Talk Elections

Atlas Fantasy Elections => Atlas Fantasy Government => Topic started by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 02, 2012, 09:04:41 PM



Title: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Law'd)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 02, 2012, 09:04:41 PM
Quote
The Contempt of Congress Act

1.  Any government official summoned before a Congressional Committee to testify and fails to without providing an excuse deemed legitimate by the Committee shall be charged with contempt of Congress.

2.  If the Senate votes to hold the official in contempt, he shall be subject to impeachment.

Sponsor: Ben


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 02, 2012, 09:09:56 PM
Ben you have have 24 hours to advocate for this.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 02, 2012, 09:11:50 PM
Quote from: Recommendation by the Gov't Oversight and Reform Committee
The committee has voted to recommend that the Senate pass the Contempt of Congress Act or similar legislation designed to compell unbridled submission to our inquisitions from those called to testify. The committee has also voted to recommend that the torture be expanded to include non-officeholders by way of incorporating a voting ban when it reaches the Senate floor.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 02, 2012, 09:13:34 PM
Quote
The Contempt of Congress Act

1.  Any government official summoned before a Congressional Committee to testify and fails to without providing an excuse deemed legitimate by the Committee shall be charged with contempt of Congress.

2.  If the Senate votes to hold the official in contempt, he shall be subject to impeachment. If the Senate votes to hold an Atlasian citizen in contempt, he shall be subject to up to a six month ban from voting.

How is this for implementing the Committee's secondary recommendation?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on September 02, 2012, 10:27:40 PM
This would constitute a bill of attainder and is beyond the enumerated powers of the Senate.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on September 02, 2012, 10:37:06 PM
We need to find a way to prevent officials and citizens from refusing to speak to Committees.  This legislation will put the fear of God into them, and ensure that never happens.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 02, 2012, 10:40:05 PM
I am aware of that concern, shua. Would you care to offer a framework that would pass Constitutional muster, then?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on September 03, 2012, 08:12:51 PM
I am aware of that concern, shua. Would you care to offer a framework that would pass Constitutional muster, then?
Not really, since I don't see the need for this.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 04, 2012, 02:08:50 AM
How does the real US Congress do this then?


I do see the need. The committees are very new and could easily be subjected to whims of someone up and deciding they are worthless and thus ignoring their requests and demands. This will ensure that atleast for the duration they exist, they will be taken seriously by such people and thus allow the committees to get a fair chance at success.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Redalgo on September 04, 2012, 09:47:20 AM
The best guess I can think of off the top of my head would be there is an implicit understanding among congresspersons that if any member of a party fails to satisfactorily cooperate with the committees, which seem to always have seats filled with people aligned with both the presiding government and a minority from the opposition, there would be punishments related to patronage delivered within the party rather than by the government as a whole. Alas, because candidates in the game do not really depend upon their parties to be effective instruments of political influence nearly so much as in real life, there is much less of an incentive for individual public officials to go along with all the unspoken rules and procedures established over time within the government.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 05, 2012, 12:09:12 AM
The best guess I can think of off the top of my head would be there is an implicit understanding among congresspersons that if any member of a party fails to satisfactorily cooperate with the committees, which seem to always have seats filled with people aligned with both the presiding government and a minority from the opposition, there would be punishments related to patronage delivered within the party rather than by the government as a whole. Alas, because candidates in the game do not really depend upon their parties to be effective instruments of political influence nearly so much as in real life, there is much less of an incentive for individual public officials to go along with all the unspoken rules and procedures established over time within the government.

Are you certain that is how it works?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Redalgo on September 05, 2012, 09:25:31 PM
No - my concentration in study has never been anywhere near parliamentary procedures and I don't know political sociology like the back of my hand. If I were right there would likely be a lot of exceptions. But I do not see anyone else providing ideas, so I suppose this is at least marginally better than letting the thread go silent for a couple days. When in doubt, I try to figure out who controls which strategic resources and how much leverage that might afford them against others.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 06, 2012, 01:05:48 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

It is a criminal offense in RL.

Quote
Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia;[9] according to the law it is the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action.

