste of my time as well as the Assembly's and the People's time. Let's get to more pressing matters.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 26, 2011, 09:59:59 PM

It seems I'm alone here. I'm not going to pursue a lost cause. It's a waste of my time as well as the Assembly's and the People's time. Let's get to more pressing matters.

Ahem.. The People, or The People's please.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 26, 2011, 10:01:08 PM

It seems I'm alone here. I'm not going to pursue a lost cause. It's a waste of my time as well as the Assembly's and the People's time. Let's get to more pressing matters.

Ahem.. The People, or The People's please.

The People's.

Sorry.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 26, 2011, 10:02:42 PM

It seems I'm alone here. I'm not going to pursue a lost cause. It's a waste of my time as well as the Assembly's and the People's time. Let's get to more pressing matters.

Ahem.. The People, or The People's please.

The People's.

Sorry.

You corrected it, so worry not about the masses tearing you limb from limb :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 26, 2011, 10:19:16 PM
The gentleman withdraws his bill from consideration.  The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.  Debate will last for 48 hours.

Amendment to the NE Constitution - Residential Officeholder Act of 2011

1) Only residents of the Northeast region may run for office in the Northeast.

2) One must be a citizen of the region for a total of 7 (seven) days before declaring a candidacy in any election.

3) If one was previously a resident of the region but changed location, section 2 still applies.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 26, 2011, 10:32:18 PM
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/New_Northeast_Constitution

The constitution already specifies that Representatives must be citizens of the NE, but it doesn't restrict non-residents from actually running as far as I know.  I need you to figure out what section/Article(s) you're amending before I can support this.  Right now, it just seems to be an attachment, which I dislike.   


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 26, 2011, 10:33:57 PM
It's certainly logical for only Northeast citizens being allowed to run for office here, but I should ask, why do we need section 2?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 27, 2011, 12:49:41 AM
I'll support this if clause two is extended to say "or voting."


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on November 27, 2011, 12:52:22 AM
I don't think this is a necessary change so I'm inclined to oppose it. Why do we need a 7 day restriction?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 27, 2011, 09:38:57 AM
I'll support this if clause two is extended to say "or voting."

I accept this amendment.

I don't think this is a necessary change so I'm inclined to oppose it. Why do we need a 7 day restriction?

Because we have to be registered for 15 days when we first register in Atlasia, why is that sensible but clause 2 is superfluous?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 27, 2011, 11:49:48 AM
Some senators have come out against the voting restrictions Atlasia has, if I recall correctly.  There really isn't a need for them.  I'm not sure if I will be voting for this, because the first provision is already law and the only new thing this bill appears to add is another voting restriction.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 28, 2011, 10:19:48 PM
Debate time has expired.  Members will now cast their votes on passage of the amendment.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

2/3 in favor needed for passage

Amendment to the NE Constitution - Residential Officeholder Act of 2011

1) Only residents of the Northeast region may run for office in the Northeast.

2) One must be a citizen of the region for a total of 7 (seven) days before declaring a candidacy in any election or voting.

3) If one was previously a resident of the region but changed location, section 2 still applies.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 28, 2011, 10:21:50 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on November 29, 2011, 06:13:24 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on November 29, 2011, 09:43:28 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 29, 2011, 08:58:25 PM
I still have no clue what sections you which to amend, besides just attaching this at the end.  An unfortunate Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Username MechaRFK on November 29, 2011, 09:38:21 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 29, 2011, 10:35:44 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are two and the nays are three.  The bill fails.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by myself.  Debate will last for 48 hours.

Amendment to the NE Constitution - Lieutenant Governor Vacancy Act

Article II of the Northeast Constitution is hereby amended:

In the event that the office of the Lieutenant Governor is to become vacated, or that the person who receives the most votes should not take the Oath of Office, a special election shall be held and the victor will take the office to finish the remainder of the term.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 29, 2011, 10:41:34 PM
I wrote this amendment around the time of the dispute regarding the Lt. Governor vacancy filling.  As cinyc told me, the current Constitution is silent on how to fill these vacancies, and traditionally they've been filled by appointment from the governor after a recommendation by the Assembly.  But this really doesn't make much sense, since the Lt. Governor is suppose to be chosen democratically.  Why should the governor be allowed to appoint people to elected positions just because of a vacancy?  My amendment revises this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on November 29, 2011, 11:03:13 PM
Lt. Governor is not done this way anymore.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 29, 2011, 11:08:56 PM
Lt. Governor is not done this way anymore.

It was, a couple weeks ago.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on November 29, 2011, 11:13:53 PM
But it never will be again.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 29, 2011, 11:16:11 PM

Not if this is directly addressed in the Constitution, no.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on November 29, 2011, 11:19:47 PM
There would be a special election, just like any other Assembly vacancy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 29, 2011, 11:31:19 PM
There would be a special election, just like any other Assembly vacancy.

We were suppose to have that, but cinyc said the Constitution doesn't specify how those vacancies are filled and that we would need to pass an amendment because of this.  Two weeks ago, we recommended someone for the position like the Assembly normally had done under the old Constitution.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on November 29, 2011, 11:37:02 PM
The Constitution says it is supposed to be made by law, so this amendment is needed. The law needs changed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on November 30, 2011, 03:32:02 PM
Ooops, missed a vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 01, 2011, 10:35:17 PM
Debate time has expired.  Members will now cast their votes on passage of the amendment.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

2/3 in favor needed for passage

Amendment to the NE Constitution - Lieutenant Governor Vacancy Act

Article II of the Northeast Constitution is hereby amended:

In the event that the office of the Lieutenant Governor is to become vacated, or that the person who receives the most votes should not take the Oath of Office, a special election shall be held and the victor will take the office to finish the remainder of the term.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 01, 2011, 10:36:20 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on December 02, 2011, 06:16:59 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 02, 2011, 09:12:09 PM
Bump...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 02, 2011, 09:15:08 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 02, 2011, 10:51:26 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are three and nays are zero.  The bill passes.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Maine.  Debate will last for 48 hours.

The Absolutely Silly Act

1.  The amount of derps in the Northeast region may not exceed twelve herps.
2.  If the amount of derps does exceed twelve herps, the Northeast Assembly may herp the derps accordingly.
3.  The Game


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 02, 2011, 10:57:14 PM
This bill does not define what constitutes as a 'derp' or what the act of 'herping' is.  I'd feel uncomfortable supporting this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on December 02, 2011, 10:59:16 PM
I don't think that amendment passed. 3/6 isn't a majority.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 02, 2011, 11:03:18 PM
I don't think that amendment passed. 3/6 isn't a majority.

Quote
A proposed Amendment shall be forwarded to be voted upon by the citizens of the Northeast upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of voting members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region and an affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on December 02, 2011, 11:04:16 PM
I don't think that amendment passed. 3/6 isn't a majority.

Quote
A proposed Amendment shall be forwarded to be voted upon by the citizens of the Northeast upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of voting membersof the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region and an affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 02, 2011, 11:05:04 PM
I don't think that amendment passed. 3/6 isn't a majority.

Quote
A proposed Amendment shall be forwarded to be voted upon by the citizens of the Northeast upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of voting members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northeast Region and an affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the Legislative Assembly


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 02, 2011, 11:06:07 PM
Then the bill fails.  I will reintroduce the amendment when we will hopefully have better turnout.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 02, 2011, 11:07:13 PM
Then the bill fails.  I will reintroduce the amendment when we will hopefully have better turnout.

Try next session.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 02, 2011, 11:09:40 PM
Then the bill fails.  I will reintroduce the amendment when we will hopefully have better turnout.

Try next session.

Why does it have to wait until next session?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on December 02, 2011, 11:12:11 PM
It doesn't, but three votes would pass next session.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 02, 2011, 11:13:23 PM
Then the bill fails.  I will reintroduce the amendment when we will hopefully have better turnout.

Try next session.

Why does it have to wait until next session?

Well, Napoleon already answered why actually.  Plus, we should have 5 more active members of the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 02, 2011, 11:14:56 PM
True, but turnout isn't normally that low.  Besides, I'd rather get it in before the next election in case Andrew decides not to run, no one wins the office, and we're stuck with the current law of appointing people.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 02, 2011, 11:18:40 PM
Well.. The Lt. Governor is certainly going to be an odd issue either way.  Technically Andrew has a term until February I would imagine.  Even though our next election should go off the new constitution, I'm not sure yet how we plan to deal with the Lt. Governor position.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 02, 2011, 11:27:04 PM
Well.. The Lt. Governor is certainly going to be an odd issue either way.  Technically Andrew has a term until February I would imagine.  Even though our next election should go off the new constitution, I'm not sure yet how we plan to deal with the Lt. Governor position.

That's true, I didn't consider this.  Then I suppose it doesn't really matter when the vote comes up for it, but it's definitely an issue that needs to be addressed in the Constitution.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 03, 2011, 01:25:08 PM
As for the current bill...

The number of derps in this country is approaching dangerous levels.  Clearly we must herp the derps to ensure that the Northeast economy doesn't herp.

Also, The Game.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on December 03, 2011, 06:36:31 PM
As for the current bill...

The number of derps in this country is approaching dangerous levels.  Clearly we must herp the derps to ensure that the Northeast economy doesn't herp.

Also, The Game.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 04, 2011, 10:55:32 PM
Debate time has expired.  Members will now cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

The Absolutely Silly Act

1.  The amount of derps in the Northeast region may not exceed twelve herps.
2.  If the amount of derps does exceed twelve herps, the Northeast Assembly may herp the derps accordingly.
3.  The Game


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 04, 2011, 10:56:19 PM
Abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 04, 2011, 11:26:49 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 05, 2011, 12:10:43 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 05, 2011, 02:28:54 AM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on December 05, 2011, 06:16:36 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 05, 2011, 10:35:10 AM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 05, 2011, 11:11:26 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are two, nays are one, with three members abstaining.  The bill is passed.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.  Debate will be for 48 hours.

Removing That Stupid Parental Advisory Sticker From CDs Act Of 2011

1. The "Parental Advisory: Explicit Content" is hereby removed from CDs sold within the Northeast Region.

2. Instead, CDs with notable explicit content shall have a sticker with "Recommended: 16+, 17+ and 18+" stickers, based on explicitness of content.

3. If a CD has a "Recommended: 18+" sticker on it, identification shall be required in order to purchase the CD.

4. If a CD has a "Recommended: 16+ or 17+" sticker, anyone may buy the CD.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 05, 2011, 11:35:24 PM
I would like to point out that the "Parental Advisory" stickers are voluntarily placed on albums by record companies.  Furthermore, they do so because they correctly perceive that some parents might not want their minor children listening to lyrics containing profanity, or descriptions of violent or sexual acts.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 06, 2011, 02:16:49 AM
Hah, my bill passed.

u mad?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on December 06, 2011, 06:29:33 AM
I would like to point out that the "Parental Advisory" stickers are voluntarily placed on albums by record companies.  Furthermore, they do so because they correctly perceive that some parents might not want their minor children listening to lyrics containing profanity, or descriptions of violent or sexual acts.

I realize that.

The point that I'm making is that the recommended stickers would basically do the same thing, except instead of slamming "EXPLICIT CONTENT!111!!!!!" in your face, you have a sticker that says it may not be appropriate for children, but kids may still buy it. Ultimately, it is the parents'  job to moderate what their kids listen to, not the record label's.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on December 06, 2011, 08:37:08 AM
I just have to ask.. when exactly did the Northeast Assembly change from a place where actual business was conducted, to where we now have to speak in meme to pass bills? It is quite depressing.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on December 06, 2011, 09:51:29 AM
I just have to ask.. when exactly did the Northeast Assembly change from a place where actual business was conducted, to where we now have to speak in meme to pass bills? It is quite depressing.

When CT stopped runnin dis bitch, that's when.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 06, 2011, 10:15:51 AM
I would like to point out that the "Parental Advisory" stickers are voluntarily placed on albums by record companies.  Furthermore, they do so because they correctly perceive that some parents might not want their minor children listening to lyrics containing profanity, or descriptions of violent or sexual acts.

I realize that.

The point that I'm making is that the recommended stickers would basically do the same thing, except instead of slamming "EXPLICIT CONTENT!111!!!!!" in your face, you have a sticker that says it may not be appropriate for children, but kids may still buy it. Ultimately, it is the parents'  job to moderate what their kids listen to, not the record label's.

No, it is the record label's job to decide what they sell, and then it is the parent's job to decide whether to buy it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on December 06, 2011, 10:16:22 AM
I just have to ask.. when exactly did the Northeast Assembly change from a place where actual business was conducted, to where we now have to speak in meme to pass bills? It is quite depressing.

When CT stopped runnin dis bitch, that's when.

People from CT knew how to run things well. Makes me worry a little bit.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 06, 2011, 10:25:57 AM
I would like to point out that the "Parental Advisory" stickers are voluntarily placed on albums by record companies.  Furthermore, they do so because they correctly perceive that some parents might not want their minor children listening to lyrics containing profanity, or descriptions of violent or sexual acts.

I realize that.

The point that I'm making is that the recommended stickers would basically do the same thing, except instead of slamming "EXPLICIT CONTENT!111!!!!!" in your face, you have a sticker that says it may not be appropriate for children, but kids may still buy it. Ultimately, it is the parents'  job to moderate what their kids listen to, not the record label's.

No, it is the record label's job to decide what they sell, and then it is the parent's job to decide whether to buy it.

This is my basic feelings on this bill.  As long as we don't require these stickers by law, it's completely up to the labels if they decide to put "EXPLICIT' on their product.

I just have to ask.. when exactly did the Northeast Assembly change from a place where actual business was conducted, to where we now have to speak in meme to pass bills? It is quite depressing.

When CT stopped runnin dis bitch, that's when.

People from CT knew how to run things well. Makes me worry a little bit.

If you don't like how debates are proceeding, you have every right to contribute.  If you don't like the bills that are being introduced, you have every right to get a Rep to sign off on a bill, or work with you on a bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 06, 2011, 02:42:48 PM
I'm sort of with everyone else on this.  I don't think it ought to be the government's responsibility to tell parents what's vulgar and what isn't by mandating labels, or replacing labels that companies may put on like this bill does.

I just have to ask.. when exactly did the Northeast Assembly change from a place where actual business was conducted, to where we now have to speak in meme to pass bills? It is quite depressing.

I blame the Silly Party. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on December 06, 2011, 03:41:16 PM
I just have to ask.. when exactly did the Northeast Assembly change from a place where actual business was conducted, to where we now have to speak in meme to pass bills? It is quite depressing.

I blame the Silly Party. :P

>:O


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 06, 2011, 04:00:43 PM
So the Northeast would be dictating what record companies label their disks with? This seems highly unnecessary and overreaching.

Not to mention that determining whether something be say, recommended sixteen or recommended seventeen would probably require a special "panel" which could even lead to CD's languishing in a backlog instead of hitting the shelves.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on December 06, 2011, 04:58:57 PM
So the Northeast would be dictating what record companies label their disks with? This seems highly unnecessary and overreaching.

Not to mention that determining whether something be say, recommended sixteen or recommended seventeen would probably require a special "panel" which could even lead to CD's languishing in a backlog instead of hitting the shelves.

Well, to play devil's advocate, do you think any stickers should be placed on CD covers to advertise potential inappropriate content?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 06, 2011, 05:15:28 PM
So the Northeast would be dictating what record companies label their disks with? This seems highly unnecessary and overreaching.

Not to mention that determining whether something be say, recommended sixteen or recommended seventeen would probably require a special "panel" which could even lead to CD's languishing in a backlog instead of hitting the shelves.

Well, to play devil's advocate, do you think any stickers should be placed on CD covers to advertise potential inappropriate content?


I believe, and I am pretty sure that Dallas would concur, that companies should be able to sell their products in whichever way they have determined is best, and I would not presume to know how to do that than they do.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on December 06, 2011, 05:23:37 PM
I see the opposing argument and concede. I withdraw my bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 06, 2011, 05:26:13 PM
So the Northeast would be dictating what record companies label their disks with? This seems highly unnecessary and overreaching.

Not to mention that determining whether something be say, recommended sixteen or recommended seventeen would probably require a special "panel" which could even lead to CD's languishing in a backlog instead of hitting the shelves.

Well, to play devil's advocate, do you think any stickers should be placed on CD covers to advertise potential inappropriate content?


I believe, and I am pretty sure that Dallas would concur, that companies should be able to sell their products in whichever way they have determined is best, and I would not presume to know how to do that than they do.

Yes.

In fact, I think any responsible parent would be doing a little research on the product themselves before letting their child have a video game or CD. If a parent is that far removed from their child's life, then there are more problems in the household than whether Marilyn Manson is on their kid's iTunes.

EDIT: I see the bill has been withdrawn.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 06, 2011, 05:53:34 PM
The gentleman withdraws his bill.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from New York.  Debate will be for 48 hours.

Quote
Amendment to The Vacancy filling Act

In accordance to Article II, section 8 of the Fourth Northeast Constitution, vacancies in the Legislative Assembly shall be filled in the following manner :

    In the case of a vacancy in the Northeast Legislative Assembly for any reason, a special election shall be held to elect a new Representative.
    The special election must take place no less than 5 days following the vacancy and the booth shall open at 12:00 AM EST on the nearest Friday, provided that Friday is at least 5 days since the vacancy occurred and shall close on that Sunday at 11:59 PM EST, to be administered by the appropriate official.
    The appropriate official shall place the names of all candidates who declare their intention to run in the special election on the Candidate Declaration Thread before 12:00 midnight Eastern time on the Thursday before the poll opens.
    Any candidate who receives write-in votes must confirm that he or she is willing to assume the vacancy by publicly declaring a willingness to receive write-in votes before the polls close in the Candidate Declaration Thread or writing in his or her own name on the ballot to fill the vacancy. Otherwise, those write-in votes shall be deemed void.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 06, 2011, 05:55:33 PM
I have no objection to this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 06, 2011, 06:04:33 PM
Just a constitutional reference amendment.  Unless someone has any major changes they'd like to propose to the Vacancy Filling Act, I'll motion to lower debate time tonight.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on December 06, 2011, 06:13:17 PM
How about: in the case that the Representative serving as Lieutenant Governor has vacated his or her seat, the winner of the special election shall assume the responsibilities of Lieutenant Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 06, 2011, 06:14:15 PM
I introduce the following amendment.

Quote
Amendment to The Vacancy filling Act

In accordance to Article II, section 8 of the Fourth Northeast Constitution, vacancies in the Legislative Assembly and the Northeast Lieutenant Governor's office shall be filled in the following manner :

    In the case of a vacancy in the Northeast Legislative Assembly or the position of the Lieutenant Governor for any reason, a special election shall be held to elect a new Representative or Lieutenant Governor.
    The special election must take place no less than 5 days following the vacancy and the booth shall open at 12:00 AM EST on the nearest Friday, provided that Friday is at least 5 days since the vacancy occurred and shall close on that Sunday at 11:59 PM EST, to be administered by the appropriate official.
    The appropriate official shall place the names of all candidates who declare their intention to run in the special election on the Candidate Declaration Thread before 12:00 midnight Eastern time on the Thursday before the poll opens.
    Any candidate who receives write-in votes must confirm that he or she is willing to assume the vacancy by publicly declaring a willingness to receive write-in votes before the polls close in the Candidate Declaration Thread or writing in his or her own name on the ballot to fill the vacancy. Otherwise, those write-in votes shall be deemed void.

This way, we will have finally settled the issue and I won't have to reintroduce my constitutional amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on December 06, 2011, 06:15:43 PM
The wording needs fixed since the Lieutenant Governor is a Representative.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 06, 2011, 06:17:38 PM
In that case:

Quote
Amendment to The Vacancy filling Act

In accordance to Article II, section 8 of the Fourth Northeast Constitution, vacancies in the Legislative Assembly shall be filled in the following manner :

    In the case of a vacancy in the Northeast Legislative Assembly for any reason, a special election shall be held to elect a new Representative.
In the case that the Representative serving as Lieutenant Governor has vacated his or her seat, the winner of the special election shall assume the responsibilities of Lieutenant Governor.
    The special election must take place no less than 5 days following the vacancy and the booth shall open at 12:00 AM EST on the nearest Friday, provided that Friday is at least 5 days since the vacancy occurred and shall close on that Sunday at 11:59 PM EST, to be administered by the appropriate official.
    The appropriate official shall place the names of all candidates who declare their intention to run in the special election on the Candidate Declaration Thread before 12:00 midnight Eastern time on the Thursday before the poll opens.
    Any candidate who receives write-in votes must confirm that he or she is willing to assume the vacancy by publicly declaring a willingness to receive write-in votes before the polls close in the Candidate Declaration Thread or writing in his or her own name on the ballot to fill the vacancy. Otherwise, those write-in votes shall be deemed void.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 06, 2011, 06:22:12 PM
If you deem it acceptable Napoleon, I'll consider it friendly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on December 06, 2011, 06:23:05 PM
Looks alright to me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 06, 2011, 06:29:23 PM
The amendment is adopted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 06, 2011, 06:35:08 PM

I accept the amendment as friendly (officially) ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 06, 2011, 06:37:34 PM
Question, does the current law state that vacancies are not filled by election?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 06, 2011, 06:48:04 PM
Question, does the current law state that vacancies are not filled by election?

The Lt. Governor position has been filled by Governor appointment (with Assembly recommendation) since I've been here.  Otherwise, the part referring to "regular" Representatives hasn't been changed in this amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on December 06, 2011, 08:57:12 PM
I support this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 08, 2011, 06:02:42 PM
Debate time has expired.  Members will now cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

Quote
Amendment to The Vacancy filling Act

In accordance to Article II, section 8 of the Fourth Northeast Constitution, vacancies in the Legislative Assembly shall be filled in the following manner :

    In the case of a vacancy in the Northeast Legislative Assembly for any reason, a special election shall be held to elect a new Representative.
In the case that the Representative serving as Lieutenant Governor has vacated his or her seat, the winner of the special election shall assume the responsibilities of Lieutenant Governor.
    The special election must take place no less than 5 days following the vacancy and the booth shall open at 12:00 AM EST on the nearest Friday, provided that Friday is at least 5 days since the vacancy occurred and shall close on that Sunday at 11:59 PM EST, to be administered by the appropriate official.
    The appropriate official shall place the names of all candidates who declare their intention to run in the special election on the Candidate Declaration Thread before 12:00 midnight Eastern time on the Thursday before the poll opens.
    Any candidate who receives write-in votes must confirm that he or she is willing to assume the vacancy by publicly declaring a willingness to receive write-in votes before the polls close in the Candidate Declaration Thread or writing in his or her own name on the ballot to fill the vacancy. Otherwise, those write-in votes shall be deemed void.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 08, 2011, 06:03:22 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 08, 2011, 06:13:12 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on December 08, 2011, 06:15:37 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 08, 2011, 06:28:34 PM
Aye. (trying to bring back a trend)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 08, 2011, 09:12:21 PM
Sure, Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Username MechaRFK on December 09, 2011, 03:01:28 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 09, 2011, 06:01:53 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are six, nays are zero, abstentions are zero, and non-voting members: one.  The bill is passed.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.  Debate will be for 48 hours.

Northeast Tax Reform Act of 2011

Income Tax

1. All individual state income taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide 4% flat tax.

Sales Tax

1. All individual state sales taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a regionwide 6.2% sales tax.

2. A Sales Tax shall not be levied on "essential" living items such as clothing, produce, water, meat, etc.

Cigarette Tax

1. Cigarettes are hereby levied with a 9% tax when purchased.

Alcohol Tax

1. Alcohol is hereby levied with a 14% tax when purchased.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 09, 2011, 06:15:11 PM
I looked on the wiki to see if this region has established a formal tax code, yet.  I was able to find some already, but they were apparently repealed by the SRC, so as far as I know, the region does not have a real tax code.  However, I must oppose the current proposal.  A flat tax would not curb income inequality and, in fact, would just continue that trend.  Unless the sponsor is willing to change this bill so that tax rates vary by income bracket, I am unable to support it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on December 09, 2011, 06:18:44 PM

Finally!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on December 09, 2011, 06:26:03 PM
I'm opposed to this bill and any attempts to change traditional tax structure in the region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 09, 2011, 06:42:53 PM
What is our current, tax structure?  What legislation do we have regarding taxation of cigarettes, alcohol, ect? 

FTR, I oppose this bill.  Though, considering the Governor has to do a budget very soon, it's definitely a good idea to find all relevant, non-repealed tax information. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 09, 2011, 06:59:24 PM
This (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Eminent_Domain_/_Property_Tax_Valuation_Linkage_Act) appears to be the only tax in this region that has not been repealed.  Actually, I'm not even sure if this a 'tax', per se.  Everything else we have that's relevant to the tax code is... deductions.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 09, 2011, 07:01:21 PM
What a wonderful state of affairs!  I of course oppose this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on December 09, 2011, 07:03:21 PM
Just make this law again

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Northeast_March_2005_Tax_Initiative


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on December 09, 2011, 07:06:41 PM
Raising taxes is a losing battle the flat tax works and can be considered a return to status quo, something everyone should be qble to at leaswt settle for, for practical purposes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 09, 2011, 07:07:42 PM
What a wonderful state of affairs!  I of course oppose this bill.

I thought you would be behind flat taxes 100%.  Or do you oppose it because it imposes taxes in a region that currently has nothing generating revenue at all?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 09, 2011, 07:09:14 PM
Raising taxes is a losing battle the flat tax works and can be considered a return to status quo, something everyone should be qble to at leaswt settle for, for practical purposes.

I suppose I would settle for it, if there's nothing else.  But that, of course, is only because we apparently don't have a tax code in this region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on December 09, 2011, 07:18:14 PM
Raising taxes is a losing battle the flat tax works and can be considered a return to status quo, something everyone should be qble to at leaswt settle for, for practical purposes.

I suppose I would settle for it, if there's nothing else.  But that, of course, is only because we apparently don't have a tax code in this region.

That's the priority here: getting some kind of tax code.

FTR I will state that excise taxes are regressive and a bit authoritarian.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 09, 2011, 08:34:48 PM
Then just introduce an amendment to match the % the March 2005 Initiative.  I guess I could consider voting in favour of it, but I do hope we don't just ignore our tax system, and consider a real one soon.

Raising taxes is a losing battle the flat tax works and can be considered a return to status quo, something everyone should be qble to at leaswt settle for, for practical purposes.

Is it?  If we set it up the right way, I'd have no problem taxing the higher percentages more, and the middle/lower class less.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on December 09, 2011, 09:34:19 PM
If this bill is passed by this Assembly, I intend to exercise my veto power.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on December 09, 2011, 09:41:50 PM
What a wonderful state of affairs!  I of course oppose this bill.

You just love to be a naysayer, don't you? "Oh I'm a Libertarian!" you're not. You're nothing but a contrarian. You must oppose everything. You're the token nay vote in nearly every bill. You're doing the people of this region no favors by doing that.

Anywho, I suggest we pass this bill because, as stated, we do not have a current tax code. Feel free to amend this bill in the near or distant future, but I suggest we just get a tax code in place. It's a little strange that we don't have one.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on December 09, 2011, 10:11:25 PM
I would propose my own tax system; can governors propose legislation, or would I need an assemblyman to propose it on my behalf?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 09, 2011, 10:31:55 PM
I would propose my own tax system; can governors propose legislation, or would I need an assemblyman to propose it on my behalf?

Put it in the introduction thread and I'll sign it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 09, 2011, 10:41:19 PM
I would propose my own tax system; can governors propose legislation, or would I need an assemblyman to propose it on my behalf?

And maybe as an alternative, you can propose the legislation as an amendment to the bill being considered?  I don't believe there are any laws against that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on December 09, 2011, 10:42:48 PM
I'll get it into the thread by tomorrow.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 10, 2011, 12:20:48 AM
I find sin taxes to be wildly unwholesome. Not to mention that most states attempt to justify their cigarette taxes by claiming they "go towards children's health care" but I'm pretty sure CHP's are federally funded.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on December 10, 2011, 10:03:43 AM
I find sin taxes to be wildly unwholesome. Not to mention that most states attempt to justify their cigarette taxes by claiming they "go towards children's health care" but I'm pretty sure CHP's are federally funded.

Well, to be completely honest, I put those in the bill with the thought that our left-leaning Assemblymembers might be more willing to vote for it. I'd be very willing to accept amendments to remove or add things to this bill though.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 10, 2011, 11:55:31 AM
I'm not sure if I'll vote for this or not.  It depends on what Snowstalker proposes and whether or not it gets amended to the bill.  I am not, however, very willing to vote for it in its current form.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on December 10, 2011, 12:08:00 PM
I'm not sure if I'll vote for this or not.  It depends on what Snowstalker proposes and whether or not it gets amended to the bill.  I am not, however, very willing to vote for it in its current form.

I'm very willing to work on amendments to improve the bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on December 11, 2011, 10:10:05 AM
To my Colleagues,

I'd like to take this time to thank you all for what you've done to help shape me into the person I am today. I entered the Northeast Assembly a long time ago with little to no knowledge of how things work, but with the help of many people, I have learned a lot. In particular, I'd like to thank the following people:

  • Napoleon, for being a great friend of mine and helping to get me elected Governor of the region, regardless of what happened afterward.
  • Wormyguy, for sort of being my "guide" into politics in not only this region, but this country. We may have our difference nowadays, but I am forever grateful.
  • Dallasfan, for being my mentor in Atlasian politics. He's been a great friend of mine for almost as long as I've been an Assemblyman.
  • Winfield, for doing a fantastic job as Governor in my absence. I've probably said it 100 times, but you far exceeded my expectations and did better than I ever could have.
  • Last, but certainly not least, the current Assembly and Governor Snowstalker, for being one of the most diverse group of leaders I have ever encountered. The different ideologies and backgrounds coming together for one purpose-The People-is heartwarming.

I wish you all best of luck in your future endeavors as I go off into the Senate. I'll still be around though, don't worry ;)

Again, thank you all for what you guys have done for me, it really, truly does mean a lot to me.

-20RP12


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Username MechaRFK on December 11, 2011, 11:44:20 AM
We will miss your jolly fun you brought to the assembly Jake.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on December 11, 2011, 11:54:12 AM
We will miss your jolly fun you brought to the assembly Jake.