The criminal offense of "contempt of Congress" sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000.[10]

While the law pronounces the duty of the U.S. Attorney is to impanel a grand jury for its action on the matter, some proponents of the unitary executive theory believe that the Congress cannot properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action against the Executive Branch, asserting that the U.S. Attorney is a member of the Executive Branch who ultimately reports only to the President and that compelling the U.S. Attorney amounts to compelling the President himself. They believe that to allow Congress to force the President to take action against a subordinate following his directives would be a violation of the separation of powers and infringe on the power of the Executive branch. The legal basis for this belief, they contend, can be found in Federalist 49, in which James Madison wrote “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, none of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.” This approach to government is commonly known as "departmentalism” or “coordinate construction”[citation needed]

Others believe that, under Article II, the principal duty of the President is to execute the law; that, under Article I, the law is what the lawmaker—e.g. Congress, in the case of statutory contempt—says it is and the Executive Branch cannot either define the meaning of the law (such powers of legislation being reserved to Congress) or interpret the law (such powers being reserved to the several Federal Courts); any attempt by the Executive to define or interpret the law would be a violation of the separation of powers; the Executive may only—and is obligated to—execute the law consistent with its definition and interpretation; and if the law specifies a duty on one of the President's subordinates, then the President must "take care" to see that the duty specified in the law is executed. To avoid or neglect the performance of this duty would not be faithful execution of the law, and would thus be a violation of the separation of powers, which the Congress and the Courts have several options to remedy.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 06, 2012, 11:38:05 PM
Can I get some feedback, based on what I posted? How would it be best to structure this so as to be legal based on our Constitution?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 15, 2012, 12:49:40 AM
We have a new group of people in the Senate now, including some Constitution experience.


Marokai, what do you think of this and how should it proceed and still be valid legally?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 15, 2012, 01:10:51 AM
Marokai, what do you think of this and how should it proceed and still be valid legally?

Simple, instead of making it an instant punishment which would be a bill of attainder (and subsequently unconstitutional, IMO) just make refusal to appear in front of a Senate committee a crime, specify the range of punishment, and write procedure for a prosecutor to be selected by the committee to bring up the contempt case for judicial review from the Supremes. The court process would basically be a formality and you'd get the same result.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on September 15, 2012, 11:14:59 AM
Not too sure how criminal law works in Atlasia. Does this amendment address Marokai's suggestions?


A suggestion... your thoughts, Marokai?:

Quote
The Contempt of Congress Act

1. Any Atlasian summoned before a Congressional Committee to testify and fails to without providing an excuse deemed legitimate by the Committee can be charged with contempt of Congress.

2. Contempt of Congress is a crime punishable by law, which, if committed, shall carry the sentence of a ban from voting for up to six months.

3. In the event that a committee votes to charge an Atlasian with contempt of Congress, that committee shall select from its body one member to serve as prosecutor for the corresponding case in front of the Supreme Court.

I didn't quite know how to work the impeachment stuff into the wording. So if anyone wants to take a better go at it, be my guest.




Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 16, 2012, 12:18:14 AM
You would have to do it as a ban from holding office, which would compel a resignation, rather then impeachment.

Hagrid, I will make this suggestion to you. If you are desiring feedback on a text, the best way to handle it is to post it without calling/offering it as an amendment. Once you offer it as an amendment though, the process kicks in and you risk a vote, and even a failing one at that, that could have been avoided simply by getting the feedback first. Especially if it is a small concern or issue. One it is resolved, then it can be offered and quickly passed possibly without needing a vote on it.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on September 16, 2012, 12:52:04 AM
Noted. Is it too late for me to edit my post and remove my calling it "an amendment"?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 16, 2012, 06:55:02 AM
It is not to late. It is only too late, if a vote has been started on it.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 16, 2012, 06:55:48 AM
The whole point though is to save time so if Marokai could give a response that would be wonderfull. :P


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 16, 2012, 05:22:32 PM
The whole point though is to save time so if Marokai could give a response that would be wonderfull. :P

It seems constitutionally acceptable to me, yes. :P


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 17, 2012, 12:03:18 AM
Hagrid do you want to add that ban on holding office in as well, or just leave it with a voting ban?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 19, 2012, 12:29:38 AM
Hagrid?




Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on September 19, 2012, 06:07:03 PM
My apologies. I saw the initial message, meant to reply, and then totally forgot. :P

An Amendment:

Quote
The Contempt of Congress Act

1. Any Atlasian summoned before a Congressional Committee to testify and fails to without providing an excuse deemed legitimate by the Committee can be charged with contempt of Congress.

2. Contempt of Congress is a crime punishable by law, which, if committed, shall carry the sentence of a ban from voting for up to six months. Any officeholder who is found to be in contempt of Congress will also incur a ban on holding office for six months.

3. In the event that a committee votes to charge an Atlasian with contempt of Congress, that committee shall select from its body one member to serve as prosecutor for the corresponding case in front of the Supreme Court.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on September 19, 2012, 06:09:26 PM
Friendly.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 19, 2012, 11:35:24 PM
Quote from: Amendment 50:03 by Hagrid
The Contempt of Congress Act

1. Any Atlasian summoned before a Congressional Committee to testify and fails to without providing an excuse deemed legitimate by the Committee can be charged with contempt of Congress.

2. Contempt of Congress is a crime punishable by law, which, if committed, shall carry the sentence of a ban from voting for up to six months. Any officeholder who is found to be in contempt of Congress will also incur a ban on holding office for six months.

3. In the event that a committee votes to charge an Atlasian with contempt of Congress, that committee shall select from its body one member to serve as prosecutor for the corresponding case in front of the Supreme Court.

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 20, 2012, 11:35:25 PM
The amendment will have passed by the time this post goes through.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 20, 2012, 11:36:39 PM
Damn, 24 hours and one second. :P


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 21, 2012, 11:22:57 PM
Is that all?

Is everyone satisfied with the text?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 21, 2012, 11:54:14 PM

I've no problem with it.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 22, 2012, 12:07:22 AM
How about you Ben? (Postive answer will be construed as a call for a final vote).


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Debating)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on September 22, 2012, 08:59:55 AM
I'm good to go.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (At Final Vote)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 22, 2012, 11:42:40 PM
Senators, this is now at final vote, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (At Final Vote)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 22, 2012, 11:43:08 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (At Final Vote)
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on September 22, 2012, 11:43:29 PM
Aye


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (At Final Vote)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 23, 2012, 12:10:07 AM
Aye


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (At Final Vote)
Post by: Redalgo on September 23, 2012, 01:06:01 PM
Nay


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (At Final Vote)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on September 23, 2012, 01:43:16 PM
Aye


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (At Final Vote)
Post by: Sbane on September 23, 2012, 06:14:47 PM
Aye


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (At Final Vote)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 23, 2012, 09:11:14 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (At Final Vote)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 23, 2012, 11:27:04 PM
Senators, this bill has enough votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (On the President's Desk)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 25, 2012, 12:34:12 AM
Vote on Final Passage of The Contempt of Congress Act:

Aye (6): Ben, HagridoftheDeep, Marokai Blue, NC Yankee, sbane, Scott
Nay (1): Redalgo
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (2): Bacon King and NVTownsend

With six ayes and one nay, the bill has passed and is presented to the President for executive action.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (At Final Vote)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 25, 2012, 12:35:00 AM
Aw crap, we better not have to expel someone again...


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (On the President's Desk)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 25, 2012, 12:36:12 AM
Quote from: Final Text
The Contempt of Congress Act

1. Any Atlasian summoned before a Congressional Committee to testify and fails to without providing an excuse deemed legitimate by the Committee can be charged with contempt of Congress.

2. Contempt of Congress is a crime punishable by law, which, if committed, shall carry the sentence of a ban from voting for up to six months. Any officeholder who is found to be in contempt of Congress will also incur a ban on holding office for six months.

3. In the event that a committee votes to charge an Atlasian with contempt of Congress, that committee shall select from its body one member to serve as prosecutor for the corresponding case in front of the Supreme Court.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (On the President's Desk)
Post by: Napoleon on September 25, 2012, 09:34:57 PM
VETO


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (On the President's Desk)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on September 25, 2012, 09:48:43 PM
I call for a veto override.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Overide)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 25, 2012, 11:18:08 PM
Quote
Section 3: Rules on Veto Overrides
1. If a piece of legislation is vetoed by the President, the original sponsor of the bill must let the PPT know publicly on the Senate floor within seventy-two (72) hours of the veto being placed whether he wishes to have a vote to override the veto. If he replies in the negative or fails to reply within the given time, the legislation will be withdrawn from the Senate floor.

2. Extensions to this time period may only be allowed by the PPT in case of a publicly announced absence from the forum.

3. Sections 1 and 2 of this Article shall apply in full to voting on a Veto Override, with this exception:

For the purposes of a Veto Override only, any Senator who Abstains from voting shall be counted as a vote Against the legislation under consideration.

4. Upon a piece of legislation being vetoed by the President, if the slot reserved for debating overrides is empty, that legislation shall be moved to that slot and a new piece of legislation, if available, shall be moved into the vacated slot; but if the slot reserved for debating overrides is occupied, then debate shall take place in its current slot and it shall remain there until said debate is concluded, even if the slot reserved for debating overrides should be vacated.



Senators a vote is now open on whether to overide the Presidential veto of this bill, Senators please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain. This vote will require 2/3rds approval to achieve passage.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on September 25, 2012, 11:54:56 PM
Aye


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: Svensson on September 26, 2012, 01:38:05 AM
Nay.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on September 26, 2012, 10:52:31 AM
Aye!  Don't leave our Committees powerless!


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on September 26, 2012, 11:47:06 AM
Aye!  Don't leave our Committees powerless!


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: Redalgo on September 26, 2012, 03:17:30 PM
Nay


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: Napoleon on September 26, 2012, 04:30:18 PM
This Senate is voting to make law the removal of the most basic form of Atlasian participation for those who, for whatever reason, are unavailable to appear before a committee comprised of members of this body, the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia, whose own members often neglect their duty to the people by not voting or debating within the boundaries of the established legislative process.

I have been a proponent of committees from the start and this is not empowerment- this is a power grab.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on September 26, 2012, 05:01:28 PM
If someone has a valid reason for not appearing before a Committee, they aren't punished.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on September 26, 2012, 05:01:45 PM
This Senate is voting to make law the removal of the most basic form of Atlasian participation for those who, for whatever reason, are unavailable to appear before a committee.

Wrong. The bill comes with a loophole that will allow legitimate absences to go unpunished. I anticipate that the senate will be flexible in determining whether or not to charge an Atlasian with contempt of Congress. We just need an enforcement mechanism to make sure people are doing their jobs. Moreover, the Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether or not a voting ban is warranted.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: Napoleon on September 26, 2012, 05:20:23 PM
If someone has a valid reason for not appearing before a Committee, they aren't punished.

Yeah, with the Senate committee determining what is and is not legitimate, as opposed to the democratic standard of a fair and impartial jury or judge.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: Napoleon on September 26, 2012, 05:23:38 PM
This Senate is voting to make law the removal of the most basic form of Atlasian participation for those who, for whatever reason, are unavailable to appear before a committee.

Wrong. The bill comes with a loophole that will allow legitimate absences to go unpunished. I anticipate that the senate will be flexible in determining whether or not to charge an Atlasian with contempt of Congress. We just need an enforcement mechanism to make sure people are doing their jobs. Moreover, the Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether or not a voting ban is warranted.

Where is the enforcement mechanism to make sure you do your job?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on September 26, 2012, 05:26:05 PM
It actually is the Supreme Court that decides; we only press charges.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on September 26, 2012, 05:31:38 PM
This Senate is voting to make law the removal of the most basic form of Atlasian participation for those who, for whatever reason, are unavailable to appear before a committee.

Wrong. The bill comes with a loophole that will allow legitimate absences to go unpunished. I anticipate that the senate will be flexible in determining whether or not to charge an Atlasian with contempt of Congress. We just need an enforcement mechanism to make sure people are doing their jobs. Moreover, the Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether or not a voting ban is warranted.

Where is the enforcement mechanism to make sure you do your job?

That question would be better directed to Senator wormyguy.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: Napoleon on September 26, 2012, 05:51:04 PM
Wormyguy wasn't disenfranchised.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: Napoleon on September 26, 2012, 05:52:10 PM
It actually is the Supreme Court that decides; we only press charges.