Thank you, RFK :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 11, 2011, 02:20:28 PM
It was a pleasure having you in the Assembly, Jake.  Good luck in the Senate. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on December 11, 2011, 02:27:08 PM
Thanks Jake, truly meaningful statement. It will be a pleasure to serve with you once more. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on December 11, 2011, 04:51:04 PM
It was a pleasure having you in the Assembly, Jake.  Good luck in the Senate. :)

Thank you very much :)

Thanks Jake, truly meaningful statement. It will be a pleasure to serve with you once more. :)

Looking forward to it as well! :D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 11, 2011, 05:41:15 PM
Thank you, Jake, I wish you every success.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 11, 2011, 06:03:20 PM
Debate time has expired.  Members will now cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

Northeast Tax Reform Act of 2011

Income Tax

1. All individual state income taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide 4% flat tax.

Sales Tax

1. All individual state sales taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a regionwide 6.2% sales tax.

2. A Sales Tax shall not be levied on "essential" living items such as clothing, produce, water, meat, etc.

Cigarette Tax

1. Cigarettes are hereby levied with a 9% tax when purchased.

Alcohol Tax

1. Alcohol is hereby levied with a 14% tax when purchased.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 11, 2011, 06:03:59 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on December 11, 2011, 06:05:10 PM
My last vote, Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Username MechaRFK on December 11, 2011, 06:21:07 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 11, 2011, 08:39:53 PM
Nay.



Quote
Dallasfan, for being my mentor in Atlasian politics. He's been a great friend of mine for almost as long as I've been an Assemblyman.

You know, I honestly don't know what to say my friend. I am rather honored that you hold me in such high esteem, although I do not think I am deserving. You are indeed a class act, never change.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 11, 2011, 09:59:36 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 11, 2011, 10:19:51 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 12, 2011, 06:59:04 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are one, nays are five, and non-voting members one. abstentions are zero, and non-voting members: one.  The bill fails.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts.  Debate will be for 48 hours.

The Miscarraige of Justice Prevention Act

1. Jury instructions

Jury instructions in criminal cases with not-guilty pleas from this point on must include the following phrasing:

"Your job, as jurors, is to decide whether the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.  This does not mean that you should always convict if you believe the defendant is probably guilty; it means that you should convict only if there is no reasonable possibility that the subject is innocent.  The legal system in the Northeast Region presumes that all defendants are innocent.  You must presume that the defendant in this case is innocent, and ascertain whether the evidence in this case proves the defendant guilty, beyond all reasonable doubt."

2. Conviction percentage as grounds for reward

The Attorney General's office, and the District Attorney's offices, may not use percentage of cases resulting in convictions as a criterion for either promotion or reward.  Violation of this law shall be considered a felony punishable by not less than 5 years in prison and/or a fine of not less than $500,000.

3. Police and government official testimony

Judges must instruct jurors that testimony from police officers or other government officials cannot be considered any more credible than testimony from any other person, as needed.

4. Lineup procedures

a. An officer administering a photo or live lineup array must not know which individual in the lineup is the suspect.

b. All individuals in a lineup must resemble the eyewitness's initial description of the perpetrator, including race, hair color, eye color, facial hair, etc.  The suspect should not be the only individual in the lineup with a certain obvious feature unless unavoidable (for example, a distinctive tattoo or scar).

c. Eyewitnesses may not be shown multiple lineups with the same suspect.

d. The person viewing a lineup must be told that the perpetrator may not be in the lineup and that the investigation will continue regardless of the lineup result. They must also be told not to look to the administrator for guidance.

e. Immediately following the lineup procedure, the eyewitness must provide a statement, in his or her own words, articulating his or her level of confidence in the identification.

f. All lineup procedures must be videotaped.

g. Lineups must be performed sequentially (the eyewitness views each individual one by one) rather than simultaneously (the eyewitness views all individuals in the lineup at once).

h. Suspects who were convicted in substantial part due to lineup procedures which did not follow the rules of conduct listed above shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

5. Discredited forms of evidence

a. Discredited and pseudoscientific forms of evidence collection, including hair and fiber analysis, bite mark analysis, firearm mark analysis, shoe print comparison, polygraph examinations, and testimony obtained under hypnosis shall be considered inadmissable as evidence in a court of law.

b. Suspects who were convicted in substantial part due to the discredited forms of evidence listed above shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

6. Serology

a. Before expert testimony regarding serology (blood type analysis), the presiding Judge must instruct the jurors that the victim's and perpetrator's blood may have mixed, possibly yielding a false result as to the perpetrator's blood type, and that millions of different people in the Northeast Region share any given blood type.

b. Experts presenting serology may not provide the jury with statistics about percentages of the population which have certain blood types, given that this testimony has been frequently shown to be inaccurate and there are wide fluctuations in the prevalence of certain blood types between different races, ethnicities, and regions of the country.

c. Suspects who were convicted in substantial part due to expert testimony involving serology which did not follow the rules of conduct listed above shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

7. Interrogations

a. All interrogations of suspects must be videotaped.

b. Judges must instruct the jury in cases of juveniles or mentally retarded individuals that juveniles and mentally retarded individuals often do not understand their situation and are particularly likely to give false confessions.

c. Suspects who were convicted or pled guilty in substantial part due to interrogations which did not follow the rules of conduct listed above shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

8. Informant testimony

a. Whenever testimony from a prison informant is used, the presiding Judge must instruct the jury that most informant testimony is unreliable as it may be offered in return for deals, special treatment, or the dropping of charges.

b. Prosecutors must reveal any incentive the informant receives, and all communication between prosecutors and informants must be videotaped.

c. Suspects who were convicted in substantial part due to informant testimony which did not follow the rules of conduct listed above shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

9. New use of DNA evidence

a. All persons convicted in cases where DNA evidence remains but was not presented in the original trial or an appeal are entitled to have DNA testing performed on said evidence.

b. Suspects who were convicted in substantial part in a case where possible DNA evidence existed shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

c. Possible DNA evidence may not be destroyed.  Violation of this law shall be a misdemeanor punishable by not more than 1 year in prison and/or a fine of not more than $25,000.

10. Double jeopardy

a. A suspect must be charged with all charges relating to a specific offense at his or her original trial.  Suspects may not be brought up on new charges relating to the same defense unless prosecutors can reasonably show that they have found new evidence relating to these new charges since the initial trial.

b. Suspects may not be named in both a criminal and a civil suit relating to the same offense.

c. Suspects may not be charged with regional charges relating to a specific offense after having already been charged relating to that offense at the Federal level.

d. Suspects may not be remanded into Federal custody to be charged related to a specific offense after having already been charged relating to that offense at the regional level.  Regional authorities may not assist Federal authorities in investigating or apprehending suspects already charged at the regional level.  Suspects must be placed into anonymous protective custody provided by the region at their request, if they reasonably believe they will be Federally charged related to a specific offense after having already been charged relating to that offense at the regional level.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on December 12, 2011, 07:12:13 PM
Awesome.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 12, 2011, 07:49:47 PM
Thank you, speaker.

There have recently been a great deal of cases of people proven to be wrongfully convicted, thanks to the work of The Innocence Project (http://www.innocenceproject.org/) and similar organizations.  Many of these convictions were based on discredited or faulty forms of evidence such as improperly-conducted lineup procedures, improperly obtained or biased testimony, or forms of forensic evidence portrayed in court as infallible but which are in fact extremely inaccurate.  This bill attempts to ban these poor practices from a court of law, in order so that juries can receive only credible witness and expert testimony.

There have also been attempts to undo certain foundational concepts of our legal system, particularly the banning of putting a suspect on trial twice for the same crime (double jeopardy).  If a man were accused of punching a police officer of a different ethnicity or gender, for example, he could be charged with assault, then assault as a hate crime, then assault of a police officer, then assault of a police officer as a hate crime, then resisting arrest, then breach of the peace, etc. etc. etc. until a charge sticks.  This, and other related practices such as pressing the same charges against a defendant in both regional and federal court, or both criminal and civil court, violate this fundamental civil liberty constitutionally guaranteed in the justice system.  This bill bans all of the double jeopardy practices under regional jurisdiction, and attempts to obstruct attempts by the Federal government to subject Northeast citizens to double jeopardy.

Many of the abuses mentioned above stem from one especially broken part of the justice system - the practive of determining the skill of a prosecutor by what percentage of cases he or she achieves convictions on.  This is, to use somewhat vulgar terminology, ass backwards.  A prosecutor's worth ought to be determined by what percentage of cases were correctly decided, not how many resulted in convictions.  The practice of determining a prosecutor's worth by how often they convict has caused unethical behavior to run rampant in the AG's and DAs' offices, and The Innocence Project among others often finds their cases obstructed by prosecutors even after obtaining incontrovertible DNA evidence exonerating their suspects, simply because the prosecutors do not want their conviction percentages to be reduced.  This is outrageous and must be stopped.  It is not the job of the prosecutor to obtain a conviction, but rather to impartially present the region's case to the jury, along with any evidence the region has collected, whether it helps or hinder's the region's case.  The prosecutor exists to help the court to find the correct verdict, not to bamboozle it into a potentially-inappropriate guilty one.  This bill bans the inappropriate practice of rewarding prosecutors based on how often they convict, and also requires jury instructions to include a clear explanation of the concept of presumption of innocence.


Thanks!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on December 12, 2011, 08:11:16 PM
Support!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 12, 2011, 08:22:42 PM
I support this legislation, and I would like to offer two amendments.

Assuming these aren't illegal, already...

Quote
11. Entrapment

a. Public officials may not coerce a person to commit a crime that they would have otherwise been unlikely to admit.

b. Depending on the law in the jurisdiction, the prosecution will be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped or the defendant may be required to prove that he was entrapped as an affirmative defense.

Quote
12. Bribery

a. Gifts may not be bestowed to police officers or government officials to influence their charge in the act of a public or legal duty.  Gifts include money, goods, property, objects of value, advantages, or privileges.

b. Public officials may not request or solicit for bribes in legal cases.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 12, 2011, 08:28:27 PM
I'll accept those as friendly, though they would presumably already be law.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 12, 2011, 08:31:32 PM
The amendments are adopted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 12, 2011, 08:41:11 PM
Excellent bill wormy, I really wish you would introduce these more often.  I particularly like Section 2, and Section 7a.  This bill has my support, and if I can think of anything to add, I'll let you know.

I'll accept those as friendly, though they would presumably already be law.

Entrapment and bribery, yes.  Though, if Scott wants it in, it won't really have much consequence either way I would imagine.

 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on December 12, 2011, 09:44:38 PM
I thank the assemblyman from Massachusetts for the most detailed piece of legislation that's come to my attention in my term. This will definitely be signed on my desk.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 13, 2011, 09:21:28 PM
I support this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 14, 2011, 07:05:33 PM
Debate time has expired.  Members will now cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

The Miscarraige of Justice Prevention Act

1. Jury instructions

Jury instructions in criminal cases with not-guilty pleas from this point on must include the following phrasing:

"Your job, as jurors, is to decide whether the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.  This does not mean that you should always convict if you believe the defendant is probably guilty; it means that you should convict only if there is no reasonable possibility that the subject is innocent.  The legal system in the Northeast Region presumes that all defendants are innocent.  You must presume that the defendant in this case is innocent, and ascertain whether the evidence in this case proves the defendant guilty, beyond all reasonable doubt."

2. Conviction percentage as grounds for reward

The Attorney General's office, and the District Attorney's offices, may not use percentage of cases resulting in convictions as a criterion for either promotion or reward.  Violation of this law shall be considered a felony punishable by not less than 5 years in prison and/or a fine of not less than $500,000.

3. Police and government official testimony

Judges must instruct jurors that testimony from police officers or other government officials cannot be considered any more credible than testimony from any other person, as needed.

4. Lineup procedures

a. An officer administering a photo or live lineup array must not know which individual in the lineup is the suspect.

b. All individuals in a lineup must resemble the eyewitness's initial description of the perpetrator, including race, hair color, eye color, facial hair, etc.  The suspect should not be the only individual in the lineup with a certain obvious feature unless unavoidable (for example, a distinctive tattoo or scar).

c. Eyewitnesses may not be shown multiple lineups with the same suspect.

d. The person viewing a lineup must be told that the perpetrator may not be in the lineup and that the investigation will continue regardless of the lineup result. They must also be told not to look to the administrator for guidance.

e. Immediately following the lineup procedure, the eyewitness must provide a statement, in his or her own words, articulating his or her level of confidence in the identification.

f. All lineup procedures must be videotaped.

g. Lineups must be performed sequentially (the eyewitness views each individual one by one) rather than simultaneously (the eyewitness views all individuals in the lineup at once).

h. Suspects who were convicted in substantial part due to lineup procedures which did not follow the rules of conduct listed above shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

5. Discredited forms of evidence

a. Discredited and pseudoscientific forms of evidence collection, including hair and fiber analysis, bite mark analysis, firearm mark analysis, shoe print comparison, polygraph examinations, and testimony obtained under hypnosis shall be considered inadmissable as evidence in a court of law.

b. Suspects who were convicted in substantial part due to the discredited forms of evidence listed above shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

6. Serology

a. Before expert testimony regarding serology (blood type analysis), the presiding Judge must instruct the jurors that the victim's and perpetrator's blood may have mixed, possibly yielding a false result as to the perpetrator's blood type, and that millions of different people in the Northeast Region share any given blood type.

b. Experts presenting serology may not provide the jury with statistics about percentages of the population which have certain blood types, given that this testimony has been frequently shown to be inaccurate and there are wide fluctuations in the prevalence of certain blood types between different races, ethnicities, and regions of the country.

c. Suspects who were convicted in substantial part due to expert testimony involving serology which did not follow the rules of conduct listed above shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

7. Interrogations

a. All interrogations of suspects must be videotaped.

b. Judges must instruct the jury in cases of juveniles or mentally retarded individuals that juveniles and mentally retarded individuals often do not understand their situation and are particularly likely to give false confessions.

c. Suspects who were convicted or pled guilty in substantial part due to interrogations which did not follow the rules of conduct listed above shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

8. Informant testimony

a. Whenever testimony from a prison informant is used, the presiding Judge must instruct the jury that most informant testimony is unreliable as it may be offered in return for deals, special treatment, or the dropping of charges.

b. Prosecutors must reveal any incentive the informant receives, and all communication between prosecutors and informants must be videotaped.

c. Suspects who were convicted in substantial part due to informant testimony which did not follow the rules of conduct listed above shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

9. New use of DNA evidence

a. All persons convicted in cases where DNA evidence remains but was not presented in the original trial or an appeal are entitled to have DNA testing performed on said evidence.

b. Suspects who were convicted in substantial part in a case where possible DNA evidence existed shall be entitled to appeal their case on those grounds, even if they already have prior to the passage of this law.

c. Possible DNA evidence may not be destroyed.  Violation of this law shall be a misdemeanor punishable by not more than 1 year in prison and/or a fine of not more than $25,000.

10. Double jeopardy

a. A suspect must be charged with all charges relating to a specific offense at his or her original trial.  Suspects may not be brought up on new charges relating to the same defense unless prosecutors can reasonably show that they have found new evidence relating to these new charges since the initial trial.

b. Suspects may not be named in both a criminal and a civil suit relating to the same offense.

c. Suspects may not be charged with regional charges relating to a specific offense after having already been charged relating to that offense at the Federal level.

d. Suspects may not be remanded into Federal custody to be charged related to a specific offense after having already been charged relating to that offense at the regional level.  Regional authorities may not assist Federal authorities in investigating or apprehending suspects already charged at the regional level.  Suspects must be placed into anonymous protective custody provided by the region at their request, if they reasonably believe they will be Federally charged related to a specific offense after having already been charged relating to that offense at the regional level.

11. Entrapment

a. Public officials may not coerce a person to commit a crime that they would have otherwise been unlikely to admit.

b. Depending on the law in the jurisdiction, the prosecution will be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped or the defendant may be required to prove that he was entrapped as an affirmative defense.

12. Bribery

a. Gifts may not be bestowed to police officers or government officials to influence their charge in the act of a public or legal duty.  Gifts include money, goods, property, objects of value, advantages, or privileges.

b. Public officials may not request or solicit for bribes in legal cases.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 14, 2011, 07:06:11 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 14, 2011, 07:19:10 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on December 14, 2011, 07:26:20 PM
I guess I'm still a member until January :P

Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 14, 2011, 07:27:14 PM
I guess I'm still a member until January :P


Until after this weeks election.

Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 15, 2011, 01:23:33 AM
AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on December 15, 2011, 05:35:57 PM
Aye.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Username MechaRFK on December 15, 2011, 06:26:15 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 15, 2011, 09:07:57 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are seven and nays are zero.  The bill is passed.

Shall I bring up another bill, or is this it until next session?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 15, 2011, 09:52:32 PM
You should be able to bring up one more if you do it right about now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 15, 2011, 10:16:41 PM
The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by myself.  Debate will be for 48 hours.

The Mountaintop Removal Ban Act

A BILL to preserve the environment and public health by banning the removal of summits or summit ridges of mountains

1. The Northeast Assembly hereby acknowledges:

  • That mountaintop removal is considered an 'extreme form' of mining
  • That mountaintop removal hurts biodiversity
  • That mountaintop removal reduces workers
  • That mountaintop removal is a threat to the public health

2. The Northeast government shall not distribute any permits to coal-mining industries that desire to mine through the means of mountaintop removal.

3. Mining industries that partake in this practice will be fined at a maximum of $250,000.  The final amount shall be determined in a court of law.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 15, 2011, 10:18:38 PM
Here is my justification for this bill.
Mountaintop removal is known to be an 'extreme' form of mining that occurs rarely, but has great negative impacts on people who live near the areas of where it takes place.  It destroys our beautiful mountains, harms biodiversity, fills our water with dirt and pollutants, contaminates the air with coal dust, and inevitably harms the health of residents nearby.  The form of mining also doesn't create new jobs, but reduces the need for workers.  The Northeast government should not permit this type of environmental destruction in our region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on December 16, 2011, 03:45:54 PM
Being from a coal mining state, I endorse this legislation. Even in states like West Virginia, most residents oppose mountain-top mining as a particularly destructive form of mining which causes erosion (and therefore pollution), destroys the scenic Appalachians, and takes away jobs which could be created through slower but safer methods of mining.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 17, 2011, 07:11:00 PM
I support this legislation.  It's intent to protect our biodiversity, and prevent adverse effects is commendable.  It's important that we balance our demand for energy, and responsibility to the environment.  In this regard, I feel the benefit of this bill, far outweighs the benefit of permitting this method of mining.     


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 17, 2011, 08:45:52 PM
This bill is not only silly but also harmful.  Coal mining is inevitably a process which causes environmental damage, and obviously mining more coal would cause more damage.  However, it is ridiculous to say that coal should only be sourced from many small mines (all of which are environmentally-damaging eyesores), as opposed to a few big mines.  The level of environmental damage is going to inevitably be the same or even higher since only less-efficient methods are allowed to be used.

All this does is raise the price of energy, which will impact low-income individuals the most, and makes our mining industry uncompetitive compared to other regions and other countries which do not have these restrictions.  The 'mountaintop removal' will simply travel elsewhere, as well as the blue-collar unionized mining jobs that go with the coal mining industry.

If environmentalists are truly so concerned about this, then they are perfectly free to put their money where their mouth is and purchase said mountaintops from coal mining companies to be made into whatever sort of nature preserve they like.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 17, 2011, 09:10:17 PM
This bill is not only silly but also harmful.  Coal mining is inevitably a process which causes environmental damage, and obviously mining more coal would cause more damage.  However, it is ridiculous to say that coal should only be sourced from many small mines (all of which are environmentally-damaging eyesores), as opposed to a few big mines.  The level of environmental damage is going to inevitably be the same or even higher since only less-efficient methods are allowed to be used.

All this does is raise the price of energy, which will impact low-income individuals the most, and makes our mining industry uncompetitive compared to other regions and other countries which do not have these restrictions.  The 'mountaintop removal' will simply travel elsewhere, as well as the blue-collar unionized mining jobs that go with the coal mining industry.

If environmentalists are truly so concerned about this, then they are perfectly free to put their money where their mouth is and purchase said mountaintops from coal mining companies to be made into whatever sort of nature preserve they like.

Regular mining does not result in the damage of approximately 1,200 miles of streams, destroyed forests on some 300 square miles of land, contamination drinking water, flooded communities, or destroyed wildlife the way mountaintop removal does.  The companies will be allowed to use other methods of mining, but not kinds that are capable of such destruction and environmental harm.  Inhabitants of places like rural Pennsylvania are directly impacted by the decisions of these coal-mining industries.

All the costs are externalized in the form of damaged health and the environment.  And, as previously stated, mountaintop removal takes away jobs.  On top of all that, hunting, fishing, and other activities flourish in these sights.  My bill would not have a high impact on jobs and, if anything, would reduce costs in the long run.  But right now, we are choosing between cheaper energy and the quality of life for Appalachian residents.

I would be very open to purchasing nature preservations if such a proposal is made.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 17, 2011, 09:21:01 PM
Also, numerous polls such as these (http://pachurchesadvocacy.org/weblog/?p=8741) have shown that the vast majority of Appalachian residents oppose the procedure.  This Assembly ought to represent them and their views, since their lives will be affected by this bill the most.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 17, 2011, 10:06:13 PM
But if we don't flatten the Appalachians, how will we ever make room for the Senator Libertas Memorial Park, or my palace?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 17, 2011, 10:08:14 PM
But if we don't flatten the Appalachians, how will we ever make room for the Senator Libertas Memorial Park, or my palace?

Ever hear of a beautiful, flat place called Nebraska? :D

But in all seriousness, there are many places in the Northeast not in Appalachia.  If you want to build something on flat land, you are welcome to do so, but such an extreme form of mining has a significant impact on the lives of people on this land.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 17, 2011, 10:23:21 PM
Debate time has expired.  Members will now cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

The Mountaintop Removal Ban Act

A BILL to preserve the environment and public health by banning the removal of summits or summit ridges of mountains

1. The Northeast Assembly hereby acknowledges:

  • That mountaintop removal is considered an 'extreme form' of mining
  • That mountaintop removal hurts biodiversity
  • That mountaintop removal reduces workers
  • That mountaintop removal is a threat to the public health

2. The Northeast government shall not distribute any permits to coal-mining industries that desire to mine through the means of mountaintop removal.

3. Mining industries that partake in this practice will be fined at a maximum of $250,000.  The final amount shall be determined in a court of law.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 17, 2011, 10:23:42 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 17, 2011, 10:24:26 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 17, 2011, 10:28:50 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 17, 2011, 11:29:38 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on December 18, 2011, 12:20:31 AM
Can I still vote? If so, Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 18, 2011, 10:39:30 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are four, nays are one, abstentions zero, and non-voting members two.  The bill is passed.

No further legislation shall be considered by this body until the following session.  Please reintroduce all new bills after the start of the next session.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on December 21, 2011, 03:36:14 PM
The new session begins tomorrow. At that time, I will open nominations for Speaker (though I officially have no say, I endorse Scott)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 21, 2011, 09:28:48 PM
Thank you, Governor.

Please swear in if you haven't yet, everyone.  Only Cincinnatus and I have done so.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on December 22, 2011, 12:10:44 AM
I have no idea if I've been re-elected or not.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 22, 2011, 08:40:44 AM
The new session begins tomorrow. At that time, I will open nominations for Speaker (though I officially have no say, I endorse Scott)

I oppose this blatant act of cronyism ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Username MechaRFK on December 22, 2011, 03:03:52 PM
I swear in.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 22, 2011, 03:12:27 PM

This thread, (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=36934.915) please. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on December 22, 2011, 03:32:55 PM
Scott has been an excellent Speaker and the Northeast would be blessed if he chose to serve again.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 22, 2011, 03:35:47 PM
Thank you for your kind words, Napoleon.  I would very much like to run for the position again.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on December 22, 2011, 03:47:25 PM
I'm throwing my tentative support behind Scott for Speaker :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 22, 2011, 03:58:19 PM
Thank you, 20RP12. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on December 22, 2011, 04:01:00 PM
Official nominations for Speaker are open.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 22, 2011, 09:13:51 PM
I would like to nominate myself.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on December 23, 2011, 08:25:24 PM
Please vote on the next speaker. Voting lasts until whenever all 4 members of the assembly vote.

[ ] Scott
[ ] Write-in:______


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 23, 2011, 08:33:36 PM
[1] Scott
[2] Write-in: Cincinnatus


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 24, 2011, 09:27:49 AM
X Scott


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on December 25, 2011, 11:39:02 PM
Uhh... let's just give it to Scott.

This session is now open.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 26, 2011, 08:41:54 AM
Uhh... let's just give it to Scott.

This session is now open.

Would that be legal?  The Northeast Assembly Speaker Act authorizes that the Speaker be elected by a majority of legislators.  But of course, there are other parts of that act that the Assembly doesn't follow, either, technically.

Just want to clarify so there won't be any problems.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on December 26, 2011, 09:52:23 AM
Uhh... let's just give it to Scott.

This session is now open.

Would that be legal?  The Northeast Assembly Speaker Act authorizes that the Speaker be elected by a majority of legislators.  But of course, there are other parts of that act that the Assembly doesn't follow, either, technically.

Just want to clarify so there won't be any problems.


Yeah... pretty sure it isnt legal.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on December 26, 2011, 11:59:53 AM
Fine.

RFK, wormyguy, please vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Username MechaRFK on December 26, 2011, 01:21:52 PM
[1] Scott


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on December 26, 2011, 06:55:34 PM
Okay, session starts.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 27, 2011, 04:13:50 PM
First I would like to say thank you, to this Assembly, for giving me the opportunity to serve as your Speaker for another two months.

The Assembly will first consider the legislation introduced by myself.  Debate will be for 48 hours.

The Northeastern Anti-Bully Initiative Act of 2011

A BILL to curb bullying across the region and assist teenagers and families who struggle with bullying problems

1. Bullying is defined as:

  • Verbal harassment
  • Physical harassment
  • Cyber bullying
  • Stealing
  • Bullying that is motivated by race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation
  • Stalking

2. Teachers in Northeastern schools are hereby required to report all cases of bullying to their schools, school districts, fellow teachers, parents of the bully(s), parents of the student(s) being bullied, and if necessary, local law enforcement.

3. Bullying is hereby defined as a criminal offense.  Acts of bullying, as mentioned in section 1, are punishable through community service hours, after-school suspension, in-school suspension, expulsion, a monetary fine to be paid by the parents of the bully(s), or jail time, depending on the degree of the crime.

4. High schools are responsible for addressing the topic of bullying through lectures, health class assignments, or yearly assemblies.

5. The Northeast government shall subsidize anti-bullying and teen suicide prevention centers.

6. The Northeast shall apply for the appropriate funding for this law from the federal government, in compliance with The Atlasian Anti-bullying Bill 2011.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on December 27, 2011, 04:16:50 PM
Section 5 seems like a job best suited for the school counselor. The centers may be unnecessary if we can somehow encourage teens to use them if they have problems.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 27, 2011, 04:19:07 PM
In that case, I will amend that the section be taken out.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on December 28, 2011, 05:18:30 PM
I once again encourage Assemblymen to participate in the discussion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on December 29, 2011, 11:24:34 AM
I once again encourage Assemblymen to participate in the discussion.

You have to place the fear into them Mr. Governor! Threaten them to discuss. Tell them that you will replace them with a egg salad sandwich if they dont work. Thats what I did when I was Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 29, 2011, 04:18:12 PM
Debate time has expired.  Members will now cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

The Northeastern Anti-Bully Initiative Act of 2011

A BILL to curb bullying across the region and assist teenagers and families who struggle with bullying problems

1. Bullying is defined as:

  • Verbal harassment
  • Physical harassment
  • Cyber bullying
  • Stealing
  • Bullying that is motivated by race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation
  • Stalking

2. Teachers in Northeastern schools are hereby required to report all cases of bullying to their schools, school districts, fellow teachers, parents of the bully(s), parents of the student(s) being bullied, and if necessary, local law enforcement.

3. Bullying is hereby defined as a criminal offense.  Acts of bullying, as mentioned in section 1, are punishable through community service hours, after-school suspension, in-school suspension, expulsion, a monetary fine to be paid by the parents of the bully(s), or jail time, depending on the degree of the crime.

4. High schools are responsible for addressing the topic of bullying through lectures, health class assignments, or yearly assemblies.

5. The Northeast shall apply for the appropriate funding for this law from the federal government, in compliance with The Atlasian Anti-bullying Bill 2011.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 29, 2011, 04:18:40 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 29, 2011, 04:18:45 PM
Sorry for my relative absence, holidays and all.

Regarding the proposed legislation, I find it misguided.  While I detest bullying, I think this bill goes much too far in criminalizing speech.  If Scott were to respond to this post by calling me a stupid poopyface, he would be breaking the law under his own bill.  Free speech includes the freedom to say things intended to hurt the feelings of others.  The recourse that people generally have against this is that they are free not to associate with those who offend them.  School, obviously, is mandatory, so students do not have this recourse available to them.  I could therefore see some justification for criminalizing offensive speech in that context, but not in the context of activities outside of school.  As for physical bullying, that is already a crime - assault.

From my own experiences, I have found that one of the most pernicious aspects of school bullying is that not only do school authorities pay a blind eye to bullying, but that the only time a child is punished for "bullying" is when a bullied child snaps and attempts to get back at the bully either verbally or physically.  The school administration generally is more inclined to believe the side of the story of the adorable little sociopath who knows how to push people's emotional buttons than the fat little socially awkward kid.  I fear, therefore, that these criminal penalties will be applied to the bullied, rather than bullies, as has actually happened (http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/03/03/boy-arrested-after-allegedly-threatening-bullies-father-outraged/) (2 (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/12/02/7-year-old-accused-of-possible-sexual-harassment-for-kicking-boy-in-groin/)) in jurisdictions with such statutes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 29, 2011, 04:19:28 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 30, 2011, 03:01:51 PM
I'm conflicted here, so I have to Abstain :\


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on December 30, 2011, 03:09:28 PM
Nothing like a little tough love to make a man right?

I'm opposed to this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 30, 2011, 04:24:38 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are one, nays one, abstentions one, and non-voting members one.  The bill will now go to the Governor to be voted on by the Northeastern people at his will.  I would like to remind our members to, please, try harder to make arguments before votes come up and alert the Assembly if you won't be able to vote on something.  I, personally, find it not only annoying, but pointless to debate when such time expires, and this has happened on several occasions.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts.  Debate will be for forty-eight hours.

The Dihydrogen Monoxide Ban Act

Recognizing that dihydrogen monoxide is a substance more addictive than heroin, crack cocaine, or crystal meth, and causes severe withdrawal symptoms upon cessation of use, that dihydrogen monoxide is a frequently used "party drug," that well-known athletes have been known to abuse dihydrogen monoxide in order to increase performance, that the vast majority of users of cannabis, cocaine, meth, PCP and other drugs have reported "swigging" as a gateway behavior, that dihydrogen monoxide is often sweetened with sugar and marketed to small children in flavors like "cherry" and "root beer," and that dihydrogen monoxide is often mixed with other narcotics to enhance their effects, dihydrogen monoxide is hereby banned in the Northeast region.  Any stocks found are to be incinerated.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 30, 2011, 04:26:54 PM
Dihydrogen monoxide is an unfamiliar name for water that was the subject of an internet hoax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax).  As numerous scientific studies have shown, water is, in fact, necessary to sustain life.  Thus, I oppose this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on December 30, 2011, 04:30:38 PM
Use this opportunity to remove bans on substances instead of what is essentially trolling. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 30, 2011, 04:33:25 PM
Why don't you want to protect the children?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 30, 2011, 04:50:02 PM
Oh.  Ohhhhhhh, I get it now.  He's trying to be funny.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 30, 2011, 04:55:06 PM
Oh.  Ohhhhhhh, I get it now.  He's trying to be funny.

It's not very funny that thousands of people die each year from dihydrogen monoxide poisoning and millions more while under its influence.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on December 30, 2011, 05:34:40 PM
Just chiming in here, I think the Northeast Assembly has more important things to attend to instead of wasting time on a superfluous bill that uses an internet-created veil to ban water. Just my two sense.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 30, 2011, 05:40:28 PM
Just chiming in here, I think the Northeast Assembly has more important things to attend to instead of wasting time on a superfluous bill that uses an internet-created veil to ban water. Just my two sense.

Are you kidding?  This bill seeks to fix one of this regions most dire problems.  I expect nothing less than a unanimous affirmative vote.

On that note, I motion to reduce debate time by 12 hours.  Now would be a good time to remember that we still have yet to reconsider our SOAP by the way.  The fact that I can't motion to table this garbage is disturbing.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 30, 2011, 05:43:44 PM
The gentleman from New York motions to reduce debate time by twelve hours.  This will be a twenty-four hour vote.

On the motion to reduce debate time by twelve hours


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 30, 2011, 05:44:09 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 30, 2011, 05:45:07 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 30, 2011, 05:46:54 PM
The gentleman from New York motions to reduce debate time by twelve hours.  This will be a twenty-four hour vote.

On the motion to reduce debate time by twelve hours

There is no vote.  It's a request that can be granted, or not granted by you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 30, 2011, 05:47:42 PM
The gentleman from New York motions to reduce debate time by twelve hours.  This will be a twenty-four hour vote.

On the motion to reduce debate time by twelve hours

There is no vote.  It's a request that can be granted, or not granted by you.

Quote
(h) Any Representative may make a motion to suspend sections 3(a), 3(d) or 3(f) of this Standing Order to increase or decrease the time of the debate or voting period. The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor. Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours, or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the relevant period shall be changed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 30, 2011, 05:48:24 PM



Quote
Section 3, subsection (a) of the SOAP is hereby amended to read: All proposed legislation shall be open for debate for forty-eight (48) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor. The Lt. Governor shall have the authority to extend or shorten the debating period upon the written request of any Representative. No extension of the debate period shall exceed 72 hours, and no shortening shall exceed 12 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 30, 2011, 05:49:37 PM



Quote
Section 3, subsection (a) of the SOAP is hereby amended to read: All proposed legislation shall be open for debate for forty-eight (48) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor. The Lt. Governor shall have the authority to extend or shorten the debating period upon the written request of any Representative. No extension of the debate period shall exceed 72 hours, and no shortening shall exceed 12 hours.

Ah, okay.  Very good, then.

Motion granted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 30, 2011, 05:51:13 PM
Just chiming in here, I think the Northeast Assembly has more important things to attend to instead of wasting time on a superfluous bill that uses an internet-created veil to ban water. Just my two sense.

The next bill coming up is almost as ridiculous.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on December 30, 2011, 06:18:39 PM
Motion to amend the bill to also ban dioxygen.

The amendment is unfriendly, naturally.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 01, 2012, 08:42:25 AM
Debate time has expired.  Members will now cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

The Dihydrogen Monoxide Ban Act

Recognizing that dihydrogen monoxide is a substance more addictive than heroin, crack cocaine, or crystal meth, and causes severe withdrawal symptoms upon cessation of use, that dihydrogen monoxide is a frequently used "party drug," that well-known athletes have been known to abuse dihydrogen monoxide in order to increase performance, that the vast majority of users of cannabis, cocaine, meth, PCP and other drugs have reported "swigging" as a gateway behavior, that dihydrogen monoxide is often sweetened with sugar and marketed to small children in flavors like "cherry" and "root beer," and that dihydrogen monoxide is often mixed with other narcotics to enhance their effects, dihydrogen monoxide is hereby banned in the Northeast region.  Any stocks found are to be incinerated.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 01, 2012, 08:42:57 AM
NAY.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 01, 2012, 09:09:49 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 01, 2012, 11:31:27 AM
Ayesoceles triangle.

Also, we have to vote on my amendment first.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 01, 2012, 11:39:13 AM
Ayesoceles triangle.

Also, we have to vote on my amendment first.

Your amendment was deemed unfriendly by yourself.  As the sponsor, you're able to modify or amend it without a vote from the Assembly.  So no, we don't vote on the amendments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 01, 2012, 11:40:25 AM
Ayesoceles triangle.

Also, we have to vote on my amendment first.

Your amendment was deemed unfriendly by yourself.  As the sponsor, you're able to modify or amend it without a vote from the Assembly.  So no, we don't vote on the amendments.

Where does it say I can't propose an unfriendly amendment to my own bill?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on January 01, 2012, 11:44:15 AM
I don't understand why you decided to act like a douchebag right when everyone was starting to like you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 01, 2012, 11:53:22 AM
I don't understand why you decided to act like a douchebag right when everyone was starting to like you.

I'm not acting like a douchebag, I'm filibustering.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on January 01, 2012, 11:55:12 AM
I don't understand why you decided to act like a douchebag right when everyone was starting to like you.

I'm not acting like a douchebag, I'm filibustering.

Is there something you're filibustering in particular?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 01, 2012, 12:00:47 PM
I don't understand why you decided to act like a douchebag right when everyone was starting to like you.

I'm not acting like a douchebag, I'm filibustering.

Is there something you're filibustering in particular?

Yes, the tax bill.  I cannot in good conscience allow that to pass, especially given the absurdly high taxes that Northeast citizens already have to pay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 01, 2012, 12:40:16 PM
Fine then, vote on the damn amendment.

24 hours.

Nay.

A family emergency came up and I will have to go to the hospital soon, so I can't say how much time I'll have to deal with crap like this today.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 01, 2012, 10:23:28 PM
Nay..


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 01, 2012, 10:48:08 PM
Aye.  Dioxygen is a poison which has been linked to aging.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 02, 2012, 01:11:15 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are one, nays are two, abstentions zero, and non-voting members one.  The amendment fails.

Members will now cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

The Dihydrogen Monoxide Ban Act

Recognizing that dihydrogen monoxide is a substance more addictive than heroin, crack cocaine, or crystal meth, and causes severe withdrawal symptoms upon cessation of use, that dihydrogen monoxide is a frequently used "party drug," that well-known athletes have been known to abuse dihydrogen monoxide in order to increase performance, that the vast majority of users of cannabis, cocaine, meth, PCP and other drugs have reported "swigging" as a gateway behavior, that dihydrogen monoxide is often sweetened with sugar and marketed to small children in flavors like "cherry" and "root beer," and that dihydrogen monoxide is often mixed with other narcotics to enhance their effects, dihydrogen monoxide is hereby banned in the Northeast region.  Any stocks found are to be incinerated.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 02, 2012, 01:11:52 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 02, 2012, 01:23:21 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 03, 2012, 12:56:58 AM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 03, 2012, 02:51:38 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are one, nays are two, abstentions are zero, and non-voting members one.  The bill fails.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts.  Debate will be for forty-eight hours.

The Incredibly Important Act

The Northeast Region shall hereafter be renamed "The Funky Northeast Love Pad."


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on January 03, 2012, 03:22:30 PM
Is it possible to censure wormyguy or something?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 03, 2012, 04:50:46 PM

On that note, I motion to reduce debate time by 12 hours.  Now would be a good time to remember that we still have yet to reconsider our SOAP by the way.  The fact that I can't motion to table this garbage is disturbing.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 03, 2012, 05:44:24 PM
Guess who's back in the Northeast Assembly.  :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on January 03, 2012, 06:21:22 PM
I actually support the legislation current being debated....at least it's not banning water.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 03, 2012, 06:33:59 PM
I propose an amendment:

Quote
The Northeast Region shall hereafter be renamed "The Funky Northeast Love Pad." "Equestrian Republic of the Northeast."

And the title of Governor shall be changed to "Princess."


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 03, 2012, 06:37:39 PM
I propose an amendment:

Quote
The Northeast Region shall hereafter be renamed "The Funky Northeast Love Pad." "Equestrian Republic of the Northeast."

And the title of Governor shall be changed to "Princess."

Unfriendly, of course.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 03, 2012, 07:43:27 PM
Motion granted.  Debate time is reduced.

The Assembly will now vote on the amendment.  This will be a 24-hour vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 03, 2012, 07:43:56 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 03, 2012, 07:45:29 PM
I propose an amendment:

Quote
The Northeast Region shall hereafter be renamed "The Funky Northeast Love Pad." "Equestrian Republic of the Northeast."

And the title of Governor shall be changed to "Princess."

This is the thanks I get for endorsing you...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 03, 2012, 07:46:00 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 03, 2012, 08:31:48 PM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 03, 2012, 08:34:07 PM
I would like to unfriendly amend the bill to have a clause two:

2. And let it be forever resolved that mayonnaise is disgusting.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on January 03, 2012, 08:54:26 PM
I would like to unfriendly amend the bill to have a clause two:

2. And let it be forever resolved that mayonnaise is disgusting.

Too late.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 03, 2012, 08:56:44 PM
I strongly encourage my colleagues to visit the link in my signature.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 03, 2012, 09:31:54 PM
I propose an amendment:

Quote
The Northeast Region shall hereafter be renamed "The Funky Northeast Love Pad." "Equestrian Republic of the Northeast."

And the title of Governor shall be changed to "Princess."

This is the thanks I get for endorsing you...

I'll start being serious later.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 04, 2012, 07:28:32 PM
Oh, and my vote:

AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 04, 2012, 08:07:11 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are one, nays are two, abstentions are one, and non-voting members one.  The amendment fails.

Members will now vote on the following amendment.  This will be a 24-hour vote.
I would like to unfriendly amend the bill to have a clause two:

2. And let it be forever resolved that mayonnaise is disgusting.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 04, 2012, 08:07:32 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 04, 2012, 08:08:19 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 04, 2012, 09:23:26 PM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 04, 2012, 09:40:02 PM
New unfriendly amendment to add a new clause 2:

2. And let it be known the Representative wormyguy finds this as dull and boring as you do but is willing to continue this until the end of the session or until the legislation in question is withdrawn.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 04, 2012, 09:43:06 PM
I can't wait to see you lose reelection next time around. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 04, 2012, 09:53:06 PM
I propose this amendment.

Quote
This bill is hereby rewritten:

Income Tax

1. All individual state income taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide progressive tax system, with a minimum of 2.5% and a maximum of 6%. Those deemed to be under the poverty line are not required to pay regional income tax.

Sales Tax

1. All individual state sales taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide 6% sales tax.

2. A Sales Tax shall not be levied on "essential" living items such as clothing, produce, water, meat, etc.

Upon ratification of this amendment, no further amendments shall be proposed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 04, 2012, 09:56:27 PM
Unfortunately, you can't include instructions about a bill in a bill.

Edit: Or, next time when I want to filibuster, I'll just introduce this:

Quote
The Filibuster Bill

This bill may not be amended or passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 04, 2012, 10:03:32 PM
Withdrawn, then.

Again, I encourage all Northeast voters to sign the petition so that the recall election can begin ASAP.  Otherwise, this Assembly is practically dead.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on January 04, 2012, 10:12:03 PM
Speaker, the debate period has been over. A final vote is in order, immediately.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 04, 2012, 10:13:28 PM
Speaker, the debate period has been over. A final vote is in order, immediately.

Technically, this is still the consideration period since new amendments keep being introduced.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 04, 2012, 10:15:53 PM
In accordance with Section 2, subsection d of the SOAP of the NE, I motion to place the Second Northeast Tax Reform Act of 2011 written by Snowstalker on the floor.


Quote
Any Representative may make a motion to suspend section 2(b) of this Standing Order to place more than one piece of legislation on the Northeast Assembly floor at any given time. The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor. Such vote shall be open for 24 hours. If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the Lt. Governor shall place such additional pieces of proposed legislation on the Northeast Assembly floor immediately at the end of the voting period.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on January 04, 2012, 10:18:32 PM
Speaker, the debate period has been over. A final vote is in order, immediately.

Technically, this is still the consideration period since new amendments keep being introduced.

Amendments cannot be introduced. As I said, the debate period is over.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 04, 2012, 10:21:46 PM
Speaker, the debate period has been over. A final vote is in order, immediately.

Technically, this is still the consideration period since new amendments keep being introduced.

Amendments cannot be introduced. As I said, the debate period is over.

Since when can amendments not be introduced?  Amendments have been introduced since the earliest days of this body.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 04, 2012, 10:23:01 PM
Debate time has expired.  Members will cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

The Incredibly Important Act

The Northeast Region shall hereafter be renamed "The Funky Northeast Love Pad."


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on January 04, 2012, 10:23:28 PM
Speaker, the debate period has been over. A final vote is in order, immediately.

Technically, this is still the consideration period since new amendments keep being introduced.

Amendments cannot be introduced. As I said, the debate period is over.

Since when can amendments not be introduced?  Amendments have been introduced since the earliest days of this body.

Since the debate period ended many hours ago, as you know.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 04, 2012, 10:23:41 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 04, 2012, 10:24:05 PM
Nay. 



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 04, 2012, 10:25:06 PM
Speaker, the debate period has been over. A final vote is in order, immediately.

Technically, this is still the consideration period since new amendments keep being introduced.

Amendments cannot be introduced. As I said, the debate period is over.

Since when can amendments not be introduced?  Amendments have been introduced since the earliest days of this body.

Since the debate period ended many hours ago, as you know.

The debate period includes all the hours of debate, minus voting on amendments, which is not debate.  Or, going by your definition, the voting period of this bill, as well as the debate and voting periods of the next are over. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 04, 2012, 10:25:52 PM
This is illegal and violates the Northeast SOPA.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 04, 2012, 10:26:45 PM

So challenge it..


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 04, 2012, 10:27:58 PM

I would if the Governor hadn't illegally not included the position of CJO on the last ballot. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 04, 2012, 10:28:19 PM
Quote
(b) During debate, Representatives may suggest amendments to proposed legislation. If the sponsor of the proposed legislation publicly deems the amendment friendly, no vote on the amendment shall be required. If the sponsor of the proposed legislation does not publicly deem the amendment friendly, a vote on the amendment shall be taken at the end of the debate period.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on January 04, 2012, 10:30:16 PM
Speaker, the debate period has been over. A final vote is in order, immediately.

Technically, this is still the consideration period since new amendments keep being introduced.

Amendments cannot be introduced. As I said, the debate period is over.

Since when can amendments not be introduced?  Amendments have been introduced since the earliest days of this body.

Since the debate period ended many hours ago, as you know.

The debate period includes all the hours of debate, minus voting on amendments, which is not debate.  Or, going by your definition, the voting period of this bill, as well as the debate and voting periods of the next are over. :)

You're logic skills leave sqome to be desired, Representative.

All debate time periods expire when an amendment vote takes place. As a former Speaker,  you know this. Twelve hours have gone by since the bill was introduced and amendments were voted on. Case closed.

Now for the even more absurd part, claiming debate time is expired for unintroduced bills is ridiculous. There is no static debate time. Debate time can be changed, as it was on this very bill. There is no way to argue anything is set in stone.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on January 04, 2012, 10:31:28 PM

I would if the Governor hadn't illegally not included the position of CJO on the last ballot. :)

I'd love to hear more about this, Bachmann.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 04, 2012, 10:32:29 PM
Speaker, the debate period has been over. A final vote is in order, immediately.

Technically, this is still the consideration period since new amendments keep being introduced.

Amendments cannot be introduced. As I said, the debate period is over.

Since when can amendments not be introduced?  Amendments have been introduced since the earliest days of this body.

Since the debate period ended many hours ago, as you know.

The debate period includes all the hours of debate, minus voting on amendments, which is not debate.  Or, going by your definition, the voting period of this bill, as well as the debate and voting periods of the next are over. :)

You're logic skills leave sqome to be desired, Representative.

All debate time periods expire when an amendment vote takes place. As a former Speaker,  you know this. Twelve hours have gone by since the bill was introduced and amendments were voted on. Case closed.

Now for the even more absurd part, claiming debate time is expired for unintroduced bills is ridiculous. There is no static debate time. Debate time can be changed, as it was on this very bill. There is no way to argue anything is set in stone.

Standard debate time is 24 hours.  If one can motion to change the debate time after debate is ended, then one can amend a bill after debate is ended. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 04, 2012, 10:32:59 PM

I would if the Governor hadn't illegally not included the position of CJO on the last ballot. :)



Quote
2. The Chief Judicial Officer is to be appointed by the Governor with the support of the Legislative Assembly. He or she shall have a term of six months. Whenever the office of Chief Judicial Officer becomes vacant, he or she must be replaced within two weeks.

FTR, Cinyc's 6 months are long over IIRC.  Not to keep beating this drum, but..


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 04, 2012, 10:35:04 PM

I would if the Governor hadn't illegally not included the position of CJO on the last ballot. :)



Quote
2. The Chief Judicial Officer is to be appointed by the Governor with the support of the Legislative Assembly. He or she shall have a term of six months. Whenever the office of Chief Judicial Officer becomes vacant, he or she must be replaced within two weeks.

FTR, Cinyc's 6 months are long over IIRC.  Not to keep beating this drum, but..

Sorry, I was unaware of the various and sundry new "reforms."  Funny, because Napoleon thinks just about everything should be put to a popular vote.  Anyhoo, my point stands, as of right now I can't challenge this because the Governor has illegally left the position vacant.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 04, 2012, 10:37:13 PM

I would if the Governor hadn't illegally not included the position of CJO on the last ballot. :)



Quote
2. The Chief Judicial Officer is to be appointed by the Governor with the support of the Legislative Assembly. He or she shall have a term of six months. Whenever the office of Chief Judicial Officer becomes vacant, he or she must be replaced within two weeks.

FTR, Cinyc's 6 months are long over IIRC.  Not to keep beating this drum, but..

Sorry, I was unaware of the various and sundry new "reforms."  Funny, because Napoleon thinks just about everything should be put to a popular vote.  Anyhoo, my point stands, as of right now I can't challenge this because the Governor has illegally left the position vacant.

The CJO has been an appointed position for quite some time, has it not?  It certainly was under the last constitution..


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Bacon King on January 04, 2012, 10:37:36 PM
Wormy, it doesn't really matter. Even if his actions somehow aren't upheld they could just use SOAP 3(h) to modify 3(d) to make amendment votes only last ten seconds, get the amendments out of the way and move to a final vote of the bill. You wouldn't even have time to react.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on January 04, 2012, 10:37:49 PM
The old constitution was in effect last General Election. This has nothing to with any reforms.

BTW, standard debate time is 48 hours. Either way, one mistake doesn't allow you to disobey all parliamentary rules. The Assembly shouldn't have to be a day care.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 04, 2012, 10:41:11 PM

I would if the Governor hadn't illegally not included the position of CJO on the last ballot. :)



Quote
2. The Chief Judicial Officer is to be appointed by the Governor with the support of the Legislative Assembly. He or she shall have a term of six months. Whenever the office of Chief Judicial Officer becomes vacant, he or she must be replaced within two weeks.

FTR, Cinyc's 6 months are long over IIRC.  Not to keep beating this drum, but..

Sorry, I was unaware of the various and sundry new "reforms."  Funny, because Napoleon thinks just about everything should be put to a popular vote.  Anyhoo, my point stands, as of right now I can't challenge this because the Governor has illegally left the position vacant.

The CJO has been an appointed position for quite some time, has it not?  It certainly was under the last constitution..

That's funny, because when Governor Ghost_white (who was far more active than the current governor) was being recalled for "inactivity," I could've sworn one of the complaints of the recallers was that he didn't include CJO on the ballot.  Maybe I'm mistaken, but whatever the case my substantive point stands, even if I have better things to do than to memorize the constitution of a fictional political entity.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 04, 2012, 10:42:24 PM
I admit that I've made my share of mistakes handling and understanding this whole filibuster situation.  We do still need a CJO, too, but as Napoleon mentioned, debate time (that is, the time when amendments can be introduced) ended.  You cannot filibuster here.

For the record, you don't have to memorize anything.  The current Constitution is already on the Wiki.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on January 04, 2012, 10:48:08 PM
Making a mistake is less embarrassing, to me, than is making a fool of oneself.

Are we replacing the day care with a comedy club now? I think I just heard someone try to claim Ghostwhite was more active than an actually active Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 04, 2012, 10:52:39 PM
Frankly, Napoleon, I am willing to do whatever it takes to protect the Northeast citizen, and I am prepared to do anything in my power to do so, even should the conventional wisdom consider me a "fool" for so trying.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 04, 2012, 10:53:20 PM
Also abstain if it's presently time to vote on this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on January 04, 2012, 11:01:13 PM
Frankly, Napoleon, I am willing to do whatever it takes to protect the Northeast citizen, and I am prepared to do anything in my power to do so, even should the conventional wisdom consider me a "fool" for so trying.

A mature person would defeat the bill by successfully debating it down, rather than these crazy antics. I intend to do just that anyway.


If you wanted to filibuster, which I am not necessarily against as a legislative tool, you could introduce more serious bills that might fail the same but avoid making an ass out of yourself in the process. I'm sure you can find plenty of issues you advocate that others wouldn't want to touch besides banning water, you extremist authoritarian.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 04, 2012, 11:13:37 PM
Well I was planning to introduce more substantive measures, those were just a stopgap.  I would read the Pentagon Papers aloud but apparently that's not allowed in this establishment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 04, 2012, 11:15:17 PM
And obviously if it's obvious that the bill would fail without my filibustering it I wouldn't, but that doesn't appear to be the case.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on January 05, 2012, 02:19:12 PM
Gentlemen, I would like to see the Assembly remain a dignified and reasonable institution. I would like to hear out Mr. wormyguy's view on his opposition to the tax code, but these antics are unbecoming of a public servant. Let the assembly discuss the legislation.

As for the CJO issue, the post has remained vacant for far too long in a period that extends through my entire term thus far. I do intend to search for a CJO--PMing and my final appointment will take the next few days.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 05, 2012, 06:35:07 PM
I'm confused.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 06, 2012, 02:48:01 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are zero, nays are two, and abstentions are one.  The bill fails.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation sponsored by the gentleman from New York.  Debate will be for 48 hours.

Second Northeast Tax Reform Act of 2011

Income Tax

1. All individual state income taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide progressive tax system, with a minimum of 2.5% and a maximum of 6%. Those deemed to be under the poverty line are not required to pay regional income tax.

Sales Tax

1. All individual state sales taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide 6% sales tax.

2. A Sales Tax shall not be levied on "essential" living items such as clothing, produce, water, meat, etc.

Cigarette Tax

1. Cigarettes are hereby levied with a 4% tax when purchased.

Alcohol Tax

1. Alcohol is hereby levied with a 4% tax when purchased.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 06, 2012, 02:58:07 PM
I would like to amend the text of the bill to read the following:

Quote
Second Northeast Tax Reform Act of 2011

Income Tax

1. All individual state income taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide progressive tax system, with a minimum of 0% and a maximum of 0%. Those deemed to be under the poverty line are not required to pay regional income tax.

Sales Tax

1. All individual state sales taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide 0% sales tax.

2. A Sales Tax shall not be levied on "essential" living items such as clothing, produce, water, meat, etc.

Cigarette Tax

1. Cigarettes are hereby levied with a 0% tax when purchased.

Alcohol Tax

1. Alcohol is hereby levied with a 0% tax when purchased

Should that amendment fail I would like to amend it to read the following:

Quote
Second Northeast Tax Reform Act of 2011

Income Tax

1. All individual state income taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide progressive tax system, with a minimum of 100% and a maximum of 100%.

Sales Tax

1. All individual state sales taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide 10000% sales tax.

2. A Sales Tax shall not be levied on "essential" living items such as clothing, produce, water, meat, etc.

Cigarette Tax

1. Cigarettes are hereby levied with a 10000% tax when purchased.

Alcohol Tax

1. Alcohol is hereby levied with a 10000% tax when purchased

Should that amendment fail I would like to amend it to read the following:

Quote
Second Northeast Tax Reform Act of 2011

Income Tax

1. All individual state income taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide progressive tax system, with a minimum of 2.5% and a maximum of 6%. Those deemed to be under or over the poverty line are not required to pay regional income tax.

Sales Tax

1. A Sales Tax shall not be levied on anything.

Should that amendment fail I would like to amend it to read the following:

Quote
Second Northeast Tax Reform Act of 2011

Income Tax

1. All individual state income taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide progressive system of suggested donations, with a minimum suggested donation of 2.5% and a maximum of 6%. Those deemed to be under the poverty line are not suggested to donate a portion of their income.

Sales Tax

1. All individual state sales taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide suggested donation of 6% on each purchase.

2. A Sales Tax shall not be levied on "essential" living items such as clothing, produce, water, meat, etc.

Cigarette Tax

1. A 4% donation is suggested with the purchase of cigarettes.

Alcohol Tax

1. A 4% donation is suggested with the purchase of alcohol.

Should that amendment fail I would like to amend it to read the following:

Quote
Second Northeast Tax Reform Act of 2011

Income Tax

1. All individual state income taxes are hereby repealed.

Sales Tax

1. All individual state sales taxes are hereby repealed.

2. A Sales Tax shall not be levied on "essential" living items such as clothing, produce, water, meat, etc.

Should that amendment fail I would like to amend it to read the following:

Quote
....

Should that amendment fail I would like to amend it to read the following:

Quote
Nullification Resolution

The Northeast Assembly asserts its authority, when a federal law, order, treaty, ruling, regulation etc. is unconstitutional (either being not contained within the powers enumerated by the the constitution, or otherwise in violation of the rights guaranteed by the constitution), to declare that Federal action to be illegal, and to prevent its being enforced within the Northeast with appropriate legislation.

The Northeast Assembly acknowledges that the Governor is Commander-in-Chief of all military, paramilitary, and militia forces raised at the regional level, and that they may not be placed under Federal command without permission from the Governor.

The Northeast Assembly acknowledges the authority of state and local governments, when a regional law, order, treaty, agreement, regulation etc. is unconstitutional (either being not contained within the powers enumerated by the the regional constitution, or otherwise in violation of the rights guaranteed by the regional constitution), to declare that regional action to be illegal, and to prevent its being enforced within their state or local borders with appropriate legislation.

Should that amendment fail I would like to amend it to read the following:

Quote
The Theft Prevention Act of 2012

1.  The Governor is hereby authorized to use any means at his disposal to prevent revenues from all taxes, subscriptions, charges, fees etc. collected by the Republic of Atlasia from reaching the Treasury UNLESS

i.  The Senate passes by a simple majority, and the President signs, a resolution specifically requesting said revenues from the Northeast.

And EXCEPT

ii.  For all voluntary and/or "a la carte" fees charged for individual federal government goods and services.

Should that amendment fail I would like to amend it to read the following:

The Northeast Omnibus Anti-Fascism Act

1.  The Bipartisan Safe Sex Education Act is amended to allow students to voluntarily withdraw from sex education, or at the request of their parents.

2.  The Northeastern Green Jobs Act is hereby repealed.

3.  The Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009 is hereby repealed.

4.  The Sustainable Forestry Act is hereby repealed.

5.  The second amendment to the Northeast Gun Safety Act is hereby repealed.

6.  Sections 2 and 3 of the Practical Labor Policy Redux are hereby repealed.

7.  The Combat HIV/AIDS Act of 2010 is hereby repealed.  Any existing needle exchanges will be provided with $100,000 to continue operation as nonprofit organizations.

8.  The Prisoner Diet Reform Act is hereby repealed.

Should that amendment fail I would like to amend it to read the following:

The Self-Ownership Act (Or, the If You Are Pro-Choice and You Oppose This Then You Are a Hypocrite Act)

1. All persons are defined as the sole owners of their bodily organs.
2. Any non-minor person who has not been deemed mentally incompetent by a judge shall be allowed to sell their non-essential organs (such as the kidneys, skin, and spleen) to others.
3. Any organ removal surgery must be performed under standard levels of anesthesia and cleanliness by a licensed surgeon.
4. The surgeon must inform the donor of the potential risks of organ removal surgery.
5. All donors must be blood-tested for diseases transmittable through organ donation surgery.
6. A surgeon may, at his or her own discretion, declare a person mentally incompetent for the purposes of selling his or her bodily organs.
7. Unlawfully coercing a person to sell his or her bodily organs shall be a felony punishable by not less than 60 months in prison and/or a fine of not less than $50,000.  Attempting to unlawfully coerce a person to sell his or her bodily organs shall be a felony punishable by not less than 30 months in prison and/or a fine of not less than $25,000.
8. Persons with valid organ donor cards shall be eligible for a $500 yearly tax credit.

Should that amendment fail I would like to amend it to read the following:

The Public Safety Act of 2012

1. Any seller of firearms may refuse a sale to any buyer for any reason.
2. Any laws preventing the preceding clause from taking effect are hereby amended to allow it to do so.

Should that amendment fail I would like to amend it to read the following:

The Un-Stealing Bill

All unimproved regional lands shall be immediately transferred to the original Indian tribes indigenous to said lands.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 06, 2012, 03:13:08 PM
Rep. Cincinnatus, do you consider each of these amendments friendly or unfriendly?