That is quite obviously not true considering the text of the bill.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on September 26, 2012, 06:33:45 PM
Quote
2. Contempt of Congress is a crime punishable by law, which, if committed, shall carry the sentence of a ban from voting for up to six months. Any officeholder who is found to be in contempt of Congress will also incur a ban on holding office for six months.

3. In the event that a committee votes to charge an Atlasian with contempt of Congress, that committee shall select from its body one member to serve as prosecutor for the corresponding case in front of the Supreme Court.

Section 3 makes it clear that the case will be brought in front of the Supreme Court.

Section 2 dictates that anyone who commits the crime of contempt of Congress shall be sentenced to a voting ban of up to six months. Naturally, the Court decides whether or not it finds a person guilty of “committing” said crime.

The ban on office-holding does not go through the Court. I wrote it that way on purpose, and no one made a specific objection to that point. It's similar to the process of expelling a senator, but we needed a timeframe because many of the people who appear before committees are appointees.


He also didn’t have the luxury of defending himself in front of the Supreme Court.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: Napoleon on September 26, 2012, 06:43:52 PM
Quote
2. Contempt of Congress is a crime punishable by law, which, if committed, shall carry the sentence of a ban from voting for up to six months. Any officeholder who is found to be in contempt of Congress will also incur a ban on holding office for six months.

3. In the event that a committee votes to charge an Atlasian with contempt of Congress, that committee shall select from its body one member to serve as prosecutor for the corresponding case in front of the Supreme Court.

Section 3 makes it clear that the case will be brought in front of the Supreme Court.

I like how you ignore the section most relevant to my point.

Quote from: Final Text
The Contempt of Congress Act

1. Any Atlasian summoned before a Congressional Committee to testify and fails to without providing an excuse deemed legitimate by the Committee can be charged with contempt of Congress.

It's clear in the text of the bill that the committee is given the power to determine whether or not an excuse is "legitimate". The Court/jury would then be able to rule only whether or not the Atlasian is guilty of "committing" the "crime" based on what the Committee has already determined itself.


Quote
Section 2 dictates that anyone who commits the crime of contempt of Congress shall be sentenced to a voting ban of up to six months. Naturally, the Court decides whether or not it finds a person guilty of “committing” said crime.

Quote
The ban on office-holding does not go through the Court. I wrote it that way on purpose, and no one made a specific objection to that point. It's similar to the process of expelling a senator, but we needed a timeframe because many of the people who appear before committees are appointees.

I'm making a specific objection now.

Quote
The judicial power of the Republic of Atlasia shall be vested in one Supreme Court.

Quote

He also didn’t have the luxury of defending himself in front of the Supreme Court.

Um, okay.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on September 26, 2012, 07:13:34 PM
I didn't cite it because I don't think it's relevant to your point. The committee decides whether or not it will charge an Atlasian with contempt of Congress based on whether or not the committee believes that the Atlasian has a valid excuse for failing to testify. By implication, the bill suggests that contempt of Congress is only committed when there is no good excuse for being absent.

This question of legitimacy would therefore be factored into the Supreme Court's decision.

I disagree with a lot of your points, but a lot of them are minor things we could have changed earlier. I like that you've gotten involved in the senate in the past... why didn't you bring these up earlier when we could have dealt with them?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 26, 2012, 09:09:41 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 27, 2012, 10:09:56 AM
Aye


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: Sbane on September 27, 2012, 12:30:02 PM
Abstain


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: Bacon King on September 29, 2012, 07:06:14 PM
Aye if it ain't too late.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 30, 2012, 12:58:49 AM
As far as I know the rules are same those for regular legislation, except Abstains are counted as Nay votes. So seven days.



Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 30, 2012, 01:05:55 AM
With six votes in the affirmative and three votes in the negative, this has enough votes to override the veto, Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Veto Overriden, I think)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 01, 2012, 01:12:57 AM
Time is expired, I am pretty sure this has been overriden. If someone thinks I have made a mistake somewhere, please speak up.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: The Contempt of Congress Act (Voting on Veto Override)
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on October 01, 2012, 12:01:38 PM
:D  I thank the Senate for giving Committees the necessary tools to succeed; and Mr. President, I promise to try as hard as I can to make sure your fears don't come true.