This time, I will do it right and hold each unfriendly amendment up for a vote at the same time immediately after the debate period ends.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 06, 2012, 10:41:59 PM
Rep. Cincinnatus, do you consider each of these amendments friendly or unfriendly?

This time, I will do it right and hold each unfriendly amendment up for a vote at the same time immediately after the debate period ends.

Somehow I imagine wormy thinks we should be holding a seperate vote on all these amendments.  This made me chuckle.  FTR, all are unfriendly.

I'll also be introducing the following amendment, which I won't consider friendly until Snowstalker gives an opinion.


Quote
Second Northeast Tax Reform Act of 2011

Income Tax

1. All individual state income taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide progressive tax system, with a minimum of 2.5% and a maximum of 6%. Those deemed to be under the poverty line are not required to pay regional income tax.

Sales Tax

1. All individual state sales taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide 6% sales tax.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 06, 2012, 10:43:32 PM
In addition, I'm not sure about the wording here;

Quote
with a minimum of 2.5% and a maximum of 6%.

Who's at the minimum, and who's at the maximum?  Who's in between?  We don't exactly specify this with any brackets.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on January 06, 2012, 11:42:22 PM
Therein lies the biggest flaw in my legislation writing--I forget the details.

All amendments are unfriendly. I believe that this act should be brought back to the drawing board--a tax code should be simple, but not that general.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on January 07, 2012, 12:04:30 AM
I'm going to work to reduce Federal Taxes in the Senate, but at this point, you'd pay half of your income to the Federal Government if you make more than $1,000,000, so what's the point of making those people pay more? It doesn't sound very pragmatic to have a citizen pay up to 56% of their income in taxes...plus sales taxes...it's all too much.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 07, 2012, 12:08:44 AM
I'm going to work to reduce Federal Taxes in the Senate, but at this point, you'd pay half of your income to the Federal Government if you make more than $1,000,000, so what's the point of making those people pay more? It doesn't sound very pragmatic to have a citizen pay up to 56% of their income in taxes...plus sales taxes...it's all too much.


So do it.  Meanwhile the Region has to function, and revenue is crucial to that end.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on January 07, 2012, 12:17:48 AM
I'm going to work to reduce Federal Taxes in the Senate, but at this point, you'd pay half of your income to the Federal Government if you make more than $1,000,000, so what's the point of making those people pay more? It doesn't sound very pragmatic to have a citizen pay up to 56% of their income in taxes...plus sales taxes...it's all too much.

So do it.  Meanwhile the Region has to function, and revenue is crucial to that end.

Well what I'm saying is, can't the current bill be tabled now until Federal taxes are lowered? I just wrote a bill (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.msg3145156#new) that would do just that.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 07, 2012, 12:23:26 AM
We could amend that the bill go into effect at a later date, or repeal it if your bill doesn't pass.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on January 07, 2012, 11:02:20 AM
I would be open to having the bill be placed into effect at a later date for the purposes of allowing clarification in the form of amending legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 08, 2012, 02:06:01 AM
Are there any more amendments someone would like to put on the floor?  I don't think we should pass this if the bill isn't improved, somehow.  Would you have any ideas in mind, Governor?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 08, 2012, 04:02:47 PM
Debate time has expired.  Members will now vote on all unfriendly amendments.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

I would like to amend the text of the bill to read the following:

Quote
Second Northeast Tax Reform Act of 2011

Income Tax

1. All individual state income taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide progressive tax system, with a minimum of 0% and a maximum of 0%. Those deemed to be under the poverty line are not required to pay regional income tax.

Sales Tax

1. All individual state sales taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide 0% sales tax.

2. A Sales Tax shall not be levied on "essential" living items such as clothing, produce, water, meat, etc.

Cigarette Tax

1. Cigarettes are hereby levied with a 0% tax when purchased.

Alcohol Tax

1. Alcohol is hereby levied with a 0% tax when purchased

Should that amendment fail I would like to amend it to read the following:

Quote
Second Northeast Tax Reform Act of 2011

Income Tax

1. All individual state income taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide progressive tax system, with a minimum of 100% and a maximum of 100%.

Sales Tax

1. All individual state sales taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide 10000% sales tax.

2. A Sales Tax shall not be levied on "essential" living items such as clothing, produce, water, meat, etc.

Cigarette Tax

1. Cigarettes are hereby levied with a 10000% tax when purchased.

Alcohol Tax

1. Alcohol is hereby levied with a 10000% tax when purchased

Should that amendment fail I would like to amend it to read the following:

Quote
Second Northeast Tax Reform Act of 2011

Income Tax

1. All individual state income taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide progressive tax system, with a minimum of 2.5% and a maximum of 6%. Those deemed to be under or over the poverty line are not required to pay regional income tax.

Sales Tax

1. A Sales Tax shall not be levied on anything.

Should that amendment fail I would like to amend it to read the following:

Quote
Second Northeast Tax Reform Act of 2011

Income Tax

1. All individual state income taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide progressive system of suggested donations, with a minimum suggested donation of 2.5% and a maximum of 6%. Those deemed to be under the poverty line are not suggested to donate a portion of their income.

Sales Tax

1. All individual state sales taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide suggested donation of 6% on each purchase.

2. A Sales Tax shall not be levied on "essential" living items such as clothing, produce, water, meat, etc.

Cigarette Tax

1. A 4% donation is suggested with the purchase of cigarettes.

Alcohol Tax

1. A 4% donation is suggested with the purchase of alcohol.

Should that amendment fail I would like to amend it to read the following:

Quote
Second Northeast Tax Reform Act of 2011

Income Tax

1. All individual state income taxes are hereby repealed.

Sales Tax

1. All individual state sales taxes are hereby repealed.

2. A Sales Tax shall not be levied on "essential" living items such as clothing, produce, water, meat, etc.

Should that amendment fail I would like to amend it to read the following:

Quote
....

Should that amendment fail I would like to amend it to read the following:

Quote
Nullification Resolution

The Northeast Assembly asserts its authority, when a federal law, order, treaty, ruling, regulation etc. is unconstitutional (either being not contained within the powers enumerated by the the constitution, or otherwise in violation of the rights guaranteed by the constitution), to declare that Federal action to be illegal, and to prevent its being enforced within the Northeast with appropriate legislation.

The Northeast Assembly acknowledges that the Governor is Commander-in-Chief of all military, paramilitary, and militia forces raised at the regional level, and that they may not be placed under Federal command without permission from the Governor.

The Northeast Assembly acknowledges the authority of state and local governments, when a regional law, order, treaty, agreement, regulation etc. is unconstitutional (either being not contained within the powers enumerated by the the regional constitution, or otherwise in violation of the rights guaranteed by the regional constitution), to declare that regional action to be illegal, and to prevent its being enforced within their state or local borders with appropriate legislation.

Should that amendment fail I would like to amend it to read the following:

Quote
The Theft Prevention Act of 2012

1.  The Governor is hereby authorized to use any means at his disposal to prevent revenues from all taxes, subscriptions, charges, fees etc. collected by the Republic of Atlasia from reaching the Treasury UNLESS

i.  The Senate passes by a simple majority, and the President signs, a resolution specifically requesting said revenues from the Northeast.

And EXCEPT

ii.  For all voluntary and/or "a la carte" fees charged for individual federal government goods and services.

Should that amendment fail I would like to amend it to read the following:

The Northeast Omnibus Anti-Fascism Act

1.  The Bipartisan Safe Sex Education Act is amended to allow students to voluntarily withdraw from sex education, or at the request of their parents.

2.  The Northeastern Green Jobs Act is hereby repealed.

3.  The Northeastern Home Ownership Protection Act of 2009 is hereby repealed.

4.  The Sustainable Forestry Act is hereby repealed.

5.  The second amendment to the Northeast Gun Safety Act is hereby repealed.

6.  Sections 2 and 3 of the Practical Labor Policy Redux are hereby repealed.

7.  The Combat HIV/AIDS Act of 2010 is hereby repealed.  Any existing needle exchanges will be provided with $100,000 to continue operation as nonprofit organizations.

8.  The Prisoner Diet Reform Act is hereby repealed.

Should that amendment fail I would like to amend it to read the following:

The Self-Ownership Act (Or, the If You Are Pro-Choice and You Oppose This Then You Are a Hypocrite Act)

1. All persons are defined as the sole owners of their bodily organs.
2. Any non-minor person who has not been deemed mentally incompetent by a judge shall be allowed to sell their non-essential organs (such as the kidneys, skin, and spleen) to others.
3. Any organ removal surgery must be performed under standard levels of anesthesia and cleanliness by a licensed surgeon.
4. The surgeon must inform the donor of the potential risks of organ removal surgery.
5. All donors must be blood-tested for diseases transmittable through organ donation surgery.
6. A surgeon may, at his or her own discretion, declare a person mentally incompetent for the purposes of selling his or her bodily organs.
7. Unlawfully coercing a person to sell his or her bodily organs shall be a felony punishable by not less than 60 months in prison and/or a fine of not less than $50,000.  Attempting to unlawfully coerce a person to sell his or her bodily organs shall be a felony punishable by not less than 30 months in prison and/or a fine of not less than $25,000.
8. Persons with valid organ donor cards shall be eligible for a $500 yearly tax credit.

Should that amendment fail I would like to amend it to read the following:

The Public Safety Act of 2012

1. Any seller of firearms may refuse a sale to any buyer for any reason.
2. Any laws preventing the preceding clause from taking effect are hereby amended to allow it to do so.

Should that amendment fail I would like to amend it to read the following:

The Un-Stealing Bill

All unimproved regional lands shall be immediately transferred to the original Indian tribes indigenous to said lands.

Quote
Second Northeast Tax Reform Act of 2011

Income Tax

1. All individual state income taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide progressive tax system, with a minimum of 2.5% and a maximum of 6%. Those deemed to be under the poverty line are not required to pay regional income tax.

Sales Tax

1. All individual state sales taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide 6% sales tax.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 08, 2012, 04:03:36 PM
Nay on all amendments proposed by Wormyguy; aye on Cincinnatus' amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 08, 2012, 04:14:57 PM
Aye on all my amendments, abstain on Cincinnatus's.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 08, 2012, 06:49:18 PM
Abstain on all.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 08, 2012, 09:24:30 PM
Nay on all amendments proposed by Wormyguy; aye on Cincinnatus' amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 08, 2012, 09:31:05 PM
All members have voted. (Representative RFK is no longer a member of this body, per his automatic expulsion.)  All amendments are not adopted (fail 1-2-1), except for Cincinnatus' amendment, which passes with two ayes, zero nays, and two abstentions.

Members will now cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

Quote
Second Northeast Tax Reform Act of 2011

Income Tax

1. All individual state income taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide progressive tax system, with a minimum of 2.5% and a maximum of 6%. Those deemed to be under the poverty line are not required to pay regional income tax.

Sales Tax

1. All individual state sales taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide 6% sales tax.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 08, 2012, 09:35:08 PM
Abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 08, 2012, 10:48:51 PM
Mr. Speaker, the final text should look like this..

Quote
Second Northeast Tax Reform Act of 2011

Income Tax

1. All individual state income taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide progressive tax system, with a minimum of 2.5% and a maximum of 6%. Those deemed to be under the poverty line are not required to pay regional income tax.

Sales Tax

1. All individual state sales taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide 6% sales tax.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on January 08, 2012, 10:59:33 PM
Amendment votes don't count toward expulsion, IIRC.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 08, 2012, 11:01:07 PM
Amendment votes don't count toward expulsion, IIRC.

It didn't.  He missed 3 votes on legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on January 08, 2012, 11:01:40 PM
Amendment votes don't count toward expulsion, IIRC.

It didn't.  He missed 3 votes on legislation.

Well that sucks.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 08, 2012, 11:02:36 PM

Yes it does.  It's unfortunate we continuously elect inactive Representatives.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 08, 2012, 11:27:44 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 09, 2012, 12:18:14 AM
Mr. Speaker, the final text should look like this..

Quote
Second Northeast Tax Reform Act of 2011

Income Tax

1. All individual state income taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide progressive tax system, with a minimum of 2.5% and a maximum of 6%. Those deemed to be under the poverty line are not required to pay regional income tax.

Sales Tax

1. All individual state sales taxes are hereby repealed and replaced with a region-wide 6% sales tax.

Fixed.  I misinterpreted your amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 09, 2012, 05:42:44 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 09, 2012, 09:53:39 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are one, nays are one, abstentions are one, and non-voting members are one.  The vote is tied.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Connecticut.  Debate will be for 48 hours.

Amendment to the SOAP Act - Protest and Analysis Thread Act

Section 1 of the Standing Order on Assembly Procedure Act is hereby amended.

Quote
A Northeast Assembly Protest and Analysis Thread shall be created and made open to Northeast citizens for the discussion of legislative proposals, debates, votes, and all other matters that relate to the Northeast government.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 09, 2012, 10:00:50 PM
The concept of the bill is pretty self-explanatory.  I also feel that this would make a nice opportunity to make other changes to our SOAP, should any come up in the next two days.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 10, 2012, 12:47:25 AM
I support this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 10, 2012, 09:01:39 PM

As do I.  My only problem is that this amendment doesn't provide a subsection.  I like to know how amendments will read into already passed legislation.  Is this to replace section 1 entirely (surely not), or is it meant to be a Section 1, subsection d) (Why under Proposed legislation section) ?

And to the question of more important SOAP changes, I think we should use this P & A thread to discuss needed changes, instead of add a bunch of amendments to this.  I'd rather work everything out with an open discussion in a newly created Analysis thread, than have to continuously amend the SOAP over and over via hindsight..


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 10, 2012, 09:24:29 PM
I am proposing the following amendment.  The bill shall read:

Amendment to the SOAP Act - Protest and Analysis Thread Act

The Standing Order on Assembly Procedure Act is hereby amended.

Quote
5. Protest and Analysis Thread
A Northeast Assembly Protest and Analysis Thread shall be created and made open to Northeast citizens for the discussion of legislative proposals, debates, votes, and all other matters that relate to the Northeast government.

The amendment is friendly.  The amendment is adopted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on January 10, 2012, 09:26:50 PM
Specify to put in the Elections board, if you think it will be more effective there (I do).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 10, 2012, 09:27:20 PM

As do I.  My only problem is that this amendment doesn't provide a subsection.  I like to know how amendments will read into already passed legislation.  Is this to replace section 1 entirely (surely not), or is it meant to be a Section 1, subsection d) (Why under Proposed legislation section) ?

And to the question of more important SOAP changes, I think we should use this P & A thread to discuss needed changes, instead of add a bunch of amendments to this.  I'd rather work everything out with an open discussion in a newly created Analysis thread, than have to continuously amend the SOAP over and over via hindsight..

Eventually a new bill would have to be passed for all the SOAP changes we decide on to go into effect.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 10, 2012, 09:29:45 PM
Specify to put in the Elections board, if you think it will be more effective there (I do).

Probably would, now that I think of it.

I propose the following amendment.

Amendment to the SOAP Act - Protest and Analysis Thread Act

The Standing Order on Assembly Procedure Act is hereby amended.

Quote
5. Protest and Analysis Thread
A Northeast Assembly Protest and Analysis Thread shall be created in the Atlas Fantasy Elections board and made open to Northeast citizens for the discussion of legislative proposals, debates, votes, and all other matters that relate to the Northeast government.

The amendment is friendly.  The amendment is adopted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 10, 2012, 09:33:49 PM
Specify to put in the Elections board, if you think it will be more effective there (I do).

I'm inclined to agree with you on this, though I can now support this bill either way.  


As do I.  My only problem is that this amendment doesn't provide a subsection.  I like to know how amendments will read into already passed legislation.  Is this to replace section 1 entirely (surely not), or is it meant to be a Section 1, subsection d) (Why under Proposed legislation section) ?

And to the question of more important SOAP changes, I think we should use this P & A thread to discuss needed changes, instead of add a bunch of amendments to this.  I'd rather work everything out with an open discussion in a newly created Analysis thread, than have to continuously amend the SOAP over and over via hindsight..

Eventually a new bill would have to be passed for all the SOAP changes we decide on to go into effect.

Yes.. but we should initiate our new thread with a meaningful discussion.  Hopefully we can get more interest in this important manner that goes beyond the three of us.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 11, 2012, 10:06:51 PM
Debate time has expired.  Members will now cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

Amendment to the SOAP Act - Protest and Analysis Thread Act

The Standing Order on Assembly Procedure Act is hereby amended.

Quote
5. Protest and Analysis Thread
A Northeast Assembly Protest and Analysis Thread shall be created in the Atlas Fantasy Elections board and made open to Northeast citizens for the discussion of legislative proposals, debates, votes, and all other matters that relate to the Northeast government.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 11, 2012, 10:07:14 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 11, 2012, 10:52:25 PM
AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 12, 2012, 12:56:16 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 12, 2012, 03:34:58 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 12, 2012, 03:50:09 PM
All members have voted.  The bill passes unanimously.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from New York.  Debate will be for 48 hours.

Quote
Repeal of the Ballot Standardization Act

1.  The Ballot Standardization Act is hereby repealed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 12, 2012, 03:55:09 PM
I looked this piece of legislation up on the Wiki, but nothing relevant to it came up.  Would the sponsor please explain what the legislation that should be repealed is?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 12, 2012, 03:55:33 PM
Yes, I'm also interested in the rationale for this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 12, 2012, 04:05:34 PM
It's a law signed by Governor Winfield.  One which contradicts the current constitution, and has generally been ignored since it passed.

Quote
Ballot Standardization Act

1. The Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast is hereby authorized to open a voting booth for any and all Northeast Regional regular and special elections.

2. Any other official of the Northeast, including and limited to the Governor, Lt. Governor and members of the Assembly, are hereby authorized to open a voting booth for any and all Northeast Regional regular and special elections only if:
a. The Chief Judicial Officer declares a leave of absence encompassing the first day of the election, or otherwise states publicly his inability to open the polls on time; or
b. The Chief Judicial Officer does not open the polls one hour after an election's constitutionally or legally mandated start time.


3. The post with which the authorized opener of a voting booth begins the election must contain the following text before the listing of candidates running for office, with the bracketed items correctly filled in:

"As [name of authorized poll-opening officer], I hereby declare this polling place open.

This is the Northeast regional polling booth for the scheduled [name of election].  In this polling place, Northeast citizens are electing [names of offices up for election].

Votes for offices in this region are cast using PR-STV.  Voters who wish to preference more than one candidate should allocate a first preference for a candidate by marking a [1] in the space provided by that candidate's name, and proceeding to number as many preferences as they desire by marking a [2], [3], etc for as many candidates as they so desire.

A vote will be counted so long as the voter that casts it is eligible to vote in this election and casts  a formal ballot. A vote is formal so long as it contains numbered preferences with no duplicate numbers. A ballot containing Roman Numerals is not considered informal. A ballot in which candidates have been ranked a,b,c, etc is not considered informal so long as no letter has been repeated, and so long as a single candidate has been ranked a, for as long as the letters are consecutive with no duplicate letters. A ballot is formal if the CJO can determine the intent of the voter without interviewing that voter.

Per past practice, write-in votes are only counted for a candidate if he or she publicly declares a willingness to receive write-in votes for a particular office in the [name of election] before the polls close in the Candidate Declaration Thread or writes in his or her own name on the ballot for that particular office.

Votes for "NOTA" or "None of the Above" for any office are formal regardless of the preference assigned to it. Should a voter preference "NOTA" as well as other candidates, only his vote for "NOTA" will be counted.

This booth shall remain open until [time prescribed for the closing of the polls]."

4. Candidates shall have printed on the ballot certain basic information, limited to the following:
a. their full usernames and display names as of the time of the opening of the polls, should they differ from their usernames;
b. the name of the political party to which they belong, or the affiliation "Independent" in its place should a candidate not belong to a political party;
c. the name of the state in which they reside.

5. All information printed on a ballot must pertain immediately to the election at hand and may not contain solicitation, propaganda, or hyperlinks to other pages.

6. Absentee ballots need not contain all of the information mandated in sections 3 and 4, though it must be provided by the Chief Judicial Officer upon request to an absentee elector at any time beginning one week before the election.

7. An opening post that does not abide by the above clauses of this act inaugurates an election that shall not be recognized as the legitimate voice of the people of the Northeast and shall be rendered null and void.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 13, 2012, 08:12:59 PM
Can I expect this to pass?  We all seem to agree, no?  :D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 13, 2012, 08:17:09 PM
I'm not sure how I'll vote on this, yet.  I may abstain.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 13, 2012, 08:25:33 PM
I'm not sure how I'll vote on this, yet.  I may abstain.

This legislation is obsolete, and ignored.  I do hope we can eliminate unnecessary and/or ineffective bills.  Beyond that, this could pose legal trouble down the road if not quickly dealt with. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 14, 2012, 04:15:10 PM
Debate time has expired.  Members will now cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

Quote
Repeal of the Ballot Standardization Act

1.  The Ballot Standardization Act is hereby repealed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 14, 2012, 04:16:41 PM
If the Northeast government doesn't intend to enforce this legislation, then it shouldn't do any harm to repeal it.  I vote aye on this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on January 14, 2012, 04:29:17 PM
I plan to try this in a different way, if elected.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 14, 2012, 08:13:10 PM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 14, 2012, 10:46:25 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 15, 2012, 04:15:18 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are two, nays are one, abstentions are one, and non-voting members are one.  The bill is passed.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from New York.  Debate will be for 48 hours.

Quote
Northeast Symbols Act

1.  The official motto of the Northeast Region shall hereby be recognized as, "   Fax mentis est incedium gloriae"

2.  The official flower of the Northeast Region shall hereby be recognized as the Mountain laurel

3.  The official bird of the Northeast Region shall hereby be recognized as the black capped chickadee.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 15, 2012, 04:21:26 PM
I have no objection.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 15, 2012, 10:28:21 PM
Anyone have any interesting amendments they'd like to introduce?  :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 15, 2012, 10:35:59 PM
I'll support this if it's amended to change the name of the region to "The Funky Northeast Love Pad."


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 15, 2012, 11:03:22 PM
Ah, what the heck.

I propose the following amendment.

Quote
4.  The official nicknames of the Northeast Region shall hereby be recognized as "The Steel Region", "The Prosperity Region", and "The Independent Region".

5.  The official song of the Northeast Region shall hereby be recognized as Cherry Bomb by John Mellencamp.

6.  The official dish of the Northeast Region shall hereby be recognized as clam chowder.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 15, 2012, 11:09:32 PM
I support making clam chowder the national food.  I'm neutral towards all else.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 16, 2012, 01:32:40 PM
I'll support this if it's amended to change the name of the region to "The Funky Northeast Love Pad."

Are you introducing that amendment?

Ah, what the heck.

I propose the following amendment.

Quote
4.  The official nicknames of the Northeast Region shall hereby be recognized as "The Steel Region", "The Prosperity Region", and "The Independent Region".

5.  The official song of the Northeast Region shall hereby be recognized as Cherry Bomb by John Mellencamp.

4.  The official dish of the Northeast Region shall hereby be recognized as clam chowder.

I'll accept that if you reintroduce it, and subsequently withdraw the current amendment.  A nickname doesn't need to be included in a bill, it just happens.  John Mellencamp is great, but he doesn't really represent the Northeast :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 16, 2012, 06:16:24 PM
Very well. :P

Quote
4.  The official dish of the Northeast Region shall hereby be recognized as clam chowder.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 16, 2012, 06:34:28 PM
Very well. :P

Quote
4.  The official dish of the Northeast Region shall hereby be recognized as clam chowder.

Friendly. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 17, 2012, 04:36:44 PM
Debate time has expired.  Members will now cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

Quote
Northeast Symbols Act

1.  The official motto of the Northeast Region shall hereby be recognized as, "   Fax mentis est incedium gloriae"

2.  The official flower of the Northeast Region shall hereby be recognized as the Mountain laurel

3.  The official bird of the Northeast Region shall hereby be recognized as the black capped chickadee.

4.  The official dish of the Northeast Region shall hereby be recognized as clam chowder.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 17, 2012, 04:37:56 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 17, 2012, 04:49:48 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 18, 2012, 05:23:29 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are two, nays are zero, abstentions are zero, and non-voting members are two.  The bill is passed.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Maine.  Debate will be for 48 hours.

This is currently the last piece of legislation in the queue.

Quote
The Act to Provide Transportation of a Public Manner to Working Individuals and Families Act (APTOPMWIFA)

1.  Bus fare in the major metropolitan areas of the Northeast shall be subsidized 50%.

2.  Added costs to public transportation authorities shall be made up for, with a 2% income tax increase on the highest income bracket, and an added 2% tax on alcohol and tobacco products.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 18, 2012, 07:19:01 PM
Would the sponsor like to say anything about his bill?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on January 18, 2012, 08:46:44 PM
Quote
4. The official dish of the Northeast Region shall hereby be recognized as clam chowder.

Yummy :3


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 18, 2012, 10:21:18 PM
Do veto overrides require a 2/3 majority of just voting members, or a 2/3 majority of all representatives?  The Constitution is not clear about this, and I need to know so I can write it in the legislative record.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 18, 2012, 10:24:52 PM
Do veto overrides require a 2/3 majority of just voting members, or a 2/3 majority of all representatives?  The Constitution is not clear about this, and I need to know so I can write it in the legislative record.

Bring it back to the floor after this bill.  It doesn't state "2/3 voting members", but "two-thirds majority vote", so it would require 2/3 of all Representatives or 4 members I would imagine.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on January 18, 2012, 10:53:58 PM
Do veto overrides require a 2/3 majority of just voting members, or a 2/3 majority of all representatives?  The Constitution is not clear about this, and I need to know so I can write it in the legislative record.

Bring it back to the floor after this bill.  It doesn't state "2/3 voting members", but "two-thirds majority vote", so it would require 2/3 of all Representatives or 4 members I would imagine.

The word vote would imply the total vote is used, not total membership.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 18, 2012, 11:22:55 PM
Since Napoleon wrote the Constitution, I think we'd go with that answer, then.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 18, 2012, 11:23:38 PM
Since Napoleon wrote the Constitution, I think we'd go with that answer, then.

I take it you endorse Originalist readings of such documents, then?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 18, 2012, 11:27:58 PM
Since Napoleon wrote the Constitution, I think we'd go with that answer, then.

I take it you endorse Originalist readings of such documents, then?

Well then, how would you interpret it?

Quote
14. The Legislative Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor’s veto. If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by more than a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor’s signature.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 18, 2012, 11:30:39 PM
Since Napoleon wrote the Constitution, I think we'd go with that answer, then.

I take it you endorse Originalist readings of such documents, then?

Well then, how would you interpret it?

Quote
14. The Legislative Assembly shall have the power to override the Governor’s veto. If the Assembly passes legislation previously vetoed by the Governor by more than a two-thirds majority vote, it becomes law without the Governor’s signature.

I'd probably interpret it the same way you would (although "two-thirds majority" is somewhat ambiguous in that it could mean two thirds and a majority); I'm just commenting that your reasoning in this instance is rejected by liberals.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 19, 2012, 12:15:29 AM
I believe that APTOPMWIFA (Ap-top-m-weefa) will benefit working-class people in cities, by providing them with much cheaper bus fare in order to go to work and such.  Cheaper bus fare will also potentially decrease fossil fuel consumption, by making it even more viable to take public transportation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 19, 2012, 12:33:45 AM
I don't really have a problem with the bill as it stands right now, however section 2 of the bill needs to be fixed since the region currently doesn't have a tax code or a specific income bracket to raise taxes on. :P

I propose this amendment.
Quote
3. Section 2 of this bill shall go into effect at the start of the 2012 budget.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 19, 2012, 11:02:26 AM
Amendment is friendly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 20, 2012, 09:52:46 AM
Not that I necessarily oppose this bills purpose, but I don't think it's even feasible.  How can this be accomplished when we don't even have a budget proposal for this year?  How can this be accomplished when we don't even have a high income tax bracket, or regional tax brackets at all for that matter?  We don't even have a plausible tax system in this region right now.  I will not vote in favor of this bill at this time.  If it was introduced after we cleaned up this mess, perhaps it would be a different story.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 20, 2012, 02:41:39 PM
Not that I necessarily oppose this bills purpose, but I don't think it's even feasible.  How can this be accomplished when we don't even have a budget proposal for this year?  How can this be accomplished when we don't even have a high income tax bracket, or regional tax brackets at all for that matter?  We don't even have a plausible tax system in this region right now.  I will not vote in favor of this bill at this time.  If it was introduced after we cleaned up this mess, perhaps it would be a different story.

The bill was amended for the tax increases to go into effect after a budget (which will include a tax plan) gets passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 20, 2012, 05:46:59 PM
Debate time has expired.  Members will now cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

Quote
The Act to Provide Transportation of a Public Manner to Working Individuals and Families Act (APTOPMWIFA)

1.  Bus fare in the major metropolitan areas of the Northeast shall be subsidized 50%.

2.  Added costs to public transportation authorities shall be made up for, with a 2% income tax increase on the highest income bracket, and an added 2% tax on alcohol and tobacco products.

3.  Section 2 of this bill shall go into effect at the start of the 2012 budget.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 20, 2012, 05:47:30 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 20, 2012, 07:24:03 PM
Nay.

We're still subsidizing 50% under this bill without a tax system.  I know most people here don't really care about revenue, or expenditures considering nothing is cause-effect, nor is it real, but my first point still stands.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 20, 2012, 07:49:58 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 21, 2012, 05:02:43 PM

You have been expelled from the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 21, 2012, 05:25:59 PM

Quite a while ago, I might add.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 21, 2012, 05:30:48 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 21, 2012, 06:02:23 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are two, nays are two, abstentions are zero, and non-voting members are zero.  The vote ties.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from New York.  Debate will be for 48 hours.

Quote
Northeast Symbols Act

1.  The official motto of the Northeast Region shall hereby be recognized as, "   Fax mentis est incedium gloriae"

2.  The official flower of the Northeast Region shall hereby be recognized as the Mountain laurel

3.  The official bird of the Northeast Region shall hereby be recognized as the black capped chickadee.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 21, 2012, 06:14:57 PM
This should pass with the amended version vetoed.  If anyone wants clam chowder back, I'll accept it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on January 21, 2012, 06:33:06 PM
No clam chowder!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 21, 2012, 06:34:44 PM
For the record, I've never actually had clam chowder.  I just proposed that amendment because it's Northeasterny.

Yes, I am a traitor to my region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 21, 2012, 06:50:32 PM
For the record, I've never actually had clam chowder.  I just proposed that amendment because it's Northeasterny.

Yes, I am a traitor to my region.

Thanks for the ammunition.  My Super PACS will do wonderfully exploiting this quote ;)



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 21, 2012, 06:51:29 PM
Noooooooo!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on January 21, 2012, 07:56:03 PM
Nay!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on January 21, 2012, 08:05:51 PM
I'd like to propose The Government Responsibility Act of 2012:

1). Hold total state spending growth at inflation rate
2). Require 2/3 majority to pass any further tax increases
3). Require that all members of the legislature return all of their leftover campaign funds to the treasury at the beginning of each new session
4). Require a balanced budget each Fiscal Year

OOC: I'm new here; I just wanted to know whether, if this is voted down, may I amend it to exclude portions of it later?  Thanks.

Jersetrules


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 21, 2012, 08:26:49 PM
We're not voting yet.  Also, new bill proposals go here. (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=127652.135)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 21, 2012, 09:59:44 PM

Considering this Act is just reaffirming already recognized symbols, I'd like to understand anyone's reasoning to vote against it..

As to your bill, it needs to go in the introduction thread.  If it fails, you can re-introduce it with different text at a later date.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on January 22, 2012, 03:28:50 AM

Considering this Act is just reaffirming already recognized symbols, I'd like to understand anyone's reasoning to vote against it..

As to your bill, it needs to go in the introduction thread.  If it fails, you can re-introduce it with different text at a later date.

Thanks


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on January 22, 2012, 03:29:25 AM
We're not voting yet.  Also, new bill proposals go here. (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=127652.135)

Thanks


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 23, 2012, 06:05:23 PM
Debate time has expired.  Members will now cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

Quote
Northeast Symbols Act

1.  The official motto of the Northeast Region shall hereby be recognized as, "   Fax mentis est incedium gloriae"

2.  The official flower of the Northeast Region shall hereby be recognized as the Mountain laurel

3.  The official bird of the Northeast Region shall hereby be recognized as the black capped chickadee.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 23, 2012, 06:06:01 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 23, 2012, 06:06:51 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on January 23, 2012, 06:07:29 PM
I'd like to propose The Government Responsibility Act of 2012:

1). Hold total state spending growth at inflation rate
2). Require 2/3 majority to pass any further tax increases
3). Require that all members of the legislature return all of their leftover campaign funds to the treasury at the beginning of each new session
4). Require a balanced budget each Fiscal Year

OOC: I'm new here; I just wanted to know whether, if this is voted down, may I amend it to exclude portions of it later?  Thanks.

Jersetrules

Um...you're kidding, right?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 24, 2012, 12:47:20 AM
Aybstanay.

count it as an abstention


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 24, 2012, 06:52:55 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are two, nays are zero abstentions are one, and non-voting members are two.  The bill passes.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced the gentleman from New York.  Debate will be for 48 hours.

The Government Responsibility Act of 2012:

1). Hold total state spending growth at inflation rate
2). Require 2/3 majority to pass any further tax increases
3). Require that all members of the legislature return all of their leftover campaign funds to the treasury at the beginning of each new session
4). Require a balanced budget each Fiscal Year


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 24, 2012, 06:57:38 PM
I don't have a lot of time on here right now, so I'm going to make this brief.  I cannot support this  The region currently does not have a tax code in place at all, so requiring a 2/3 majority to pass any increase wouldn't be ideal for the region.  Also, the Constitution already requires a balanced budget each fiscal year.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on January 24, 2012, 08:18:34 PM
The Northeast can't afford crazy. Vote Napoleon for Governor to stop bills like this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 25, 2012, 09:19:56 PM
While I agree with you're overall intent here, I'm not willing to eliminate or hinder our ability to govern.  I won't be voting in favor of this bill.

FTR, number four is already included in the constitution, and number three is just a placeholder, because we don't actually have campaign funds (though you're welcome to pretend). 



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 26, 2012, 08:15:56 PM
Debate time has expired.  Members will now cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

The Government Responsibility Act of 2012:

1). Hold total state spending growth at inflation rate
2). Require 2/3 majority to pass any further tax increases
3). Require that all members of the legislature return all of their leftover campaign funds to the treasury at the beginning of each new session
4). Require a balanced budget each Fiscal Year


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 26, 2012, 08:17:33 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on January 26, 2012, 09:04:09 PM
I'd like to propose The Government Responsibility Act of 2012:

1). Hold total state spending growth at inflation rate
2). Require 2/3 majority to pass any further tax increases
3). Require that all members of the legislature return all of their leftover campaign funds to the treasury at the beginning of each new session
4). Require a balanced budget each Fiscal Year

OOC: I'm new here; I just wanted to know whether, if this is voted down, may I amend it to exclude portions of it later?  Thanks.

Jersetrules

Um...you're kidding, right?

Uh, no


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on January 26, 2012, 09:04:41 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on January 26, 2012, 09:06:22 PM
Is Marajuana legal in the NE?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on January 26, 2012, 09:09:24 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 26, 2012, 09:37:34 PM

Yes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on January 26, 2012, 09:40:21 PM

Just about all drugs are legal in the Northeast.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 26, 2012, 10:22:46 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 27, 2012, 02:27:39 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 27, 2012, 08:23:04 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are two, nays are three, abstentions are zero, and non-voting members are zero.

The session will resume when a new piece of legislation is introduced.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 28, 2012, 07:02:32 PM
The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from New York.  Debate will be for 48 hours.

The Fair Taxation Act of 2012

1) Eliminate income tax for all citizens of the northeast who make below $15,000/year
2) Require 2/3 majority in legislature to raise taxes


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 28, 2012, 07:04:05 PM
Once again, I cannot support this because the Northeast does not have a tax code in place.  This law would make it more difficult to implement one.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 30, 2012, 07:41:53 PM
Debate time has expired.  Members will now cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

The Fair Taxation Act of 2012

1) Eliminate income tax for all citizens of the northeast who make below $15,000/year
2) Require 2/3 majority in legislature to raise taxes


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 30, 2012, 07:42:34 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on January 30, 2012, 08:04:02 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on January 30, 2012, 10:29:10 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on January 30, 2012, 10:40:13 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on January 31, 2012, 05:06:14 AM
Man am I glad Snowstalker is Governor at times like this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 31, 2012, 07:40:54 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are two, nays are two, abstentions are zero, and non-voting members are one.  The vote is tied.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Connecticut.  Debate will be for 48 hours.

The Anti-Prohibition & Blue Law Repeal Act

A BILL to repeal and prohibit Northeastern laws that are found to be religiously motivated or otherwise unnecessary

1.) All existing laws which prohibit the consumption or sale of beer, wine, and spirits at neighborhood grocery and package stores on any day of the week are hereby repealed.

2.) All existing laws which prohibit gambling on any day of the week are hereby repealed.

3.) Town records may hereby be kept where liquor is sold.

4.) It is hereby legal to dispose of used razor blades.

5.) All legal firearms may be discharged in public highways, provided that they do not result in the harm of innocent citizens.

6.) Brothels are hereby legal in the Northeast.

7.) The sale of fireworks is hereby permitted to all Northeast residents above the age of seventeen.

8.) Hunting licenses and fishing licenses are no longer necessary to hunt or fish on one's own private property.

9.) On no day of any week are hunting or fishing prohibited activities.

10.) Players of professional sports shall not have to obtain a license to play on Sundays.

11.) "R"-rated movies are hereby allowed to be shown in drive-in theaters.

12.) The Northeast government may not prohibit activities on a given day of the week for religious reasons.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 31, 2012, 08:45:06 PM
Self-explanatory bill; repeals silly, unnecessary, and religiously-motivated laws, some of which can be found on here. (http://www.dumblaws.com/)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on February 02, 2012, 01:05:39 AM
Self-explanatory bill; repeals silly, unnecessary, and religiously-motivated laws, some of which can be found on here. (http://www.dumblaws.com/)

As a man from New Jersey myself, I don't think it's silly; it's one day a week of peace and quiet, especially if you're living on a busy street.  While statewide bans are a bit much, I don't see why local lawmakers cannot allow it, and if the locality doesnt like it, they throw out the lawmakers who put it in place.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 02, 2012, 01:13:37 AM
Self-explanatory bill; repeals silly, unnecessary, and religiously-motivated laws, some of which can be found on here. (http://www.dumblaws.com/)

As a man from New Jersey myself, I don't think it's silly; it's one day a week of peace and quiet, especially if you're living on a busy street.  While statewide bans are a bit much, I don't see why local lawmakers cannot allow it, and if the locality doesnt like it, they throw out the lawmakers who put it in place.

I feel that people who object to drinking on the Sabbath can refrain from doing so without the regional government or locality telling them they can't.  And since we would be allowing the sale of beer every day, both sellers and consumers would benefit.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 02, 2012, 01:52:05 AM
Motion to extend debate time by 24 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 02, 2012, 01:59:24 AM
Granted.

I hope Andrew swears in soon so he can substitute for me when I'm out this weekend.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 02, 2012, 05:35:33 PM
Because the Governor will be unable to sub for me this weekend, I call this session to recess.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 03, 2012, 12:58:29 PM
Quote
5.) All legal firearms may be discharged in public highways, provided that they do not result in the harm of innocent citizens.

Why this one again?..

Motion to amend by removing Section 4.

Motion to amend by removing Section 5.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on February 03, 2012, 10:47:33 PM
Quote
5.) All legal firearms may be discharged in public highways, provided that they do not result in the harm of innocent citizens.

Why this one again?..

Motion to amend by removing Section 4.

Motion to amend by removing Section 5.

Actually, I'm okay with 5 and 4.  I just don't like 12


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 03, 2012, 10:50:52 PM
Quote
5.) All legal firearms may be discharged in public highways, provided that they do not result in the harm of innocent citizens.

Why this one again?..

Motion to amend by removing Section 4.

Motion to amend by removing Section 5.

Actually, I'm okay with 5 and 4.  I just don't like 12

So make a motion to remove the section.  FTR, I won't support your motion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 03, 2012, 10:58:15 PM
5 seems creepy but what is wrong with 4?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 03, 2012, 11:08:06 PM

5 is creepy, and 4 just happens to be something I'm on the fence about.  I've just always been taught that it's not a good habit to share, or improperly dispose of razor blades.  It's a sanitation/viral thing, of course.  Just something I thought we should bother discussing. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on February 03, 2012, 11:34:32 PM

5 is creepy, and 4 just happens to be something I'm on the fence about.  I've just always been taught that it's not a good habit to share, or improperly dispose of razor blades.  It's a sanitation/viral thing, of course.  Just something I thought we should bother discussing. 

So you've been taught.  Let the dopes and/or the nasty skanky people do it and get diseases.  Then natural selection work its magic ;).  Btw, I'm 70% serious.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on February 03, 2012, 11:40:19 PM
Also, I find it odd that the gentleman from New York is against the provision talking about RAZOR BLADES but is fine with the idea of ATTACKING THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION in the bill's twelfth provision.  No offense, but really?!  ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 03, 2012, 11:50:14 PM
Also, I find it odd that the gentleman from New York is against the provision talking about RAZOR BLADES but is fine with the idea of ATTACKING THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION in the bill's twelfth provision.  No offense, but really?!  ;)

So, by prohibiting oh say, drinking on the sabbath is ATTACKING THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION?  These people are free to uphold this practice in their personal life's, but I will not impose the rule of one religion on one who believes in another, or none at all for that matter.  IIRC this idea is called..Freedom of Religion?  Yeah, that's it..  Your rhetoric is amusing, but ineffective.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 04, 2012, 04:17:13 AM
The far right is more frightening than amusing.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on February 04, 2012, 03:00:28 PM
Also, I find it odd that the gentleman from New York is against the provision talking about RAZOR BLADES but is fine with the idea of ATTACKING THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION in the bill's twelfth provision.  No offense, but really?!  ;)

So, by prohibiting oh say, drinking on the sabbath is ATTACKING THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION?  These people are free to uphold this practice in their personal life's, but I will not impose the rule of one religion on one who believes in another, or none at all for that matter.  IIRC this idea is called..Freedom of Religion?  Yeah, that's it..  Your rhetoric is amusing, but ineffective.

So you can't allow a Jewish restaurant owner to refuse to serve pork?  Or alcohol?  That's what's next.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on February 04, 2012, 03:01:07 PM
The far right is more frightening than amusing.

It's not far right if you're defending individual municipalities to pass their own laws.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 05, 2012, 09:12:18 PM
This Assembly is now in order.

I will accept the amendments as friendly.

Members will now cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

The Anti-Prohibition & Blue Law Repeal Act

A BILL to repeal and prohibit Northeastern laws that are found to be religiously motivated or otherwise unnecessary

1.) All existing laws which prohibit the consumption or sale of beer, wine, and spirits at neighborhood grocery and package stores on any day of the week are hereby repealed.

2.) All existing laws which prohibit gambling on any day of the week are hereby repealed.

3.) Town records may hereby be kept where liquor is sold.

4.) Brothels are hereby legal in the Northeast.

5.) The sale of fireworks is hereby permitted to all Northeast residents above the age of seventeen.

6.) Hunting licenses and fishing licenses are no longer necessary to hunt or fish on one's own private property.

7.) On no day of any week are hunting or fishing prohibited activities.

8.) Players of professional sports shall not have to obtain a license to play on Sundays.

9.) "R"-rated movies are hereby allowed to be shown in drive-in theaters.

10.) The Northeast government may not prohibit activities on a given day of the week for religious reasons.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 05, 2012, 09:13:42 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 05, 2012, 09:15:52 PM
Aye.

And on that note I'd just like to say, this bill does not attack freedom of religion at all; it tells localities that they cannot regulate morality or impose religious dogma on others.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 05, 2012, 10:46:27 PM
Nay.

I agree wholeheartedly with the content of this bill, but due to my strong decentralist views I do not believe in imposing it on municipalities.  I don't see how it would be imposed on municipalities based on the wording, but if Scott is insisting it does, I can't support it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 05, 2012, 10:50:01 PM
Also, I find it odd that the gentleman from New York is against the provision talking about RAZOR BLADES but is fine with the idea of ATTACKING THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION in the bill's twelfth provision.  No offense, but really?!  ;)

So, by prohibiting oh say, drinking on the sabbath is ATTACKING THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION?  These people are free to uphold this practice in their personal life's, but I will not impose the rule of one religion on one who believes in another, or none at all for that matter.  IIRC this idea is called..Freedom of Religion?  Yeah, that's it..  Your rhetoric is amusing, but ineffective.

So you can't allow a Jewish restaurant owner to refuse to serve pork?  Or alcohol?  That's what's next.

Where in this bill does it say that?  Businesses can still sell what they want, but the government wouldn't be allowed to tell them they can't.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on February 06, 2012, 08:41:19 PM
AYE AYE AYE AYE AYE

Though I'm unsure about point six.  Should've piped up during debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 06, 2012, 09:44:20 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are three, nays are one, abstentions are zero, and non-voting members are zero.  The bill is passed.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Connecticut.  Debate will be for 48 hours.

The Food Labeling Act

A BILL to mandate that all food producers, retailers, and restaurants label their products with nutrition and ingredient facts

1.) 'Edible substances' shall be defined as any nourishing substance that is sold to be eaten or drunk.

2.) Food sellers, producers, retailers, and restaurants must label all edible substances and products.

3.) All food labels must contain the following information:
  • Calories
  • Total Fat
  • Saturated Fat
  • Trans Fat
  • Cholesterol
  • Sodium
  • Total Carbohydrates
  • Dietary Fiber
  • Sugar
  • Protein
  • Vitamin A
  • Vitamin C
  • Calcium
  • Iron
  • Ingredients

4.) All genetically modified products must contain a label identifying them as such.

5.) Aforementioned information may be placed on labels, wrappers, packaging, windows, and walls.

6.) If aforementioned information is printed on a label, it must be bold and no smaller than 10-point size.

7.) Food sellers which fail to comply with this law shall be fined $150,000 per offense7


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on February 08, 2012, 07:56:45 PM
Mr. Speaker, what happened to our respective taxation bills?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 08, 2012, 08:04:26 PM
Producers?  Marketing managers would hate this idea, considering how horrible it would look with this information labeled next to every fruit and vegetable display.  It's all well and good to ask restaurants to offer this information if asked, and have already packaged foods to have this information, but come on..

I think it's safe to say I can eat an orange or banana and it won't make me exceed my "2000 a day calorie diet".  Hey, it may even be healthy for me. 



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 08, 2012, 08:16:24 PM
Coming soon:  Every lemonade stand gets a $150,000 fine!

(Or would it be multiple $150,000 fines, considering that they're simultaneously food producers and retailers?)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 08, 2012, 08:35:02 PM
Coming soon:  Every lemonade stand gets a $150,000 fine!

(Or would it be multiple $150,000 fines, considering that they're simultaneously food producers and retailers?)

They shouldn't be selling lemonade anyway without proper paperwork and licensing granting them the title of "vendor".  I mean, who do these kids think they are?  ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 08, 2012, 09:37:54 PM
Fine, I'll withdraw it then, since I don't see this passing.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Connecticut.  Debate will be for 48 hours.

The Northeast Revenue Act of 2012

A BILL to implement a tax code into the 2012 budget

Section 1.) Corporate Tax rates shall be as follows

Corporate Taxes, Income
0%   $0 - $10,000
2%   $10,000 - $50,000
9%   $50,000 - $75,000
13%   $75,000 - $100,000
20%   $100,000 - $335,000
24%   $335,000 - $10,000,000
28%   $10,000,000 - $15,000,000
30%   $15,000,000 +

Section 2.) Income Tax rates shall be as follows

Income Taxes, Single Individual
0%   $0 - $9,500
9%   $9,501 - $35,000
15%   $35,001 - $80,000
19%   $80,001 - $170,000
23%   $170,001 - $367,700
25%   $367,701 - $1,000,000
28%   $1,000,001 - $2,500,000
30%   $2,500,001 +

Section 3.) All tax rates in this bill shall expire at the start of the next fiscal year.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 08, 2012, 10:49:56 PM
Now, Imperial Speaker Yelnoc recommended that we remove the corporate taxes from this proposal so that we don't lose business to other regions.  I would be open to this.  However, I want our Reps to be mindful of the fact that the region has absolutely no revenue/tax system at all because the taxes that we used to have were repealed through various pieces of legislation by previous sessions over time- so every spending bill that's been passed since then hasn't even been getting paid for. (If this game were real, no one would even want us to borrow from them. :P)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 08, 2012, 11:02:49 PM
Suppose we had a fictional country known as the "United States of America."

In that fictional country, the highest individual income tax rate levied by any state is 11%, on high-earners in Oregon and Hawaii.  And the highest corporate tax rate, on corporate income above $250,000, is 12% in Iowa.  I might remind you that these are all different states and atypically-high rates.  This proposal, to put it mildly, is batsh**t insane.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 08, 2012, 11:09:57 PM
Suppose we had a fictional country known as the "United States of America."

In that fictional country, the highest individual income tax rate levied by any state is 11%, on high-earners in Oregon and Hawaii.  And the highest corporate tax rate, on corporate income above $250,000, is 12% in Iowa.  I might remind you that these are all different states and atypically-high rates.  This proposal, to put it mildly, is batsh**t insane.

Well, just because you've been so polite lately, I will be very willing to compromise and lower the top tax rate.  These rates were put out as a draft, originally, and the brackets would be discussed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 08, 2012, 11:19:15 PM
The Northeast Revenue Act of 2012

A BILL to implement a tax code into the 2012 budget

Section 1.) Corporate Tax rates shall be as follows

Corporate Taxes, Income
0%   $0 - $10,000
2%   $10,000 - $50,000
4%   $50,000 - $75,000
5%   $75,000 - $100,000
7%   $100,000 - $335,000
9%   $335,000 - $10,000,000
11%   $10,000,000 - $15,000,000
12%   $15,000,000 +

Section 2.) Income Tax rates shall be as follows

Income Taxes, Single Individual
0%   $0 - $9,500
2%   $9,501 - $35,000
3%   $35,001 - $80,000
5%   $80,001 - $170,000
6%   $170,001 - $367,700
7%   $367,701 - $1,000,000
9%   $1,000,001 - $2,500,000
11%   $2,500,001 +

Section 3.) All tax rates in this bill shall expire at the start of the next fiscal year.

Another possibility.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on February 09, 2012, 07:55:55 PM
My opinion:

()


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 09, 2012, 08:25:01 PM

Why?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 09, 2012, 08:25:59 PM
The Northeast Revenue Act of 2012

A BILL to implement a tax code into the 2012 budget

Section 1.) Corporate Tax rates shall be as follows

Corporate Taxes, Income
0%   $0 - $10,000
2%   $10,000 - $50,000
4%   $50,000 - $75,000
5%   $75,000 - $100,000
7%   $100,000 - $335,000
9%   $335,000 - $10,000,000
11%   $10,000,000 - $15,000,000
12%   $15,000,000 +

Section 2.) Income Tax rates shall be as follows

Income Taxes, Single Individual
0%   $0 - $9,500
2%   $9,501 - $35,000
3%   $35,001 - $80,000
5%   $80,001 - $170,000
6%   $170,001 - $367,700
7%   $367,701 - $1,000,000
9%   $1,000,001 - $2,500,000
11%   $2,500,001 +

Section 3.) All tax rates in this bill shall expire at the start of the next fiscal year.

Another possibility.

This makes much more sense.  I'm glad we're not talking about 20 and 30% anymore.  To quote a certain Representative, the original proposal was rather batsh**t insane.



Not all of them, just a higher percentage.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 09, 2012, 08:40:22 PM
I amend this bill to read the following.

The Northeast Revenue Act of 2012

A BILL to implement a tax code into the 2012 budget

Section 1.) Corporate Tax rates shall be as follows

Corporate Taxes, Income
0%   $0 - $10,000
2%   $10,000 - $50,000
4%   $50,000 - $75,000
5%   $75,000 - $100,000
7%   $100,000 - $335,000
9%   $335,000 - $10,000,000
11%   $10,000,000 - $15,000,000
12%   $15,000,000 +

Section 2.) Income Tax rates shall be as follows

Income Taxes, Single Individual
0%   $0 - $9,500
2%   $9,501 - $35,000
3%   $35,001 - $80,000
5%   $80,001 - $170,000
6%   $170,001 - $367,700
7%   $367,701 - $1,000,000
9%   $1,000,001 - $2,500,000
11%   $2,500,001 +

Section 3.) All tax rates in this bill shall expire at the start of the next fiscal year.

The amendment is friendly and the amendment is adopted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 10, 2012, 10:17:03 PM
Debate time has expired.  Members will now cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

The Northeast Revenue Act of 2012

A BILL to implement a tax code into the 2012 budget

Section 1.) Corporate Tax rates shall be as follows

Corporate Taxes, Income
0%   $0 - $10,000
2%   $10,000 - $50,000
4%   $50,000 - $75,000
5%   $75,000 - $100,000
7%   $100,000 - $335,000
9%   $335,000 - $10,000,000
11%   $10,000,000 - $15,000,000
12%   $15,000,000 +

Section 2.) Income Tax rates shall be as follows

Income Taxes, Single Individual
0%   $0 - $9,500
2%   $9,501 - $35,000
3%   $35,001 - $80,000
5%   $80,001 - $170,000
6%   $170,001 - $367,700
7%   $367,701 - $1,000,000
9%   $1,000,001 - $2,500,000
11%   $2,500,001 +

Section 3.) All tax rates in this bill shall expire at the start of the next fiscal year.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 10, 2012, 10:17:43 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on February 11, 2012, 01:49:45 AM
I'm afraid I will have to vote nay.  It was better when the freakishly rich payed 30%.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 11, 2012, 05:36:49 AM
Aye

I'm afraid I will have to vote nay.  It was better when the freakishly rich payed 30%.

So 30% in addition to the 60% they already pay federally IIRC?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 11, 2012, 11:13:17 AM
I love it when people wait for the actual voting period to say why they're against something.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on February 11, 2012, 11:53:11 AM
So 30% in addition to the 60% they already pay federally IIRC?

YEP

Actually, they should pay 60% in regional taxes.  That's 120% of their income!  We'll tax them so hard they won't be able to sit down for a week.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 11, 2012, 01:21:57 PM
This plan imposes taxes even higher than the plan proposed by Jerseyrules, a plan that Napoleon, the Liberal Party candidate for governor, has attacked as taxing Northeast citizens far too high.  I vote nay on this extremist proposal.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 11, 2012, 01:24:20 PM
So 30% in addition to the 60% they already pay federally IIRC?

YEP

Actually, they should pay 60% in regional taxes.  That's 120% of their income!  We'll tax them so hard they won't be able to sit down for a week.

This is stupid.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on February 11, 2012, 06:26:05 PM
Nay nay nay nay nay nay  giddyup horsey!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 11, 2012, 06:43:22 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are two, nays are three, abstentions are zero, and non-voting members are zero.  The bill fails.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from New York.  Debate will be for 48 hours.

If your income range is between $0 and $10,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 1%.
If your income range is between $10,000 and $20,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 2%.
If your income range is between $20,000 and $25,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 4%.
If your income range is between $25,000 and $35,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 6%.
If your income range is between $35,000 and $50,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 8%.
If your income range is between $50,000 and $1,000,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 9%.
If your income range is $1,000,001 and over, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 10%.

All rates indexed to inflation, so as to avoid the poor being forced into higher brackets in the future.  Reminding that this is in addition to federal taxation


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 11, 2012, 06:43:53 PM
I will be voting against this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 11, 2012, 07:30:57 PM
Taxing $35,000 at 8%? Lol


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 11, 2012, 08:00:48 PM

Everyone has to pay their fair share, remember?  That's why those making millions of dollars are only paying 2% more, of course.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on February 12, 2012, 06:29:08 PM

Everyone has to pay their fair share, remember?  That's why those making millions of dollars are only paying 2% more, of course.

This is actually better than RL California rates FTW.  At any rate, I think that while these rates are too high, they are preferable to the current rates, and I motion that debate should be extended so we may discuss this further.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on February 12, 2012, 06:29:54 PM

Let's see your proposal, Senator.  Rates and numbers, exactly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 12, 2012, 06:36:40 PM

Everyone has to pay their fair share, remember?  That's why those making millions of dollars are only paying 2% more, of course.

This is actually better than RL California rates FTW.  At any rate, I think that while these rates are too high, they are preferable to the current rates, and I motion that debate should be extended so we may discuss this further.

What current rates?  We have no tax code.

I will need the specific amount of time you would like added for me to consider.  Seeing as how there has been little commentary on this so far, I would be very reluctant to grant any requests to extend debate time.  More than likely, any additional time we spend on this bill will not be used.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 13, 2012, 08:59:23 PM
Debate time has expired.  Members will now cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote.

If your income range is between $0 and $10,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 1%.
If your income range is between $10,000 and $20,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 2%.
If your income range is between $20,000 and $25,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 4%.
If your income range is between $25,000 and $35,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 6%.
If your income range is between $35,000 and $50,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 8%.
If your income range is between $50,000 and $1,000,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 9%.
If your income range is $1,000,001 and over, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 10%.

All rates indexed to inflation, so as to avoid the poor being forced into higher brackets in the future.  Reminding that this is in addition to federal taxation


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 13, 2012, 08:59:54 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 13, 2012, 09:12:23 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 13, 2012, 09:13:34 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on February 13, 2012, 10:43:43 PM
Nay


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 14, 2012, 09:55:26 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are zero, nays are four, abstentions are zero, and non-voting members are one.  The bill fails.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the gentleman from New York.  Debate will be for 48 hours.

I propose the Anti-Prohibition Act of 2012:

1) Complete decriminalization of all illegal drug substances
2) Repeal of gun control laws in the northeast
3) Complete legalization of prostitution


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 14, 2012, 10:02:30 PM
Since prostitution and drugs are already legal in the Northeast, this bill would incidentally only change one law in the Northeast, and that law would be the Northeast Gun Safety Act.  I would not support repeal of that because I believe the provisions in that law are reasonable and don't infringe on Second Amendment rights.  I oppose this bill.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on February 16, 2012, 07:30:16 PM
This is an act to completely remove any government oversight on prostitution, guns, and drugs.  Basically this act shows that civilians have a constitutional right to complete privacy on these matters.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 17, 2012, 01:10:46 AM
Debate time has expired.  Members will now cast their votes on passage of the legislation.  This will be a 24-hour vote, and this will also be the last bill considered for this session.

I propose the Anti-Prohibition Act of 2012:

1) Complete decriminalization of all illegal drug substances
2) Repeal of gun control laws in the northeast
3) Complete legalization of prostitution


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 17, 2012, 01:11:41 AM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 17, 2012, 01:12:34 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on February 17, 2012, 01:58:54 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on February 17, 2012, 06:03:57 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on February 17, 2012, 06:20:09 PM
By the way, Mr. Speaker, what happened to my "line of succession act"?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 17, 2012, 06:22:28 PM
By the way, Mr. Speaker, what happened to my "line of succession act"?

That will not be considered until the following session after the Speaker is selected because this session is almost over.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on February 17, 2012, 06:47:29 PM
By the way, Mr. Speaker, what happened to my "line of succession act"?

That will not be considered until the following session after the Speaker is selected because this session is almost over.

All right, so will I have to re-introduce that and my Tax Compromise in the next session?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 17, 2012, 06:50:20 PM
By the way, Mr. Speaker, what happened to my "line of succession act"?

Nay
That will not be considered until the following session after the Speaker is selected because this session is almost over.

All right, so will I have to re-introduce that and my Tax Compromise in the next session?

Assuming you're elected, yes.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 17, 2012, 06:51:04 PM
Nay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 17, 2012, 06:57:35 PM
All members have cast their votes.  The ayes are three, nays are two, abstentions are zero, and non-voting members are zero.  The bill is passed.

This body is now adjourned.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 23, 2012, 09:26:03 AM
Once we've all officially sworn in, we can begin nominating a Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 23, 2012, 07:08:21 PM
No, actually. Confirmation of Scott as Senator and the nomination period for the Speaker position should begin immediately.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 23, 2012, 07:12:17 PM
No, actually. Confirmation of Scott as Senator and the nomination period for the Speaker position should begin immediately.

And it will.. once we correct the oversight that you pointed out by swearing in today.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 23, 2012, 08:54:13 PM
We will now begin nominating a Speaker for this body.  Simultaneously, we will vote on Scott's confirmation in order to get started as quickly as possible.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 23, 2012, 09:59:06 PM
I endorse Cincinnatus for Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on February 23, 2012, 11:53:08 PM
I support Cincinnatus for Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Free Palestine on February 24, 2012, 02:45:58 AM
Wait a minute...there was an election?  And I forgot to run?  Aww hell naw.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 24, 2012, 02:25:04 PM
I'll accept the nomination.  I also vote Aye regarding Scott's appointment.

FTR, the nominating period is meant to be 24 hours, as is the vote regarding Scott's appointment.  Please participate in both before 9:00 tonight.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 24, 2012, 06:59:47 PM
I vote aye to Scott's appointment, and vote for Cincinnatus for Speaker.

Thanks, but I meant just the nominations and the confirmation of Scott.. we'll move on to a vote for Speaker after the nominating period is over :)



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on February 24, 2012, 09:21:57 PM
Aye for Scott's appointment.

Please clarify why we have to vote on this since he won the Senate election.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 24, 2012, 09:46:56 PM
Aye for Scott's appointment.

Please clarify why we have to vote on this since he won the Senate election.

Napoleon vacated his seat upon swearing in as Governor.  Therefore, the seat is currently vacant because Senators won't swear in for a while.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on February 24, 2012, 10:31:37 PM
Aye for Scott's appointment.

Please clarify why we have to vote on this since he won the Senate election.

Napoleon vacated his seat upon swearing in as Governor.  Therefore, the seat is currently vacant because Senators won't swear in for a while.

Thank you.  I was not sure when Senators swear in.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 25, 2012, 07:14:22 AM
The Ayes are 3, Nays 0, with 1 non-voting abstention on Scott's confirmation.  He is successfully confirmed. 

We will not vote for Speaker. This vote will last 24 hours, or until all members have voted;

[ ] Cincinnatus
[ ] Write-in


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 25, 2012, 07:14:55 AM
Speaker;

[1]  Cincinnatus


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on February 25, 2012, 12:08:41 PM
Speaker

[X] Cincinnatus
[  ] Write-in


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 25, 2012, 01:00:46 PM
I thank the Assembly for confirming me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 26, 2012, 02:33:03 PM
The voting period is over.  Cincinnatus is elected Speaker.

Our first order of business will be to officially confirm Napoleon and homelycooking for the Wiki Reform Commission.  Please vote Aye or Nay for each official.  This vote will last 24 hours.


Aye on Napoleon
Aye on homely


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 26, 2012, 02:48:03 PM
Aye on both.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on February 26, 2012, 07:44:40 PM
Aye Napoleon
Aye homely


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 27, 2012, 04:16:09 AM
All members have voted.  The Ayes are 4, Nays are 0, and non-voting abstentions are 0.  Homely and Napoleon are confirmed.

The Assembly will now consider the legislation introduced by the Governor.  Debate will last 48 hours.


Quote
1. Proposed Legislation Thread
A. The Lt. Governor shall open a new Northeast Assembly Proposed Legislation Thread at the start of each Northeast Assembly session.
B. Representatives, the Governor and any concerned Northeast citizen shall post the full text of any proposed legislation in a response to the Northeast Assembly Proposed Legislation Thread for the current session. Each response shall contain only one piece of proposed legislation.
C. Nothing shall be posted to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread except proposed legislation or a Northeast citizen's signature for proposed citizen legislation.

2. Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor
A. Three bills shall be allowed on the floor concurrently, to be referred to as Legislative Slots.
   Legislative Slot 1: Priority shall be given to the People. Legislation proposed by concerned Northeast citizens shall be placed in this slot. If there is no new legislation proposed by concerned Northeast citizens in the Northeast Assembly Proposed Legislation Thread, the Speaker shall place the earliest introduced legislation in this slot.
Legislative Slot 2: Priority shall be given to the Speaker. Legislation shall be placed in this slot at the Speaker’s discretion. Proposed legislation must be placed in this slot if it is open.
Legislative Slot 3: Priority shall be given to the Governor. Legislation proposed by the Governor shall be placed in this slot. If there is no new legislation proposed by the Governor in the Northeast Assembly Proposed Legislation Thread, the Speaker shall place the earliest introduced legislation in this slot.
B. Each piece of legislation on the floor shall receive its own thread.
   Threads shall be titled as follows: NE1: Name of bill, where 1 is substituted to designate the Legislative Slot the bill occupies and the Name of bill shall be the Title of the Bill given by its sponsor in the Northeast Assembly Proposed Legislation Thread. Each thread shall remain open until the Bill either (a) becomes law via the Governor’s signature, lack of Gubernatorial action, or veto override or (b) fails to receive majority support from Representatives.

3. Legislative Debates and Voting
A. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h), all proposed legislation shall be open for debate for no less than seventy-two (72) hours after the Speaker places it in a Legislative Slot.
B. During debate, Representatives may suggest amendments to proposed legislation. If the sponsor of the proposed legislation publicly deems the amendment friendly, no vote on the amendment shall be required. If the sponsor of the proposed legislation does not publicly deem the amendment friendly, a vote on the amendment shall be taken twenty-four (24) hours after being proposed unless there is less than twenty-four (24) hours of debate remaining on the bill. If there is less than twenty-four (24) hours of debate remaining on the bill, a vote on the amendment shall be taken before proceeding to a final vote on the bill. Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours, or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. An amendment shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
C. The sponsor of a proposed amendment may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before a vote on the amendment is started.
D. The sponsor of a piece of proposed legislation may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before a final vote is taken on the proposed legislation.
E. A final vote on the proposed legislation shall take place after the Speaker certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period). Such votes shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours, or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. A piece of proposed legislation shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
F. The Speaker shall certify the results of any vote within twenty-four (24) hours of the end of the voting period.
G. Any Representative may make a motion to suspend section 3A of this Standing Order to increase or decrease the time of the debate or voting period. The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor. Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours, or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the relevant period shall be changed.

4. Terminology
A. All legislation regarding the rules of the Northeast Assembly shall be called Standing Orders.
B. All proposed legislation that requires the signature of the Governor shall be called a Bill until signed and thereafter an Act.

5. Miscellaneous
A Northeast Assembly Protest and Analysis Thread shall be created and made open to Northeast citizens for the discussion of legislative proposals, debates, votes, and all other matters that relate to the Northeast government.


 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 27, 2012, 04:24:54 AM
Hopefully, I have overlooked all mistakes. Id like to make sure we get such a big change right the first time. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 27, 2012, 02:49:36 PM
Hopefully this SOAP will be followed entirely this time. :P

Remember that it might be ideal to include a provision that would allow the Assembly to table rogue legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 28, 2012, 04:43:37 AM
Requesting and granting a 24 hour extension of debate time. 

I do have several points to make when I come back, sorry for the delay.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 28, 2012, 04:54:59 PM
Quote
B. Each piece of legislation on the floor shall receive its own thread.

We'll be cluttering the regional board :)

Quote
B. During debate, Representatives may suggest amendments to proposed legislation. If the sponsor of the proposed legislation publicly deems the amendment friendly, no vote on the amendment shall be required. If the sponsor of the proposed legislation does not publicly deem the amendment friendly, a vote on the amendment shall be taken twenty-four (24) hours after being proposed unless there is less than twenty-four (24) hours of debate remaining on the bill. If there is less than twenty-four (24) hours of debate remaining on the bill, a vote on the amendment shall be taken before proceeding to a final vote on the bill. Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours, or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. An amendment shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).

Why not just vote on all amendments when debate is over?  It seems to be working well as of now..

Quote
G. Any Representative may make a motion to suspend section 3A of this Standing Order to increase or decrease the time of the debate or voting period. The motion shall be immediately put to a vote on the Northeast Assembly floor. Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours, or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. If the motion passes by a vote of the majority of all Representatives (with abstentions and absences counted as nay votes), the relevant period shall be changed.

Finally.. why not incorporate this (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Amendments_to_the_SOAP_for_a_faster_legislative_work), which I think is better.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 28, 2012, 05:43:24 PM
1. I disagree. This change will make it easier to follow legislation and easier to update the Wiki. If people think this board is cluttered they can petition the Mideast to change their ways.

2. Because I think debates should last longer and be more like the Senate. The way it is now, there are competing amendments and what not.

3. Yeah, I'm for giving the Speaker more freedom to adjust debate times and have longer, more thorough debates when needed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 28, 2012, 06:00:26 PM
Introducing an amendment to Section 3, subsection G for consideration;


Quote
The Speaker shall have the authority to extend or shorten the debating period or voting period upon the written request of any Representative.  No extension shall exceed 48 hours, and no shortening shall exceed 12 hours. 

Introducing an amendment to Section 3, subsection e

Quote
E. A final vote on the proposed legislation shall take place after the Speaker certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period). Except as otherwise provided in subsection g, such votes shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours , or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. A piece of proposed legislation shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).


Also, I believe this has to be changed like so;

Quote
Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h) (G), all proposed legislation shall be open for debate for no less than seventy-two (72) hours after the Speaker places it in a Legislative Slot.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 29, 2012, 08:13:16 AM
Are these three amendments acceptable, Napoleon?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 29, 2012, 10:09:05 AM
Can multiple extensions be given?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 29, 2012, 11:12:30 AM

The only rule regards the time of extension, and shortening.

Quote
Section 3, subsection (a) of the SOAP is hereby amended to read: All proposed legislation shall be open for debate for forty-eight (48) hours after the Lt. Governor places it on the Northeast Assembly floor. The Lt. Governor shall have the authority to extend or shorten the debating period upon the written request of any Representative. No extension of the debate period shall exceed 72 hours, and no shortening shall exceed 12 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 29, 2012, 12:00:45 PM
Maybe make it "no single extension", and have a mechanism to force a vote if two representatives motion to.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 29, 2012, 05:49:32 PM
More like this..perhaps?  And the mechanism if two motions occur would be the Speakers ability to deny one of them..


Quote
The Speaker shall have the authority to extend or shorten the debating period or voting period upon the written request of any Representative.  Total debate time can never exceed 120 hours, and never be less than 36 hours.  


The other three Rep's should feel free to participate whenever.. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 29, 2012, 06:37:52 PM
To be fair,  only me, you and Wormy have prior Assembly experience.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 29, 2012, 10:37:48 PM
Do we need another extension?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on February 29, 2012, 11:37:23 PM
Sorry, I have been engrossed in Mitt's campaign, but now that Arizona and Michigan have voted, way to go Mitt :), I will try to pay more attention to Assembly affairs.

I agree with the proposal for the most part, but I don't know that a separate thread for each piece of legislation is warranted.  Myself, I would be content to deal with the legislation, piece by piece, in the Assembly thread.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on March 01, 2012, 04:36:05 AM
Requesting and granting a final 48 hour extension.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on March 02, 2012, 06:44:56 PM
We're nearing the end of debate time here.  What is going to be friendly, and what do we need to vote on?

1.
Quote
E. A final vote on the proposed legislation shall take place after the Speaker certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period). Except as otherwise provided in subsection g, such votes shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours , or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. A piece of proposed legislation shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes)

2.
Quote
Except as otherwise provided in subsection (h) (G), all proposed legislation shall be open for debate for no less than seventy-two (72) hours after the Speaker places it in a Legislative Slot.

3.  Not a formally proposed amendment, but a topic of discussion.

2. Section 3, Subsection B seems needlessly complicated and time-consuming. I would prefer to continue voting on amendments when debate is over.

4.
Quote
The Speaker shall have the authority to extend or shorten the debating period or voting period upon the written request of any Representative.  No extension shall exceed 48 hours, and no shortening shall exceed 12 hours. 

Or..

Quote
The Speaker shall have the authority to extend or shorten the debating period or voting period upon the written request of any Representative.  Total debate time can never exceed 120 hours, and never be less than 36 hours. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on March 03, 2012, 11:47:45 AM
Quote
The Speaker shall have the authority to extend or shorten the debating period or voting period upon the written request of any Representative.  No extension shall exceed 48 hours, and no shortening shall exceed 12 hours. 

This is..withdrawn.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on March 03, 2012, 11:57:16 AM
Debate time is expired.  We will now vote on the following amendments.  Please vote Aye, Nay, or abstain for each one.  This vote will last 24 hours, or until all members have voted.


1.  An amendment to Section 3, subsection G;

Quote
The Speaker shall have the authority to extend or shorten the debating period or voting period upon the written request of any Representative.  Total debate time can never exceed 120 hours, and never be less than 36 hours. 

2.  An amendment to Section 3, subsection e

Quote
E. A final vote on the proposed legislation shall take place after the Speaker certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period). Except as otherwise provided in subsection g, such votes shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours , or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. A piece of proposed legislation shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).

3.  An amendment to Section 3, subsection a
Quote
Except as otherwise provided in subsection (G), all proposed legislation shall be open for debate for no less than seventy-two (72) hours after the Speaker places it in a Legislative Slot.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on March 03, 2012, 11:57:40 AM
Aye to all


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on March 03, 2012, 04:27:23 PM
Aye to all three three amendments.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on March 04, 2012, 06:01:44 PM
All amendments have passed and will be incorporated.  The Assembly will now vote on the final text.  This vote will last 24 hours, or until all members have voted.



Quote
1. Proposed Legislation Thread
A. The Lt. Governor shall open a new Northeast Assembly Proposed Legislation Thread at the start of each Northeast Assembly session.
B. Representatives, the Governor and any concerned Northeast citizen shall post the full text of any proposed legislation in a response to the Northeast Assembly Proposed Legislation Thread for the current session. Each response shall contain only one piece of proposed legislation.
C. Nothing shall be posted to the Northeast Assembly proposed legislation thread except proposed legislation or a Northeast citizen's signature for proposed citizen legislation.

2. Movement of Legislation to the Northeast Assembly Floor
A. Three bills shall be allowed on the floor concurrently, to be referred to as Legislative Slots.
   Legislative Slot 1: Priority shall be given to the People. Legislation proposed by concerned Northeast citizens shall be placed in this slot. If there is no new legislation proposed by concerned Northeast citizens in the Northeast Assembly Proposed Legislation Thread, the Speaker shall place the earliest introduced legislation in this slot.
Legislative Slot 2: Priority shall be given to the Speaker. Legislation shall be placed in this slot at the Speaker’s discretion. Proposed legislation must be placed in this slot if it is open.
Legislative Slot 3: Priority shall be given to the Governor. Legislation proposed by the Governor shall be placed in this slot. If there is no new legislation proposed by the Governor in the Northeast Assembly Proposed Legislation Thread, the Speaker shall place the earliest introduced legislation in this slot.
B. Each piece of legislation on the floor shall receive its own thread.
   Threads shall be titled as follows: NE1: Name of bill, where 1 is substituted to designate the Legislative Slot the bill occupies and the Name of bill shall be the Title of the Bill given by its sponsor in the Northeast Assembly Proposed Legislation Thread. Each thread shall remain open until the Bill either (a) becomes law via the Governor’s signature, lack of Gubernatorial action, or veto override or (b) fails to receive majority support from Representatives.

3. Legislative Debates and Voting
A. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (G), all proposed legislation shall be open for debate for no less than seventy-two (72) hours after the Speaker places it in a Legislative Slot.
B. During debate, Representatives may suggest amendments to proposed legislation. If the sponsor of the proposed legislation publicly deems the amendment friendly, no vote on the amendment shall be required. If the sponsor of the proposed legislation does not publicly deem the amendment friendly, a vote on the amendment shall be taken twenty-four (24) hours after being proposed unless there is less than twenty-four (24) hours of debate remaining on the bill. If there is less than twenty-four (24) hours of debate remaining on the bill, a vote on the amendment shall be taken before proceeding to a final vote on the bill. Such vote shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours, or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. An amendment shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
C. The sponsor of a proposed amendment may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before a vote on the amendment is started.
D. The sponsor of a piece of proposed legislation may remove it from the Assembly floor by tabling it at any time before a final vote is taken on the proposed legislation.
E. A final vote on the proposed legislation shall take place after the Speaker certifies the vote on any proposed amendments (or, if there are no such amendments, at the end of the debate period). Except as otherwise provided in subsection g, such votes shall be open for twenty-four (24) hours , or until all Representatives have voted, if earlier. A piece of proposed legislation shall pass if a majority of Representatives vote in favor of it (with abstentions and absences not counted as votes).
F. The Speaker shall certify the results of any vote within twenty-four (24) hours of the end of the voting period.
G. The Speaker shall have the authority to extend or shorten the debating period or voting period upon the written request of any Representative.  Total debate time can never exceed 120 hours, and never be less than 36 hours. 

4. Terminology
A. All legislation regarding the rules of the Northeast Assembly shall be called Standing Orders.
B. All proposed legislation that requires the signature of the Governor shall be called a Bill until signed and thereafter an Act.

5. Miscellaneous
A Northeast Assembly Protest and Analysis Thread shall be created and made open to Northeast citizens for the discussion of legislative proposals, debates, votes, and all other matters that relate to the Northeast government.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 04, 2012, 06:34:23 PM
Nay.

The increasing partisanization of the role of Speaker and the marginalization of the assembly in favor of the executive are not trends that ought to be encouraged.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 04, 2012, 07:06:36 PM
Nay.

The increasing partisanization of the role of Speaker and the marginalization of the assembly in favor of the executive are not trends that ought to be encouraged.

Please explain how the Assembly is being marginalized in favor of the executive.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 04, 2012, 08:31:20 PM
Nay.

The increasing partisanization of the role of Speaker and the marginalization of the assembly in favor of the executive are not trends that ought to be encouraged.

Please explain how the Assembly is being marginalized in favor of the executive.

Giving governor-introduced legislation (a bad idea in and of itself) priority over assembly-introduced legislation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 04, 2012, 09:33:10 PM
Nay.

The increasing partisanization of the role of Speaker and the marginalization of the assembly in favor of the executive are not trends that ought to be encouraged.

Please explain how the Assembly is being marginalized in favor of the executive.

Giving governor-introduced legislation (a bad idea in and of itself) priority over assembly-introduced legislation.

Governors have always been able to introduce legislation. Dedicating one of three slots to that purpose has no net negative effect on the Assembly's ability to pass legislation. I even reduced gubernatorial power by removing the executive from the amendment process.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 04, 2012, 09:39:53 PM
Nay.

The increasing partisanization of the role of Speaker and the marginalization of the assembly in favor of the executive are not trends that ought to be encouraged.

Please explain how the Assembly is being marginalized in favor of the executive.

Giving governor-introduced legislation (a bad idea in and of itself) priority over assembly-introduced legislation.

Governors have always been able to introduce legislation. Dedicating one of three slots to that purpose has no net negative effect on the Assembly's ability to pass legislation. I even reduced gubernatorial power by removing the executive from the amendment process.

Governors have not always been able to introduce legislation, under the old constitution the governor needed an assembly member to sponsor legislation for it to be considered.  This bill would mean that all gubernatorial legislation is considered immediately while assembly legislation is only considered in the order that the speaker decides and at his discretion.  I don't see what making the Assembly into essentially a rubber-stamp institution accomplishes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 05, 2012, 02:14:20 AM
You should check out the Old Constitution because you have been misinformed. This does not interfere with Assembly-introduced legislation relative to the status quo. I don't understand where you are coming from with your rubber stamp claim.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 05, 2012, 09:41:47 AM
You should check out the Old Constitution because you have been misinformed. This does not interfere with Assembly-introduced legislation relative to the status quo. I don't understand where you are coming from with your rubber stamp claim.

I would check out the old constitution, if it hadn't been mysteriously deleted from the Wiki, although I would challenge you to provide a single example of legislation the governor introduced into the assembly that was not sponsored by an assemblyman on the governor's behalf (hint: you may spend a while looking).  Making the governor into a super-legislator who can not only propose legislation but give it precedence over all assembly-introduced legislation, and giving the Speaker the power to choose when and even if legislation is considered, gives those two offices complete control of the region.  In effect, it changes the Assembly into the Politburo - rather than a legislature that proposes laws, instead the executive proposes laws and then the assembly chooses whether to "veto" them (an ass-backwards and extremely authoritarian setup, hence why it was used in the Soviet government), and rather than an assembly that hears all points of view, it is restricted to the narrow interests of the Speaker, who can (and often will be) be elected with a majority of one.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on March 05, 2012, 11:04:57 AM
Aye

I'm so glad these concerns were brought to light during our 5 days of debate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 05, 2012, 11:09:37 AM
Unfortunately, I have to put 20-page papers I have to write ahead of assembly debates, important as they may be.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on March 05, 2012, 11:17:56 AM
Unfortunately, I have to put 20-page papers I have to write ahead of assembly debates, important as they may be.

Absolutely right, but somehow you rarely have anything to say until debate is over.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on March 05, 2012, 11:31:15 AM
As opposed to certain individuals who never say anything at all?  Don't throw stones in glass houses.  If that's seriously the reason why you are voting for this despicable legislation that literally makes the Northeast a dictatorship, I have zero respect for you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on March 05, 2012, 12:24:48 PM
As opposed to certain individuals who never say anything at all?  Don't throw stones in glass houses.  If that's seriously the reason why you are voting for this despicable legislation that literally makes the Northeast a dictatorship, I have zero respect for you.

It has nothing to do with why I'm voting for this, actually.  And I assure you, I haven't ignored those who never say anything at all, and I think you know that.  This bill doesn't make the Northeast a "dictatorship", but beyond that, what respect you have for me or not doesn't matter in the least. 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 05, 2012, 03:01:27 PM
I will refer the Assembly to Article V, Section xi of the old Constitution for verification of my accuracy. I do not appreciate being called a liar.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on March 05, 2012, 03:41:52 PM
So in a special election, do I take office immediately?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: AndrewTX on March 05, 2012, 03:53:02 PM
I will refer the Assembly to Article V, Section xi of the old Constitution for verification of my accuracy. I do not appreciate being called a liar.

I believe he was talking to the constitution before that. It somehow got deleted from the wiki.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on March 05, 2012, 06:46:31 PM
Voting time has expired.  The ayes are two, and nays are one.  The bill has passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on March 05, 2012, 06:49:00 PM
Was the Anti-Prohibition Act of 2012 ever actually signed?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on March 05, 2012, 08:50:06 PM
All amendments have passed and will be incorporated.  The Assembly will now vote on the final text.  This vote will last 24 hours, or until all members have voted.

Why have you cut off voting before all members have voted?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 05, 2012, 08:57:35 PM
All amendments have passed and will be incorporated.  The Assembly will now vote on the final text.  This vote will last 24 hours, or until all members have voted.

Why have you cut off voting before all members have voted?

24 hours have passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on March 05, 2012, 09:20:19 PM
All amendments have passed and will be incorporated.  The Assembly will now vote on the final text.  This vote will last 24 hours, or until all members have voted.

Why have you cut off voting before all members have voted?

24 hours have passed.

Then the wording is misleading, 24 hours OR until ALL members have voted.

It should be worded

Until all members have voted or up to 24 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on March 05, 2012, 09:24:30 PM
Was the Anti-Prohibition Act of 2012 ever actually signed?

Governor, please be sure to sign or veto this bill before the next session begins.

The above is the last entry in the then Governor's office thread, so apparently not.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on March 06, 2012, 04:50:45 PM
So in a special election, do I take office immediately?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 06, 2012, 05:07:51 PM
Yes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on March 09, 2012, 12:59:49 PM
Um, is this dead?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on March 12, 2012, 04:56:37 PM
If anyone has any legislation to propose, I suggest you do it soon.  We will have two open slots within 24 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on April 06, 2012, 10:38:14 AM
I'm trying to find the region's tax code. I haven't had any luck in this thread or the wiki. Can anyone help me with this?

Every tax the region implemented was repealed, so there is no tax code.

It just occurred to me actually, the Assembly still needs a budget (and tax code) to consider.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on April 06, 2012, 10:55:39 AM
I'm trying to find the region's tax code. I haven't had any luck in this thread or the wiki. Can anyone help me with this?

Every tax the region implemented was repealed, so there is no tax code.

It just occurred to me actually, the Assembly still needs a budget (and tax code) to consider.

Do we have any other revenue sources?

None that I've heard of, no.

Our credit rating must be low.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on April 06, 2012, 12:33:58 PM
I'm trying to find the region's tax code. I haven't had any luck in this thread or the wiki. Can anyone help me with this?

Every tax the region implemented was repealed, so there is no tax code.

It just occurred to me actually, the Assembly still needs a budget (and tax code) to consider.

Do we have any other revenue sources?

No one wants to address this, or pass a solution when we do address it.  I hope Governor Napoleon has something coming forward soon, because the GM has graciously ignored this fact for some time :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 06, 2012, 01:38:28 PM
We need to pass the budget amendment and pass a budget procedure law still. Then we can pass a budget.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Pyro on April 26, 2012, 01:59:22 PM
Nix, would you like the position? You'd have my endorsement.
Also, shouldn't that special election to fill wormy's seat start up soon?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on April 26, 2012, 02:17:28 PM
I'd like to pre-endorse Nix for the Speaker position if he runs for it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 26, 2012, 02:43:18 PM
Nix, would you like the position? You'd have my endorsement.
Also, shouldn't that special election to fill wormy's seat start up soon?

No, as wormy is still a Representative.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Pyro on April 26, 2012, 03:04:06 PM
Nix, would you like the position? You'd have my endorsement.
Also, shouldn't that special election to fill wormy's seat start up soon?
No, as wormy is still a Representative.
So when would he swear in for the Senate seat he won?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Pyro on April 26, 2012, 03:30:55 PM
After Winfield swears in, we'll begin the nomination process.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Pyro on April 26, 2012, 11:07:20 PM
Alrighty, I think we've waited long enough.

We will now begin nominating a Speaker for this body.
I'll begin by nominating Nix.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on April 27, 2012, 10:33:23 AM
I'll nominate myself :p


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Pyro on April 27, 2012, 11:07:37 PM
Now that 24 hours have passed, we will now begin the voting period for Speaker.
This vote will last 24 hours, or until all members have voted, and I wholly encourage every member to vote. :)

[ ] Averroës Nix
[ ] Wormyguy
[ ] Write-in


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Pyro on April 27, 2012, 11:09:57 PM
Speaker
[1] Averroës Nix
[ ] Wormyguy


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on April 27, 2012, 11:23:24 PM
[X] Averroës Nix
[  ] Wormyguy
[  ] Write-in


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on April 28, 2012, 01:05:28 AM
Speaker

[X] Averroes Nix
[  ] Wormyguy

Since Wormyguy is, I assume, going to the  Senate, there is no point in electing him Speaker, although, if he were not going to the Senate, I would have no objection to him becoming Speaker.

I as well have no objection in Averroes Nix becoming Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 28, 2012, 05:27:16 AM
Congratulations on your likely victory, Nix. Oh, and what Winfield said (wormyguy was actually the first person I voted for to the Speaker position).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Pyro on April 28, 2012, 11:39:35 PM
The voting time has expired, Nix is now elected Speaker. Congrats ^^


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Pyro on May 04, 2012, 03:21:09 AM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on May 06, 2012, 06:36:20 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on May 06, 2012, 08:17:40 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 10, 2012, 10:34:03 AM
Northeast High Speed Rail Act

1. The Northeast Region shall establish a high speed rail authority to develop, construct and maintain a High Speed Rail network.
2. This system shall reach the major cities of the region.
3. The average speed of the network's trains shall not fall below 200 miles per hour.
4. A minimum of half all of all funding should come from non-public sources.
This should be dismissed as frivolous. All major cities in the region are connected with high speed rail already and were paid for through federal funding I sought as Senator.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on May 14, 2012, 05:23:05 AM
Hi!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Pyro on May 14, 2012, 03:48:31 PM
Welcome to the Assembly, Alfred! :)

Now that the left has the majority once again, we can resume working on some legislation to benefit the working class, while reforming our system to make Atlasia more active and fun!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on May 14, 2012, 05:45:03 PM
Why, thank you, Pyro! I do agree with your sentiments!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on May 15, 2012, 11:01:55 PM
Welcome to the Assembly Representative Alfred F. Jones.

However, I must say that I do not believe it is productive for one to put ideology ahead of all else when deliberating what is in the best interests of the region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 15, 2012, 11:05:51 PM
The only majority in this chamber will be an active, friendly, responsible majority. Every representative cares about the vulnerable in our society and reforming the region. That is what makes the Northeast so great. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on May 16, 2012, 05:21:15 AM
Well, of course we're all active. although I haven't seen anything being done in the past few days.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 20, 2012, 05:59:28 PM
Can you guys decide who will serve on the budget and tax committee please?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on May 20, 2012, 06:17:38 PM
I'd be glad to serve.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on May 22, 2012, 11:40:51 PM
Confirmation vote on Simfan

Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on May 23, 2012, 06:05:06 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on May 23, 2012, 10:37:48 AM
Can I vote Aye?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on May 23, 2012, 08:58:50 PM
You pass anyway.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on June 05, 2012, 03:11:01 PM
I regret to inform the Assembly due to unforseen circumstances I shall be absent for an indefinite period of time. I look with anticipiation to my return.

(My router's broken- no internet)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on June 06, 2012, 03:43:46 PM
And I'm back.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on June 19, 2012, 07:31:58 AM
And I'd like to run for Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on June 19, 2012, 08:46:22 AM
I'm endorsing Simfan.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 19, 2012, 03:57:50 PM
I support Simfan.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 20, 2012, 08:54:01 PM
I am pleased to endorse Representative Simfan for Speaker.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on June 22, 2012, 08:13:37 AM
I hereby declare that the period for nominations for speaker has opened and shall last 24 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on June 22, 2012, 08:57:28 AM
I nominate Simfan.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on June 22, 2012, 04:48:46 PM
I endorse either Simfan or Winfield for Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 22, 2012, 11:24:53 PM

Thank you Jay, but I am not interested in the position.

I endorse Simfan.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on June 23, 2012, 08:30:13 AM
I think we can hold a vote right here, right now. Mr. Lt. Governor?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on June 23, 2012, 08:32:11 AM
Indeed we may.

NORTHEAST SPEAKER

[ ] Simfan34
[ ] Write-in: ________

Voting will last 24 hours or until all members have voted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on June 23, 2012, 10:47:15 AM
[X] Simfan


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 23, 2012, 11:53:49 AM
X Simfan


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Pyro on June 23, 2012, 02:47:20 PM
X Simfan


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on June 23, 2012, 03:53:20 PM
NORTHEAST SPEAKER

[X] Simfan34
[  ] Write-in: ________


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: mondale84 on June 24, 2012, 07:02:15 PM

NORTHEAST SPEAKER

[X] Simfan34
[  ] Write-in: ________


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on June 25, 2012, 01:53:23 AM
With five votes, Simfan34 is unanimously elected Speaker of the Northeast Assembly.

Thanks guys! :D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 25, 2012, 08:14:32 PM
Let me be the first to congratulate you Simfan.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on June 25, 2012, 09:12:53 PM
Thank you, Winfield.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on June 26, 2012, 02:58:09 PM
Quote
Impeachment of CJO Belgiansocialist

I hereby move to open impeachment proceedings against the Chief Judicial Officer, Belgiansocialist.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 26, 2012, 03:01:46 PM
Impeach him on what grounds?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on June 26, 2012, 03:03:44 PM

Research is being conducted in this area as we speak.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 26, 2012, 07:04:29 PM
Speaker Simfan, what has the CJO allegedly done to warrant such proceedings?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on June 26, 2012, 07:06:49 PM

Research is being conducted in this area as we speak.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on June 26, 2012, 08:09:19 PM
Yes, I saw that before I asked the question.  That is why I asked the question.

However, you have moved to commence impeachment proceedings against the CJO, and yet research is still being conducted.

How can you move to open impeachment proceedings when your case for impeachment has not been researched?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on June 26, 2012, 08:10:59 PM
He's a Tweedist lunatic who doesn't seem to understand democracy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 02, 2012, 03:01:17 PM
I am pleased to announce that the President of Yale University, Dr. Richard C. Levin, in conjunction with the members of The Yale Corporation, has advised me today, in recognition of my service to the Northeast Region as Lieutenant Governor, Governor, and as a member of the Northeast Assembly, that they have renamed the Graduate School of Political Science of Yale University as the Winfield Graduate School of Political Science.

The President and all the members of the Yale Corporation have signed the documentation making this name change official and permanent.

As a graduate of the Graduate School of Political Science of Yale University, I am deeply humbled by this distinct honor that Yale University has bestowed upon me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on July 02, 2012, 07:44:13 PM


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 02, 2012, 09:56:34 PM
Thank you.

But you know, at least I didn't have the entire Yale University renamed Winfield University.

That would have been a bit much. 

I do have some principles.  :D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on July 02, 2012, 11:39:07 PM
Thank you.

But you know, at least I didn't have the entire Yale University renamed Winfield University.

That would have been a bit much. 

I do have some principles.  :D

Hey, at least you're not called Dummer. However Winfield University sounds like quite the prestigious institution.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 06, 2012, 12:55:12 AM
Winfield University? :)

Hey Congrats on the Yale recognition, Representative. Your service as Governor was admirable and influential on my administration.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 06, 2012, 07:53:59 PM
Winfield University? :)

Hey Congrats on the Yale recognition, Representative. Your service as Governor was admirable and influential on my administration.

Thank you Mr. President.  Your kind thoughts and words are very meaningful and are much appreciated.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on July 06, 2012, 10:23:59 PM
Why is it that everyone I've ever worked with in Atlasia has had a previous job as Lodestar of the 21st Century?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 08, 2012, 02:34:50 PM
Would Scott be considered a member of "the people" inasmuch he is not a member of the legislature?

Yes.

Though given my past here, I like to consider myself an "unofficial member" of this body, sometimes. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 08, 2012, 02:35:22 PM
By the way, Mr. Speaker, is there a way my bill could contain both the legislation for the capital redevelopment and a constitutional amendment that consecrates it as the official capital?  We obviously cannot have one thing without the other, but I don't want to incorporate the amendment into the bill so that it takes 2/3 of the Assembly to pass the entire thing.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on July 08, 2012, 02:52:18 PM
By the way, Mr. Speaker, is there a way my bill could contain both the legislation for the capital redevelopment and a constitutional amendment that consecrates it as the official capital?  We obviously cannot have one thing without the other, but I don't want to incorporate the amendment into the bill so that it takes 2/3 of the Assembly to pass the entire thing.

I'm not certain as to what you want to accomplish here; I don't see how we could incorporate these two things into one piece of legislation without it being one or the other- an amendment or a regular bill.

My recommendation is to pass the amendment first and then a bill detailing the procedure of the capital's construction, the opposite of what I was trying to do.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 08, 2012, 02:57:55 PM
By the way, Mr. Speaker, is there a way my bill could contain both the legislation for the capital redevelopment and a constitutional amendment that consecrates it as the official capital?  We obviously cannot have one thing without the other, but I don't want to incorporate the amendment into the bill so that it takes 2/3 of the Assembly to pass the entire thing.

I'm not certain as to what you want to accomplish here; I don't see how we could incorporate these two things into one piece of legislation without it being one or the other- an amendment or a regular bill.

My recommendation is to pass the amendment first and then a bill detailing the procedure of the capital's construction, the opposite of what I was trying to do.

Well, I'm a little concerned that one will pass but not the other.  If the amendment passes but not the bill, then it loses its purpose- just as it would vice versa.

But just for now, I'll un-withdraw the amendment I put up.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on July 08, 2012, 03:33:32 PM
If the amendment were to pass, I would say one could safely assume a bill could pass.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 08, 2012, 03:36:15 PM
If the amendment were to pass, I would say one could safely assume a bill could pass.

I hope so.  Hopefully, some of our more skeptical representatives will offer amendments or suggestions to any bugs they see in the upcoming bill so that the effort doesn't go to waste.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on July 08, 2012, 08:46:08 PM
I'll be out for a week starting on Wednesday, so the leftist majority will have to take a vacation.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 09, 2012, 08:38:21 PM
Quote
Stop the Inflation of Titles Act

1) The The Northeast Cabinet Act is hereby repealed.

Please, no.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on July 13, 2012, 11:13:43 AM
I will be absent until Monday. I recommend Rep. Jones assume the acting speakership.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 13, 2012, 02:49:54 PM
I will be absent until Monday. I recommend Rep. Jones assume the acting speakership.

You have no lawful ability to delve out your responsibility as Speaker, unless Alfred is Lt. Governor.  IIRC, you are Lt. Gov?  


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 13, 2012, 02:56:01 PM
I believe the responsibility is passed down to the longest continuously serving representative when the Speaker and Lt. Governor aren't available.  I'm not entirely sure who that is, though.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 13, 2012, 03:05:01 PM
I believe the responsibility is passed down to the longest continuously serving representative when the Speaker and Lt. Governor aren't available.  I'm not entirely sure who that is, though.

Are you talking about the order of precedence in the constitution?  This doesn't apply here.  If not, I'd gladly be proven wrong..


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 13, 2012, 03:11:11 PM
I believe the responsibility is passed down to the longest continuously serving representative when the Speaker and Lt. Governor aren't available.  I'm not entirely sure who that is, though.

Are you talking about the order of precedence in the constitution?  This doesn't apply here.  If not, I'd gladly be proven wrong..

I assume it does, unless there's a piece of legislation dictating otherwise.  If there isn't, then that's a problem.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on July 13, 2012, 03:20:42 PM
I will be absent until Monday. I recommend Rep. Jones assume the acting speakership.

You have no lawful ability to delve out your responsibility as Speaker, unless Alfred is Lt. Governor.  IIRC, you are Lt. Gov?  

I am both, yes. I suggested Alfred as he had the second most 1st preferences in the race, not sure if that counts for anything. As far as I'm aware both he and Winfield have served equally long periods, which I also considered.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 13, 2012, 03:36:21 PM
Winfield has served longer in the Assembly.

Longer continuously?  I think he may have been elected at the same time as Pyro.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 13, 2012, 03:41:00 PM
Winfield won re-election when I entered the Assembly, three elections ago. Pyro's only been around for the last two elections.

Oh, you appear to be right.  Now the only question is whether the section in the Constitution applies to temporarily vacated Speakerships.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 13, 2012, 03:42:49 PM
Winfield was elected at the same time I was elected Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 13, 2012, 03:47:59 PM
Winfield won re-election when I entered the Assembly, three elections ago. Pyro's only been around for the last two elections.

Oh, you appear to be right.  Now the only question is whether the section in the Constitution applies to temporarily vacated Speakerships.

AFAIK, there is no lawful way to temporarily appoint someone to fulfill the duties of Speaker.  Now, if you want to create a new precedent fine, I'm just informing the Assembly.  Just understand, this may give way to a legal suit, if someone deems it necessary to challenge Simfan's action.

The real issue is, do we have a system in place for such circumstances?  If not, why not? 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 13, 2012, 03:50:44 PM
Winfield won re-election when I entered the Assembly, three elections ago. Pyro's only been around for the last two elections.

Oh, you appear to be right.  Now the only question is whether the section in the Constitution applies to temporarily vacated Speakerships.

AFAIK, there is no lawful way to temporarily appoint someone to fulfill the duties of Speaker.  Now, if you want to create a new precedent fine, I'm just informing the Assembly.  Just understand, this may give way to a legal suit, if someone deems it necessary to challenge Simfan's action.

The real issue is, do we have a system in place for such circumstances?  If not, why not?  

Now that I think about it, I had to take a few days off when I was Speaker at one point.  The Assembly had to recess for the time being.  That may be the only lawful way of handling this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 13, 2012, 08:55:22 PM
This is a sad state of affairs when the lawfully elected Assembly simply shuts down because someone fails to show up or is unable to attend.

I recognize the fact that we all from time to time perhaps will have to be away for a period of time, but I am of the belief that if you can be there then you should be there and if you can't you can't, but the Assembly should not have to shut down because one Representative cannot or will not be in attendance for whatever reason.

So yes, there should be a mechanism or procedure in place so the business of the Assembly can carry on.  A line of succession is one way to address this issue, although I do  not believe the Chief Judicial Officer should be in the line of succession, as this officer is not a member of the Assembly, and should therefore not be in a position to conduct the business of the elected Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 13, 2012, 11:03:36 PM
I only included the CJO in my amendment so that the line of succession for the Speakership is identical to the one for the Governorship.  I will leave it to the Assembly to modify the amendment when it comes up.

As for now, both Simfan and Alfred have posted leaves of absence, so it's best that the Assembly recesses for the time-being.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on July 16, 2012, 09:40:31 AM
And I have returned. I deeply apologize for the inconvenience I have caused but the situation was outside my control.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on July 17, 2012, 09:16:05 PM
And I have returned. I deeply apologize for the inconvenience I have caused but my dad has an [inks]load of cousins.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on July 17, 2012, 09:34:35 PM
No one seems to be here. I might need to call a recess.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 17, 2012, 09:42:02 PM
Welcome back Representatives Simfan and Jones.

I trust all is well.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 20, 2012, 03:15:45 PM
I am pleased to advise this Assembly that the Vice President of Atlasia/Secretary of External Affairs, the honorable Kalwejt, has asked that I undertake a foreign mission as an envoy of the Department of External Affairs.

I have accepted, and will be embarking shortly to the Principality of Liechtenstein on a fact finding mission.

Upon my return, I will be meeting with President Napoleon and Vice President/Secretary of External Affairs Kalwejt to present my findings, after which my report will be delivered to the Department of External Affairs.

As I have always been prepared and honored to represent the interests of the Northeast, I am now prepared and honored to represent the interests of Atlasia on this mission.

My Assembly Chief of Staff will accompany me on my mission, and I will be kept informed of Assembly matters by my Senior Assembly Assistant. 

I shall be returning to Atlasia on July 28, 2012.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my best personal regards to the Governor and the members of this Assembly.

I as well wish to express my gratitude to the Vice President/Secretary of External Affairs for entrusting me with this mission.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on July 20, 2012, 05:47:17 PM
Mr. Winfield, will you be communicating with the Assembly on your mission? And can you run from one end of Liechtenstein to the other?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 20, 2012, 07:10:33 PM
Mr. Winfield, will you be communicating with the Assembly on your mission? And can you run from one end of Liechtenstein to the other?

Mr. Jones, thank you for your questions.

As stated, my Senior Assembly Assistant will be keeping me informed of Asembly matters, and if warranted, I will be communicating with the members of the Assembly via email.  I would respectfully ask the Speaker to read the contents of my email into the Assembly record.   I do not know of any Assembly rules that would prohibit this.

No, I cannot run from one end of Liechtenstein to the other, however, I could probably do it by mountain bike.  :D  


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on July 21, 2012, 10:42:32 AM
Thank you, Mr. Winfield. Send the Assembly photos from your vacation!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 21, 2012, 10:57:31 AM
Thank you, Mr. Winfield. Send the Assembly photos from your vacation!

Uh, fact finding mission and good will visit.  :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on July 21, 2012, 06:31:10 PM
Thank you, Mr. Winfield. Send the Assembly photos from your vacation!

Uh, fact finding mission and good will visit.  :)

Whatever. Send photos of the [adjective for someone from Liechtenstein] [insert unimportant political office]!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on July 24, 2012, 10:10:45 PM
I will be absent from the 4th of August to the 23rd of August. I am not certain as to what arrangement to pursue here.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 24, 2012, 10:18:43 PM
The next election starts on August 17th, so you'll be out for the remainder of the term. I suggest that you resign from the Speakership several days before your departure and call a vote on your successor.
He should resign his seat too (though it wouldn't be a problem to run in that election).


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on July 24, 2012, 11:15:30 PM
I believe I could still vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 24, 2012, 11:22:51 PM

In the election or in the Assembly?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on July 24, 2012, 11:35:31 PM
Both.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 25, 2012, 08:36:13 AM
If you feel like you can still provide debate, and a vote in the Assembly, than by all means, stay.  However, if you're just staying to be a vote, the right thing to do is resign.  Regardless, your stated absence means you should step aside for someone else to be elected Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Goldwater on July 29, 2012, 10:01:23 AM
...
We can call a special election and at least have a chance at bringing activity in the Assembly back to a more acceptable level.
...

If I may interrupt, I believe that under the current law you would have to appoint Interim Representatives to fill the vacancy, not hold a special election. [/nitpick]


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 29, 2012, 02:38:09 PM
I'll be submitting petitions for the recall of Representatives Pyrofox and Mondale unless someone explains why I should not within the next 48 hours.


Have they officially missed three consecutive votes, or one month of debate time?  Makes it a lot easier if they have..


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on July 30, 2012, 04:45:24 PM
I hereby announce I shall be resigning the office of Northeast Speaker, effective 6 August 2012.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on July 30, 2012, 04:56:52 PM
Duly noted. I hereby declare that the period for nominations for speaker has opened and shall last 36 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on July 30, 2012, 05:18:32 PM
I nominate Winfield.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on July 30, 2012, 06:52:51 PM
I second Winfield's nomination.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: mondale84 on July 30, 2012, 09:05:39 PM
I support Winfield's nomination.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 30, 2012, 11:43:15 PM
I appreciate your show of confidence, however, I have no interest in the office of Speaker.

If drafted, I will not run.

If nominated, I will not accept.

If elected, I will not serve.

I do not see how the Governor can support me for Speaker since he disaproves of my performance as a Representative, and I do not see how Representative Jones can support me for Speaker since he wants me banned from the forum, which would obviously make it impossible for me to become Speaker, or anything else in this fantasy government. 

I encourage the Governor to take whatever steps he can constitutionally to deal with this matter.

Article II, Section 8

8. Vacancies in the Legislative Assembly shall be filled in a manner specified by Law, and until such determination is made, by Gubernatorial appointment. Vacancies occur upon resignation, recall, impeachment, failure to swear in within one week of the legislative session’s opening, failure to vote on three consecutive pieces of legislation without publicly declaring absence, or failure to participate in Assembly debate for one month.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 30, 2012, 11:47:22 PM
Might I recommend Mr. Jones for the position?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on July 31, 2012, 01:35:24 PM
I do not see how the Governor can support me for Speaker since he disaproves of my performance as a Representative, and I do not see how Representative Jones can support me for Speaker since he wants me banned from the forum, which would obviously make it impossible for me to become Speaker, or anything else in this fantasy government. 

You're the next-most-senior Representative, are you not? My request to ban you is solely based on your actions beyond the fourth wall, which I intend to keep standing.

I'm not sure I'm ready for all this speakery responsibility, but if I must, I'll do it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Pyro on July 31, 2012, 05:44:40 PM
I deeply apologize for my lack of activity in this Assembly, but my work load will not be letting up until well into September. I am a Labor Party member because I am actually a member of the working class. I do not simply talk the talk. But I do understand that this body needs to move on with its agenda.

For this, I hereby resign from this Northeast Assembly, effective asap.

Hopefully this won't be the last you hear of me. Once things settle down a bit, I may run again. Thank you everyone for your cooperation, and please remember, this is only a game, don't take it too seriously :3


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on July 31, 2012, 10:46:31 PM
I deeply apologize for my lack of activity in this Assembly, but my work load will not be letting up until well into September. I am a Labor Party member because I am actually a member of the working class. I do not simply talk the talk. But I do understand that this body needs to move on with its agenda.

For this, I hereby resign from this Northeast Assembly, effective asap.

Hopefully this won't be the last you hear of me. Once things settle down a bit, I may run again. Thank you everyone for your cooperation, and please remember, this is only a game, don't take it too seriously :3

Bye Pyro! We'll miss you!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 31, 2012, 11:05:02 PM
I have decided to let my name stand for Speaker.

Simfan resigns the Speakership August 6 and new Assembly elections are August 17, so there is really not all that much more time left in this session.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on July 31, 2012, 11:16:17 PM
Shall we vote to confirm you?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 31, 2012, 11:25:42 PM
The current Speaker will call a vote.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 31, 2012, 11:43:24 PM
I do not see how the Governor can support me for Speaker since he disaproves of my performance as a Representative, and I do not see how Representative Jones can support me for Speaker since he wants me banned from the forum, which would obviously make it impossible for me to become Speaker, or anything else in this fantasy government. 

You're the next-most-senior Representative, are you not? My request to ban you is solely based on your actions beyond the fourth wall, which I intend to keep standing.

I'm not sure I'm ready for all this speakery responsibility, but if I must, I'll do it.

Representative Jones, just what do you mean by "my actions"?

To be honest, I have never heard so much whining from so many malcontents in my entire life than that group of moaners, groaners, and complainers who were acting like six year olds and demanding I be banned from the forum.  There was obviously nothing wrong with "my actions," the ultimate proof being I am still on the forum.

I was somewhat disappointed, however, to see you join in that chorus of clowns.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on July 31, 2012, 11:59:04 PM
I do not see how the Governor can support me for Speaker since he disaproves of my performance as a Representative, and I do not see how Representative Jones can support me for Speaker since he wants me banned from the forum, which would obviously make it impossible for me to become Speaker, or anything else in this fantasy government. 

You're the next-most-senior Representative, are you not? My request to ban you is solely based on your actions beyond the fourth wall, which I intend to keep standing.

I'm not sure I'm ready for all this speakery responsibility, but if I must, I'll do it.

Representative Jones, just what do you mean by "my actions"?

To be honest, I have never heard so much whining from so many malcontents in my entire life than that group of moaners, groaners, and complainers who were acting like six year olds and demanding I be banned from the forum.  There was obviously nothing wrong with "my actions," the ultimate proof being I am still on the forum.

I was somewhat disappointed, however, to see you join in that chorus of clowns.

Really, Winfield? This is the regional government.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 01, 2012, 12:26:42 AM
Facts are facts.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on August 01, 2012, 12:47:21 AM
Winfield has done a good job in every office, and assisting my administration overseas and I support him for Speaker. Good luck Winfield!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on August 01, 2012, 01:31:48 AM
We can now vote.

NORTHEAST SPEAKER

[ ] Winfield
[ ] Write-in: ________

Voting will last 24 hours or until all members have voted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on August 01, 2012, 01:32:22 AM
NORTHEAST SPEAKER

[X] Winfield
[  ] Write-in: ________


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on August 01, 2012, 11:43:03 AM
I invite the members of this body to attend my open press conference.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 01, 2012, 12:30:14 PM
Northeast Speaker

[X] Winfield


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 02, 2012, 11:53:20 AM
FTR, I didn't feel I should partake in this vote, as I was appointed in the middle of it.  Of course, Winfield is an excellent choice :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: mondale84 on August 02, 2012, 03:31:46 PM
Northeast Speaker

[X] Winfield


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 02, 2012, 04:25:36 PM
Technically, the time expired, but Simfan is not here at the moment, so let's just anoint Winfield as Speaker.

*confetti*.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on August 02, 2012, 06:06:42 PM
I am pleased to announce that Winfield has been elected Speaker. The Keystone Phil legacy lives on. I am also pleased to announce I have arrived in Nyman just a few hours ago and am resting at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel. (Really.) I am also pleased I am able to conduct the Assembly's affairs remotely before I depart for Addis Ababa on Monday.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 02, 2012, 08:06:59 PM
Winfield has done a good job in every office, and assisting my administration overseas and I support him for Speaker. Good luck Winfield!

Thank you Mr. President.  I very much appreciate your kind words and your vote of confidence.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 02, 2012, 08:11:43 PM
I am pleased to announce that Winfield has been elected Speaker. The Keystone Phil legacy lives on. I am also pleased to announce I have arrived in Nyman just a few hours ago and am resting at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel. (Really.) I am also pleased I am able to conduct the Assembly's affairs remotely before I depart for Addis Ababa on Monday.

Don't you mean The Winfield Legacy?  :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 02, 2012, 08:14:04 PM
FTR, I didn't feel I should partake in this vote, as I was appointed in the middle of it.  Of course, Winfield is an excellent choice :)

Thank you very much Cincinnatus.  Although I am sure I will never measure up to the outstanding performance you had as Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on August 02, 2012, 08:17:25 PM
FTR, I didn't feel I should partake in this vote, as I was appointed in the middle of it.  Of course, Winfield is an excellent choice :)

Thank you very much Cincinnatus.  Although I am sure I will never measure up to the outstanding performance you had as Speaker.

Thank you.  As always, if you have any questions, feel free to message me.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 02, 2012, 08:23:47 PM
As Speaker Simfan's resignation as Speaker takes place August 6, 2012, that is when I will assume the office of Speaker.

Thank you to the President, Assembly members, the Governor, and all the others who have voiced their support.

I did not participate in the vote as I felt it appropriate that this decision be left up to the other members of the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on August 02, 2012, 09:06:11 PM
I am pleased to announce that Winfield has been elected Speaker. The Keystone Phil legacy lives on. I am also pleased to announce I have arrived in Nyman just a few hours ago and am resting at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel. (Really.) I am also pleased I am able to conduct the Assembly's affairs remotely before I depart for Addis Ababa on Monday.

Don't you mean The Winfield Legacy?  :)

Well I thought it would work the other way around for this one. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: mondale84 on August 12, 2012, 06:46:15 PM
President Napoleon has forwarded me an interesting idea for tax legislation for the region.

Quote
Fair Property Tax and Homeowner Relief Initiative

After 31 December 2012, property tax on real estate shall be assessed without taking into consideration the value of any improvements built upon it. This initiative shall not be interpreted as requiring that factors other than total area such as location, grade, water or mineral rights, etc. not be considered on determining the assessed value of the land for purposes of property tax.

I believe that this idea has merit and the assembly should consider revisions to the tax code. The above initiative would spur job creation by encouraging improvements to existing real estate.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on August 12, 2012, 07:43:45 PM
I introduced a land value tax in the most recent budget. A land value tax is a tax on the unimproved value of land.The Northeast has no real property tax.


There is at the local level, I believe.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 13, 2012, 10:51:14 AM
I think the special election is over...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 15, 2012, 02:02:37 PM
No one's doing anything except Winfield, Funk, and I

Mondale! Simfan! Where are you?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 15, 2012, 04:27:25 PM
Simfan is still vacationing in Ethiopia.

Ah, yes, I remember that now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: mondale84 on August 15, 2012, 09:23:38 PM
I thought the legislative session had closed since we were told no more bills could be brought forward.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 15, 2012, 11:22:48 PM

Fact finding mission for the Department of External Affairs.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 15, 2012, 11:36:01 PM
I thought the legislative session had closed since we were told no more bills could be brought forward.

Since the elections begin this Friday, I felt it prudent not to bring forward any new bills, as debate time would be too limited to do justice to any piece of proposed legislation. 

It is better that the new members of the Assembly deal with any legislation beyond the Job Creation and Infrastructure Renewal Act and the Safe Walking Act.

But you are certainly free to discuss any matters of concern to you in this, the Northeast Assembly Thread, in preparation for the new Assembly to be elected this weekend.       


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Lincoln Republican on August 16, 2012, 07:15:34 PM
Before I exit Northeast Atlasian politics, I wish to apologize for bringing the other part of the forum into the fantasy board.

I had stated previously on the fantasy board that Representative Jones had called for me to be banned from the forum on the 2012 board, which is true.  However, that is not something that is relevant to the fantasy board, nor should I have been discussing that on the fantasy board. 

I apologize to Representative Jones and to the fantasy board for discussing this in the fantasy forum.   


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 16, 2012, 09:07:20 PM
Before I exit Northeast Atlasian politics, I wish to apologize for bringing the other part of the forum into the fantasy board.

I had stated previously on the fantasy board that Representative Jones had called for me to be banned from the forum on the 2012 board, which is true.  However, that is not something that is relevant to the fantasy board, nor should I have been discussing that on the fantasy board. 

I apologize to Representative Jones and to the fantasy board for discussing this in the fantasy forum.   

Apology accepted, Mr. Winfield.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 19, 2012, 04:40:52 PM
HELLO? IS ANYONE THERE?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 19, 2012, 04:49:29 PM
Since Nix vetoed the referendum bill, what will the new capital location be?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: bore on August 20, 2012, 01:21:41 PM
Hello everyone, now that I've just been elected by the good citizens of the northeast ( well, the three of them that bothered to show up ;) )  I should ask, is there some sort of lame duck session, or should I just swear myself in.

Also, regrettably, its come to my attention that I will have very limited internet between this thursday and next tuesday- is there some sort of protocol I should follow?

Thanks, bore


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: bore on August 20, 2012, 01:48:39 PM
You may swear in this Wednesday, after noon. The next session of the Assembly will begin once all members have sworn in. If you expect to be without internet for more than a day, you should post an official notification of your leave of absence in this thread after you have sworn in.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 22, 2012, 12:00:41 PM
Apparently I'm supposed to open the session. I really have no idea how to do this, but here goes. 

The 12th session of the Northeast Assembly is now open. Muffins for everyone!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: bore on August 22, 2012, 02:46:22 PM
I'd like to declare a leave of absence from this friday until next tuesday, sorry about this.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 22, 2012, 10:17:36 PM
Alfred, I suggest that you open the floor to nominations for the speakership. Simfan has not yet sworn in, but he's appeared only infrequently since his vacation / fact-finding mission began. He posted in another thread earlier today and noted that he was boarding a plane, so he should be back soon, but we should move forward as quickly as possible.

Aight. As Simfan is on a plane over the Atlantic Ocean/continent of Africa (and the world extends from Maine to Delaware), I'll open nominations for the position of Speaker.

Nominations opened for 48. Y'all can choose and stuff, and I'll come back two hours beyond schedule and retroactively close nominations at 11:16 PM EST, Friday the 24th of August, year of our Lord 2012. We will vote, and then there will be cake.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 23, 2012, 03:44:06 PM
I nominate myself for Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: bore on August 23, 2012, 04:29:59 PM
I really have no preference between Alfred and Simfan and I'm sure whoever is chosen will do a great job.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 23, 2012, 04:40:04 PM
Speaking of Simfan, when is he coming back?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Goldwater on August 23, 2012, 07:24:52 PM
He's supposed to be back today.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 23, 2012, 08:51:47 PM
If he nominates himself, I don't want this to be a huge battle.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 24, 2012, 10:16:08 PM
It's been 47 hours and 58 minutes. I'm closing nominations.

We will vote now, and then we're going to get some legislating done around here!

Ballot for Northeast Speaker

[ ]Alfred F. Jones (Labor-NY)
[ ]Write-in: _______


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 24, 2012, 10:17:18 PM
[X] Me

Also, voting will last for 48 hours or until all members have voted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Goldwater on August 24, 2012, 10:35:02 PM
[X] Alfred F. Jones


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Comrade Funk on August 24, 2012, 10:50:54 PM
[X] Alfred F. Jones (Labor-NY)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 25, 2012, 11:02:00 AM
Does anyone know where Simfan is? He was supposed to be back two days ago.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 25, 2012, 11:50:30 AM
Should I just assume Simfan's not going to come back by tomorrow and start bringing bills onto the floor?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on August 25, 2012, 12:08:27 PM
I am going to trash another amendment to the Constitution, because that is my job.

 
I'm withdrawing my previous in favor of this amendment.

Quote
Amendment to the NE Constitution - Lieutenant Governor Election Clarification

1. Article 2, provision 12 of the Northeast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

12. The Lieutenant Governor of the Northeast Region shall be the Representative receiving the most first preferences in the most recent general election. He or she officially opens and closes the legislative sessions of the Northeast Legislative Assembly and shall ascend to the Governorship if that office becomes vacant for any reason. If the Governor is temporarily absent (no more than ten days), the Lieutenant Governor may exercise the powers of Governor, excluding the ability to sign or veto legislation.

2. This amendment shall come into effect during the next general election.

This amendment becomes difficult if the assembly changes the voting method to a non-preferential system, which doesn't tenure a constitutional amendment currently.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 25, 2012, 12:38:25 PM
With three votes in favor and two not present, I'm the Speaker. Woot woot.

Now, let's get some legislating done!

(Question: How many bills can I bring to the floor at once? There's a crapload of them over in the introduction thread.)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 25, 2012, 02:28:17 PM
Thanks, Governor. The wiki-thing seems to be out of date; I can't find anything like that in the SOAP on there.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 25, 2012, 02:51:05 PM
Thanks, Mr. Nix.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 26, 2012, 11:53:33 PM
When is Simfan coming back, goddammit!? He's a pillar of the Assembly!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 28, 2012, 03:09:06 PM
When is Simfan coming back, goddammit!? He's a pillar of the Assembly!

Yeah, this is starting to get ridiculous. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 28, 2012, 03:56:38 PM
With two votes ongoing, and more legislation in line for debate, he won't be around much longer if he doesn't make an appearance.

By the way, expulsions currently occur after three missed votes or one month without participating in debate:

Quote
8. Vacancies in the Legislative Assembly shall be filled in a manner specified by Law, and until such determination is made, by Gubernatorial appointment. Vacancies occur upon resignation, recall, impeachment, failure to swear in within one week of the legislative session’s opening, failure to vote on three consecutive pieces of legislation without publicly declaring absence, or failure to participate in Assembly debate for one month.

One month seems a bit too lenient to me. What do you guys think? Would two weeks be better? Scott, maybe you or someone else who was around when the current constitution was authored can provide some insight on this.

I don't recall any changes to the law that were made during my time in the Assembly, but I fully agree with shortening the time limit to two weeks instead of a month; half an Assembly term of unexpected do-nothingness shouldn't be tolerated.

Did Simfan ever announce when he would return?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 28, 2012, 06:38:27 PM
He's on track to miss the votes currently underway.

What the hell is he doing?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 28, 2012, 07:24:54 PM
He's on track to miss the votes currently underway.

What the hell is he doing?

He's starting college. This is his orientation week.

Ah. That makes sense.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 31, 2012, 02:34:12 PM
Aaaaaaand he's gone.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 01, 2012, 11:53:29 AM
Would anyone here know how long Belgiansocialist has been CJO?  I think a new appointment might have to be made soon.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 01, 2012, 02:56:19 PM
Well we can't reappoint Belgiansocialist even though he has done a good job. It would only interfere with the Liberal powergrab.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on September 01, 2012, 07:06:30 PM
Would any of you be willing to support legislation establishing a regional public affairs network similar to CSPAN?

Sure. We already have a national broadcaster, though.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on September 01, 2012, 07:54:59 PM
Would any of you be willing to support legislation establishing a regional public affairs network similar to CSPAN?

Sure. We already have a national broadcaster, though.

I think that our national broadcaster is more in the vein of PBS. They don't televise the proceedings of the Assembly or provide coverage of regional politics, to my knowledge. A regional broadcaster would provide us with greater transparency in government, increase civic engagement, and discourage corruption. Besides, one of my major goals lately has been elevating regional government - this is a way of doing that without breaking the game's fourth wall.

I'm fine with it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on September 01, 2012, 10:05:16 PM
Would any of you be willing to support legislation establishing a regional public affairs network similar to CSPAN?

Sure. We already have a national broadcaster, though.

I think that our national broadcaster is more in the vein of PBS. They don't televise the proceedings of the Assembly or provide coverage of regional politics, to my knowledge. A regional broadcaster would provide us with greater transparency in government, increase civic engagement, and discourage corruption. Besides, one of my major goals lately has been elevating regional government - this is a way of doing that without breaking the game's fourth wall.

I'm fine with it.

I'm for it, although my character would be all like "No"; I would be IRL as well.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on September 01, 2012, 10:11:24 PM
Hi Jersey! Welcome to the Assembly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on September 02, 2012, 01:45:58 AM

Thanks man!  ;)

Should I be sworn in or is that only for assemblymen serving full terms?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 02, 2012, 01:48:39 AM

Thanks man!  ;)

Should I be sworn in or is that only for assemblymen serving full terms?

You can go ahead and swear in. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 02, 2012, 01:51:13 AM
Well we can't reappoint Belgiansocialist even though he has done a good job. It would only interfere with the Liberal powergrab.

Never fear, Mr. President. I am sure that Senator Scott will fill the position with some Liberal patsy who owes his entire career to our cadre.

In all seriousness: Belgian has done a fine job as CJO. If his term were to expire during my time as Governor, I would re-appoint him.

Mwahahaha...

Yeah, I think Belgian's done an all right job since the Tweed debacle.  I just wanted to make sure we're on schedule with everything.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on September 02, 2012, 01:58:09 AM
I, Jerseyrules, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of Northeast Assemblyman, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia, so help me Dave.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on September 02, 2012, 02:08:18 AM
I hereby submit the Aerospace Commission Act of 2012, which will:
- create a 5-member board, appointed by the NE governor and subject to confirmation by the NE legislature
- eliminate sales and property taxes on any aerospace corporation based in the NE
- give incentive in the form of tax credits and grants to any corporation achieving certain goals established by the board within a certain amount of time, (ex. Launching a solar-sail powered spacecraft by 2015, landing on Mars by 2026, creating an ultra lightweight solar panel which can be used to power a solar sail, etc), all of which must be approved by a majority of the legislature and the governor


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 02, 2012, 02:14:17 AM
I, Jerseyrules, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of Northeast Assemblyman, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia, so help me Dave.

In here. (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=36934.0)

New legislation is introduced in here. (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=127652.0)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on September 02, 2012, 02:22:57 AM
I, Jerseyrules, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of Northeast Assemblyman, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia, so help me Dave.

In here. (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=36934.0)

New legislation is introduced in here.
 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=127652.0)

Thanks man ;).  I guess this must be since I've left; a lot happens in six months.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on September 02, 2012, 04:41:08 PM
You can catch up on what's happened over the past three sessions here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=153215.msg3288624#msg3288624).

For updated rules on Assembly procedure, you can read the new SOAP, adopted shortly after you last left office, here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=153215.msg3399066#msg3399066).

Thanks Governor ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on September 05, 2012, 04:57:13 PM
With Simfan gone, nobody does much around here.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on September 05, 2012, 08:25:30 PM
Tax Relief For the Northeast Act
An act which will:
Reduce the state income tax for all tax brackets by 25% for FY 2013.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on September 05, 2012, 10:44:58 PM

And this is where my job gets hard.

In the space of a few months, we have lost almost all of the old contingent of our Assembly. I've only been at this for two or three months, and I'm the most senior Representative. There appears to be a lack of active voters and active candidates in the region, as evidenced by our recent election in which we all know the highest vote total anyone received was three. I think we need to procure an active voter base, which I believe will lift our region up. How we can do that, however, I don't really know. But I do know that we're going to have to work for it.

Also, y'all should debate and vote on our bills. That goes double for you, Funky.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on September 06, 2012, 02:46:53 PM
Bore, you haven't introduced any bills.

OK, now you have.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Goldwater on September 06, 2012, 07:02:28 PM
I've just noticed that Comrade Funk has missed three consecutive votes (The Capital Act of 2012, The Fair Property Tax and Homeowner Relief Initiative, & The Education Act). Does this mean his seat is now vacant?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 07, 2012, 09:30:37 PM
Should I assume that Alfred will be taking over as Governor until Nix returns?  We need someone to open the NE voting booth on the ERA.

EDIT: Wait, I just remembered that Goldwater is our LtG, not Alfred...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on September 07, 2012, 09:48:27 PM
Should I assume that Alfred will be taking over as Governor until Nix returns?  We need someone to open the NE voting booth on the ERA.

EDIT: Wait, I just remembered that Goldwater is our LtG, not Alfred...

He should be, yes, but for now I am. I'll open the vote soon.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on September 09, 2012, 02:56:28 PM
Welcome back, Simfan! Also, RIP leftist majority.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on September 12, 2012, 03:31:40 PM
And that will finally be settled. Yay!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on September 13, 2012, 06:21:12 PM
Jersey has missed two votes in a row.

I can't keep all these vacancies straight! Maybe after the special election we'll get some stability.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Goldwater on September 13, 2012, 07:48:40 PM
His seat isn't vacant yet, is it? I thought it was three missed votes to cause a vacancy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 13, 2012, 07:51:03 PM
His seat isn't vacant yet, is it? I thought it was three missed votes to cause a vacancy.

It's close to being vacant.

I must say, if we lose a total of three Representatives this session due to failure to stay active, that can't look good for our region.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on September 14, 2012, 10:04:41 PM
If Jersey loses in the election or is kicked out, do we still have to debate his bills? Do they just shift to citizen-sponsored rather than Rep-sponsored?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on September 20, 2012, 11:02:58 AM
As some debate has arisen about the proper procedure for dealing with citizen legislation, I'll put Jersey's bills on hold until we figure this all out.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on September 20, 2012, 02:03:11 PM
Thanks, Governor.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on September 23, 2012, 01:36:31 PM
I'm good with Dallas.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on September 24, 2012, 12:42:15 PM
Sure.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on September 28, 2012, 04:57:32 AM
Is anyone debating the bills?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on October 01, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
Cowhead Belgiansocialist has missed his third vote and as such has been removed from the Assembly.

Our status as the best region is slipping, folks!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Insula Dei on October 01, 2012, 12:14:17 PM
Cowhead Belgiansocialist has missed his third vote and as such has been removed from the Assembly.

Our status as the best region is slipping, folks!

Could have sent me a reminder before I went around voting in those other threads.I'm not going back to remove those votes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on October 01, 2012, 12:23:33 PM
Cowhead Belgiansocialist has missed his third vote and as such has been removed from the Assembly.

Our status as the best region is slipping, folks!

Could have sent me a reminder before I went around voting in those other threads.I'm not going back to remove those votes.

We dubbed you a Cowhead a few days ago. Maybe you should have voted on them within the 24-hour window.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 05, 2012, 08:39:25 PM
The Northeast SOAP (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Northeast_SOAP) has finally been added to the Wiki!

I linked it in the Related Articles section on our regions page.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on October 05, 2012, 09:46:52 PM
Barnes's amendment passed (unless those things need 4 votes.. I'm not entirely sure on what to do with it. (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=160572.0)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 05, 2012, 10:52:06 PM
Yes, my amendment has failed. Ah well, perhaps the next assembly will be more favorable to it. :)

In the meantime, I'll look into have a citizens' intiviative amendment places in our constitution to allow citizens to directly propose legislation for a vote of the people - but not, I think, constitutional amendments. ;D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on October 05, 2012, 11:16:23 PM
Yay! I succeeded at obstruction!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 05, 2012, 11:19:01 PM

I wouldn't call it obstruction at all. You had serious concerns, and when it came time to vote, you spoke your opinion.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 06, 2012, 04:00:24 PM
I lodge a formal protest over the final vote on my constitutional amendment. The version that was outed on was not the most current version, I had submitted an amendment to the bill before the final vote, but this was not concluded in the final legislation presented to the assembly to vote on.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on October 06, 2012, 07:21:11 PM
Fine, meanie. I've reopened the thing and included your amendment.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: bore on October 07, 2012, 02:34:33 PM
I've got a quick point about the wiki, while looking through it to check our statues I noticed that we had three separate pages for them- would it not make sense to merge them?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 07, 2012, 03:09:00 PM
Augh, sorry I haven't been pulling my weight on that project lately. :P  I'll get back to it.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 07, 2012, 03:10:53 PM
Cincinnatus and I have worked in recent months to update the legislation pages. This sizable task remains incomplete, although merging the three pages is one goal that I have been working toward.

That would be a very good idea. Can you post the links to the other statute threads? I've only been able to find the one that starts with the provisional assembly.

It might be advantageous to pass legislation giving different members of the regional government specific parts of the wiki to keep updated. Let's look into it, anyway. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 07, 2012, 03:39:02 PM
Well, if the problem lies with giving the official responsibility to government offices, then why not create some form of voluntary wiki committee? I know the same thing has been tried before both regionally and nationally and been shown to work in many cases. Perhaps if it has strong influence and leadership from us office holders it would be successful?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 07, 2012, 03:41:39 PM
Well, if the problem lies with giving the official responsibility to government offices, then why not create some form of voluntary wiki committee? I know the same thing has been tried before both regionally and nationally and been shown to work in many cases. Perhaps if it has strong influence and leadership from us office holders it would be successful?


https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=154290.0 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=154290.0)

We've been away during the summer :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on October 07, 2012, 09:21:56 PM
Yo, we got something going down in the Medical Research Act over here. Nix?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on October 08, 2012, 11:03:28 AM
I'll lock the thread.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 12, 2012, 08:09:00 PM
I will not ask for a vote to override the Governor's veto of the Clean Jobs Act. Hopefully, a compromise bill following in its model will be introduced shortly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on October 13, 2012, 02:16:33 PM
We need a bill for NE1.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 14, 2012, 03:32:35 PM
I don't really have a problem with the changes Nix proposed. I'll reintroduce the bill shortly.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: bore on October 14, 2012, 03:34:18 PM
Does Nix have any problem with my paper amendment?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: bore on October 14, 2012, 04:06:04 PM
Does Nix have any problem with my paper amendment?

See my response in the thread, bore. Your amendment is an improvement, and you're close to obtaining my support.

Oh, no, I meant the one to Barnes bill :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Poirot on October 16, 2012, 04:50:59 PM
We already have two constitutional amendments on the ballot

Being new I had to investigate about these amendments. I found one is to move the capital to Buffalo. The other one is an elections amendment on the timing of elections and election of lieutenant governor.

If I'm right, I'm not sure what most votes received mean (the wording most first prefered votes was replaced) to elect lieutenant governor. Is is still who has the most 1 besides his/her name ?
Also what if the person receiving the most votes doesn't want that job, or leaves the assembly during the mandate, is a replacement mechanism all planned out already.
 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on October 17, 2012, 04:56:58 AM
We already have two constitutional amendments on the ballot

Being new I had to investigate about these amendments. I found one is to move the capital to Buffalo. The other one is an elections amendment on the timing of elections and election of lieutenant governor.

If I'm right, I'm not sure what most votes received mean (the wording most first prefered votes was replaced) to elect lieutenant governor. Is is still who has the most 1 besides his/her name ?
Also what if the person receiving the most votes doesn't want that job, or leaves the assembly during the mandate, is a replacement mechanism all planned out already.
 

Yes, actually, that was what we were clarifying. There was a mix-up and I got confirmed as LG when it should really have been Goldwater, so we fixed that. Also, it synchronized federal and regional elections.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 21, 2012, 11:39:34 PM
Gentlemen, it appears we have a bit of a crisis on our hands.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on October 21, 2012, 11:44:22 PM
Namely?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 21, 2012, 11:47:30 PM

The capital amendment failed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on October 22, 2012, 04:58:45 AM
So do I open the session now and get this going?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on October 22, 2012, 10:40:45 AM
The session is open.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: bore on October 22, 2012, 02:31:09 PM
When does my lame duck period end?


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Napoleon on October 22, 2012, 02:33:33 PM
When does my lame duck period end?

Thursday.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: bore on October 22, 2012, 02:47:41 PM

Thanks


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on October 22, 2012, 06:33:56 PM
Simfan's been missing some votes recently. I believe he's at Cowhead status by now.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 22, 2012, 07:17:52 PM
Don't want to interrupt the Legislature :P But do any of you have a map of the Assembly's history of people?

Not really.  You can find a history of our past Representatives here (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php?title=Northeast_Assembly&action=history), though.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on October 23, 2012, 08:03:03 AM
We don't have an NE2, and I think Simfan's been missing some votes recently. Can someone check on that?

Also, I hereby declare nominations for Speaker open. Representatives will have 24 hours to declare and/or nominate candidates.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on October 24, 2012, 08:52:48 PM
We don't have an NE2, and I think Simfan's been missing some votes recently. Can someone check on that?

Also, I hereby declare nominations for Speaker open. Representatives will have 24 hours to declare and/or nominate candidates.

How can I be a cowhead? We've just started the session.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 24, 2012, 08:59:03 PM
We don't have an NE2, and I think Simfan's been missing some votes recently. Can someone check on that?

Also, I hereby declare nominations for Speaker open. Representatives will have 24 hours to declare and/or nominate candidates.

You can't declare nominations for Speaker open yet if the session hasn't started yet. 

Quote
6. When the polls close, the appropriate election administrator shall be given twenty-four (24) hours to count the votes and declare elected Representatives. The newly elected Representatives shall officially assume office on the Thursday following the election.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on October 24, 2012, 09:58:07 PM
Oh.

I undeclare nominations for Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on October 25, 2012, 04:53:42 AM
OK, now the session is open.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on October 25, 2012, 09:48:10 AM
I nominate Cincinnatus.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on October 25, 2012, 05:01:44 PM
You know what? I second the nomination of Cincinnatus.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on October 25, 2012, 05:46:28 PM
You know what? I second the nomination of Cincinnatus.

I had been worried you were going to make this hard for me. :D


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on October 25, 2012, 06:17:38 PM
You know what? I second the nomination of Cincinnatus.

I had been worried you were going to make this hard for me. :D

What do you mean? A bitter fight to the end? I'm fine with Speaker Cincy.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 25, 2012, 06:22:04 PM
Cinci would make an excellent Speaker, just as before. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 25, 2012, 06:42:47 PM
By the way, I would like to inform the incoming Speaker, whomever that might be, that two appointments will have to be confirmed ASAP.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 25, 2012, 08:20:17 PM
I appreciate the words of confidence Gentleman.  I accept the nomination.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on October 26, 2012, 10:31:43 AM
The period for nominations for Speaker has ended. Voting will now begin.

Northeast Speaker

[X] Cincinnatus
[] Write-in: _____________


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on October 26, 2012, 11:16:35 AM
Northeast Speaker

[X] Cincinnatus
[] Write-in: _____________


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on October 26, 2012, 04:10:15 PM
Oh, yeah, voting will last 72 hours or until all Reps have voted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 26, 2012, 05:06:28 PM
Speaker
[X] Cincinnatus


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 26, 2012, 05:07:22 PM
[X] Cincinnatus


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Goldwater on October 26, 2012, 05:19:52 PM
[X] Cincinnatus


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on October 27, 2012, 08:31:38 AM
All Representatives have voted. Cincinnatus is confirmed as Northeast Speaker.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 27, 2012, 08:49:02 AM
In accordance with Executive order #3, the Assembly will now nominate members for the NE Budget and Tax committee.  The nomination period will last 48 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 27, 2012, 09:52:15 AM
I nominate myself.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 27, 2012, 10:31:49 AM
I apologize for interrupting, but I would appreciate speedy action from the Assembly on Executive Order #1. I don't want our region to be without a Senator until my term begins next Friday. I'm not sure whether the Speaker is willing to hold a second vote concurrently, but if this body does not there's no way we'll have a Senator before Wednesday.

I wasn't aware bgwah included a confirmation process for such appointments.  However, if there's evidence that this is in fact, required, I'll gladly hold a vote concurrently.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 27, 2012, 01:01:17 PM
There was a confirmation vote held when Napoleon appointed me to his vacant Senate seat.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on October 27, 2012, 04:15:36 PM
I nominate myself.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 28, 2012, 09:53:56 AM
I also nominate our honorable speaker, Cincinnatus.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 28, 2012, 10:52:03 AM
Per section 2(C) of the SOAP, I move that the "Continuing Budget Resolution" be brought to the top of the legislative introduction queue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Goldwater on October 28, 2012, 01:53:42 PM
I nominate myself.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 28, 2012, 04:54:22 PM
The Representative has motioned for the "Continuing Budget Resolution" to be brought to the top of the legislative queue, in accordance with Section 2, subsection C of the SOAP.

Representatives, we will now vote on this motion.  This vote will last 24 hours, or until all members have voted.  Do note that unlike legislative voting, any abstentions, or absences are counted as Nay votes.

Per section 2(C) of the SOAP, I move that the "Continuing Budget Resolution" be brought to the top of the legislative introduction queue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 28, 2012, 04:59:10 PM
Under alternative circumstance, I would gladly accept this motion Barnes.  However, even if we pass it, your bill will not reach the floor until a legislative slot is open anyway, and I have to put a bill forward now.  Basically, this motion won't actually expedite anything.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 28, 2012, 05:28:08 PM
I totally understand, I request the motion to be withdrawn, if possible. ;)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 28, 2012, 05:46:24 PM
Motion withdrawn.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on October 31, 2012, 09:32:14 PM
We still have not acted upon either of the Governor's nominations...


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on October 31, 2012, 09:40:11 PM
Representatives, three members have been officially nominated. If there's no objection to the nominations of Barnes, Goldwater, or Alfred, I'd like to consider them confirmed.  Otherwise, I suppose we'll have to hold an actual confirmation vote..


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 01, 2012, 10:04:58 PM
Without objection, Goldwater, Alfred, and Barnes have been confirmed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on November 02, 2012, 11:21:20 AM
Yo, I'm gonna have to take a leave of absence. I'll probably be back in a few days, but I'm not sure.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 03, 2012, 02:56:52 PM
Representatives, the Governor has not logged into the forum for exactly five days, this is halfway to the inactivity requirement for being removed from office.  The relevant constitutional section is here:

Quote
11. The office of Governor is to be deemed vacant upon the resignation, recall, or impeachment of the sitting Governor. A Governor who takes no action over a ten (10) day period shall automatically forfeit his or her office unless an official leave of absence is acknowledged prior.

I completely understand the terrible situation facing the real life NE at the moment, but I do ask that we monitor the situation here, and hope the Governor returns before November 8.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 03, 2012, 04:24:56 PM
Duly noted Barnes.  Thank you for bringing this to our attention.  I do hope the Governor finds his way back, and of course, that he's well.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 03, 2012, 09:22:13 PM
Once again, I apologize for my inactivity.  I realize now that I should have posted warning before the storm came and my power was lost, but I guess I was feeling a little too optimistic last week. :P

Now that life here is (semi-) normal again, I would like to remind the Assembly that Bore awaits confirmation as Treasury Secretary.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 03, 2012, 09:34:13 PM
Following on the Governor's request, I move to hold an immediate vote on the confirmation of Bore as Treasury Secretary.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 03, 2012, 09:42:40 PM
Welcome back Governor.  We really never made any guidelines for our confirmation process AFAIK, so I'm skipping to a vote, and extending the voting time..

Representatives, we will now vote on Bores confirmation.  In light of recent real world events, this vote will last 48 hours, or until all members have voted.



Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 03, 2012, 10:17:14 PM
Aye.

We should probably establish some guidelines when it comes to the confirmation process; I'll look into it. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on November 04, 2012, 10:27:02 AM
Oh, I'm back, by the way.

Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 04, 2012, 12:02:42 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 08, 2012, 12:12:11 PM
With 3 Ayes, Bore is confirmed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 12, 2012, 09:11:10 PM
I move for this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=127652.msg3516450#msg3516450) to be placed at the top of the queue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 12, 2012, 10:22:57 PM
The motion to move the Continuing Budget Resolution No. 2 to the front of the Queue has been acknowledged.  Representatives, we will now vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain on the motion.  Take note, abstentions and absences for said motion count as Nays.  Voting will last 24 hours, or until all members have voted.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 12, 2012, 10:29:09 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: sentinel on November 12, 2012, 11:22:08 PM
Aye, next time this should be done sooner --not at the last second.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Goldwater on November 12, 2012, 11:30:27 PM
AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 13, 2012, 12:01:12 AM
Mr. Speaker, would the Gubernatorial special elections amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=163943.msg3512456#msg3512456) be on the ballot this Friday or in December?  I believe it should probably be on Friday's ballot because it technically passed before Saturday, but it was not declared passed by you until a few hours later.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on November 13, 2012, 05:50:55 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 13, 2012, 10:03:27 AM
Mr. Speaker, would the Gubernatorial special elections amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=163943.msg3512456#msg3512456) be on the ballot this Friday or in December?  I believe it should probably be on Friday's ballot because it technically passed before Saturday, but it was not declared passed by you until a few hours later.

At your discretion Governor.  Though, if you want to go by the official declaration, I'm sure we won't need to worry about a special election for Governor so soon?.. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 13, 2012, 12:52:33 PM
Nah, we won't. :P  In that case, I'll just put it off to December when turnout's better.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 14, 2012, 08:10:50 PM
The motion to move the Continuing Budget Resolution No. 2 to the front of the Queue has been acknowledged.  Representatives, we will now vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain on the motion.  Take note, abstentions and absences for said motion count as Nays.  Voting will last 24 hours, or until all members have voted.

The motion passes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Speed of Sound on November 18, 2012, 08:03:10 PM
Pardon my interruption everyone, but I just wanted to inform all that, given the change in power and the amount of time passed, I am giving an additional 48 hours to all regions to formally request a portion of the $8 billion from the Transportation Infrastructure Investment Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Transportation_Infrastructure_Investment_Act) for the "repair, expansion, or construction of rapid bus lines in metropolitan areas", or to modify the request which was made of the former SoIA. Should you all wish to make any request or modification, please let me know in my Official Department Office (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=164960.0). Thank you!


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Poirot on November 19, 2012, 08:57:53 PM
To put more weight behind the efforts of our Governor and Senators on getting federal money following hurricane Sandy, I was thinking the assembly could adopt a resolution (or is it a motion?). It would be great if it was unanimous. It would put more pressure on the white house.

Something like:

"As a result of the damage and devastation caused by hurricane Sandy to the regions of the Northeast and Mideast, this Assembly asks for federal relief funds to be delivered as soon as possible."

The text can be improved by someone, I don't mind. Then we can deliver it to the white house. The senate is already debating a natural disaster bill so maybe not useful to send it there.   


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on November 20, 2012, 05:57:23 AM
We've got a special thread for that. Just make it all official-like and put it in the Legislation Introduction Thread.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on November 20, 2012, 01:22:42 PM
Here is a counterproposal that integrates a desire of mine to bridge the Ambrose Channel.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9652218/Massive-barrier-plan-to-save-New-York-from-flooding.html


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 20, 2012, 10:34:18 PM
Here is a counterproposal that integrates a desire of mine to bridge the Ambrose Channel.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9652218/Massive-barrier-plan-to-save-New-York-from-flooding.html

Senator Simfan, by the way, I truly appreciate your input in the Legislation Introduction Thread, but only representatives or the governor may do so. If you so wish, one of us would gladly introduce it for you. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 21, 2012, 12:58:24 PM
I think I should say, a resolution requesting funds is a little redundant, in my opinion.  The Senate is currently debating a bill and they're all well aware of how annoyed we are at the current handling of the situation.  I don't know if this sways Poirot's opinion in any way, but that's just my two cents.

I'd also like to say that because the GM projected lower costs for us than what we thought was needed, I am more comfortable supporting railroad electrification.  I would like to use Simfan's bill as an opportunity to reorganize funds from the budget we just passed.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 21, 2012, 06:07:35 PM
Here is a counterproposal that integrates a desire of mine to bridge the Ambrose Channel.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9652218/Massive-barrier-plan-to-save-New-York-from-flooding.html

Senator Simfan, by the way, I truly appreciate your input in the Legislation Introduction Thread, but only representatives or the governor may do so. If you so wish, one of us would gladly introduce it for you. :)

IIRC, citizens may present legislation for consideration, but the bill needs a second signature before it can be brought to the floor.

That is correct, and I'm usually more than willing to sign off on a bill for a citizen whether I'm in agreement, disagreement, or indifferent.  Unfortunately, we rarely have citizen participation in regional government.  So Please!  PM me if you want a signature :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 21, 2012, 06:49:52 PM
I apologize, Simfan! I was not aware of the provision! ;D

Echoing the Speaker, if you need a signature, I'd be happy to supply mine.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Poirot on November 21, 2012, 08:03:12 PM
I think I should say, a resolution requesting funds is a little redundant, in my opinion.  The Senate is currently debating a bill and they're all well aware of how annoyed we are at the current handling of the situation.  I don't know if this sways Poirot's opinion in any way, but that's just my two cents.

Ok, perhpas I will withdraw the resolution if no representatives is interested in this either. The goal was to back up the Governor's (and Senators) efforts, show that the assembly was behind this. If the Governor doesn't find it useful...

It would take some time anyway to pass this if it is treated like debating for a bill.   


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 28, 2012, 10:48:08 PM
We need to establish a plan for restoration of areas that were affected by Hurricane Sandy.  Obviously, I intend to request that all the money being given to us goes to home and infrastructure repair, but before I put the word in I feel I should ask if there's anything specifically our Representatives feel needs the attention of the Federal government.  Obviously, I don't intend to put that money toward brand new bus/train systems since we still have to fix the broken ones.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on November 28, 2012, 11:04:16 PM
Just give me your input soon so I can PM shua for his expertise (if necessary) before the deadline.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 29, 2012, 12:30:06 AM
I hope this is the appropriate place to post this, and my apologies if it is not.

The Mideast Assembly has recently passed the following resolution, and I hope you would consider doing the same:

Quote
Wiki Senate Hearing Resolution
WHEREAS the wiki is severly lacking in updates, especially in the cagegories of statutes and court cases;
WHEREAS the regions depend on an updated wiki to pass and enforce their own laws;
THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mideast Assembly urges the the Senate to hold a hearing to determine what should be done to rectify the problem.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 29, 2012, 04:25:50 PM
I hope this is the appropriate place to post this, and my apologies if it is not.

The Mideast Assembly has recently passed the following resolution, and I hope you would consider doing the same:

Quote
Wiki Senate Hearing Resolution
WHEREAS the wiki is severly lacking in updates, especially in the cagegories of statutes and court cases;
WHEREAS the regions depend on an updated wiki to pass and enforce their own laws;
THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Mideast Assembly urges the the Senate to hold a hearing to determine what should be done to rectify the problem.

We will gladly do so. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 29, 2012, 05:01:59 PM
I move that the newly introduced wiki resolution be brought to the front of the queue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 29, 2012, 07:34:33 PM
Representatives, we will now vote on the motion brought forth by Representative Barnes, to move the wiki resolution to the front of the queue.  Voting will last 24 hours, or until all members have voted.

 


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 29, 2012, 07:37:52 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Goldwater on November 29, 2012, 07:44:53 PM
AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on November 29, 2012, 07:59:50 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Poirot on November 29, 2012, 11:11:36 PM
Abstain


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on November 30, 2012, 05:55:11 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on November 30, 2012, 05:35:44 PM
The motion passes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 09, 2012, 03:15:16 AM
I would like to move that the BUILD Act be brought to the front of the queue.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 09, 2012, 11:53:28 AM
I would like to move that the BUILD Act be brought to the front of the queue.

Second.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 10, 2012, 08:25:35 PM
Bump. :P


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 10, 2012, 08:52:57 PM
The Assembly will now vote to move The Build Act to the front of the queue.  This vote will last 24 hours.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Goldwater on December 10, 2012, 09:21:32 PM
AYE


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Poirot on December 10, 2012, 10:30:05 PM
aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 10, 2012, 10:59:25 PM
Aye


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 11, 2012, 10:36:48 PM
The motion passes.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on December 21, 2012, 08:31:58 AM
I might be leaving today to pick up a bike in Boston.  Just waiting for another quote for shipping costs.  So, if I'm off abruptly over the weekend, the Lt. Governor will need to close debates.


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 24, 2012, 12:18:44 AM
I have been informed of a new forum rule to close threads with over 2,000 posts; upon the request of the Governor, I will be doing so at the end if this session - unless there is no pressing business in here. In which case, I can do it now.

The Governor will proceed to open a new thread. :)


Title: Re: Northeast Assembly Thread
Post by: Barnes on December 26, 2012, 05:57:58 PM
With the new term beginning tomorrow, I will be locking this thread; please direct yourselves to the new one (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166833.0).  :)