Talk Elections

Atlas Fantasy Elections => Atlas Fantasy Government => Topic started by: King on April 09, 2005, 11:29:56 PM



Title: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: King on April 09, 2005, 11:29:56 PM
The old one got infected with PA13-itis with Flyers v. Phil.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: KEmperor on April 09, 2005, 11:32:52 PM
The old one got infected with PA13-itis with Flyers v. Phil.

I hate it when that happens.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Sam Spade on April 09, 2005, 11:42:00 PM
The old one got infected with PA13-itis with Flyers v. Phil.

Yep, like the last 50-60 posts of that thread were one big b*tch fight that's been playing on ever since I got here. 

Bores the hell out of me.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Keystone Phil on April 09, 2005, 11:49:32 PM
The old one got infected with PA13-itis with Flyers v. Phil.

Yep, like the last 50-60 posts of that thread were one big b*tch fight that's been playing on ever since I got here. 

Bores the hell out of me.

Oh stop whining. I've never met a bigger bunch of crybabies in my life. "PA 13....no...no...it's boring!" Shut up. Get to work instead of turning this into an anti-PA 13 thread.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Gabu on April 10, 2005, 12:56:52 AM
I would suggest that everyone just stop posting here.  This is the thread to talk about introduced legislation before it comes up for debate.  If you're not talking about that, take it elsewhere.  Let's not clog up this one.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Jake on April 10, 2005, 01:25:56 PM
Repeal of the Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act

Co-Sponsor:  Senator NixonNow (ACA-NJ)

Clauses

1.     The Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act is hereby repealed.

2.   The projected savings to the Federal Government is projected to be $17.65 Billion dollars for FY 2006 and a projected $176.50 Billion dollars over the next ten years.

3.     All funds previously appropriated by the Senate for FY 2005 to fulfill the requirements of this legislation shall be honored by the Federal Government.

4.   All appropriations and other moneys set to be authorized for fulfillment of this legislation in the Preliminary Version of the Federal Budget for FY 2006 and all future Fiscal Years shall be terminated.

5.   If previous appropriations have resulted in the construction of new facilities or the purchase of land for the construction of new facilities, the land or new facilities must be sold at a fair price to private concerns and the resulting revenue must be included in the Education Sub-Department of the Treasury and Social Services Department revenue figures for the proceeding Fiscal Year.

6.   A sum of no less than three-fourths (75% or $13.2375 Billion dollars) and no greater than the whole (100%) of the appropriations and moneys procured by this repeal of this Act must be designated towards the general Budgetary fund and the necessity of covering the present Budget’s shortfall and may not be authorized by the Senate to fund any other appropriations in this present Fiscal Year (2006).

7.   A sum of no less than none (0%) and no greater than (25% or $4.4125 Billion dollars) of the appropriations and money procured by the repeal of the Act may be authorized by the Senate in future legislation to fund appropriations and expenditures exclusively within the Education Sub-Department for FY 2006.



Discussion on the latest bill?


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Sam Spade on April 10, 2005, 04:08:52 PM
Well, I'd be happy to discuss it if anyone has any questions.

I have always felt like this is unnecessary legislation and yet at the same time, I wish to build a compromise so that elimination of it will go to things that I think it needs to go towards.

First, and most importantly, that means the federal budget deficit. 

75% of the savings from this bill will be earmarked straight to the general Budgetary fund and frankly 100% of the funds can be used for that if need be.  We will be able to cut the deficit by at least 13.2375 Billion dollars and maybe by as much as 17.65 Billion dollars.

However, I know that there are things that some Senators might have plans with regards to education.  I know that Cosmo Kramer has talked about fully funding NCLB.  So, I have set aside as much as 25% of this saved money for future appropriations within the Education Sub. Dept. only if a good and valuable program can be designed for those appropriations.

This is basically the first of a number of cuts I have in mind to make our budget deficit no longer the huge problem it presently is.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Akno21 on April 10, 2005, 07:54:18 PM
Are any of the other cuts going to involve the military, which has seen a sharp increase in funding by the last few Senates?


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Colin on April 10, 2005, 08:06:31 PM
Are any of the other cuts going to involve the military, which has seen a sharp increase in funding by the last few Senates?

Do you seriously believe that we should be cutting funds from the military when we are already stretched militarily as it is. When many have said that we don't have the proper equipment in Iraq and that we are not ready for future military endeavours if the need must arise. We cannot cut back on military funding at this time, we need to expand the military to fight the War on Terror and to make sure that we stabilize Iraq.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Sam Spade on April 10, 2005, 08:36:45 PM
Are any of the other cuts going to involve the military, which has seen a sharp increase in funding by the last few Senates?

I posted a response to True Democrat a few days ago which I think encapsulates the rationale behind how you get a budget deficit downwards:

Perhaps we could cut something from the Treasury Sub-Dept.  Could a Senator (probably Sam Spade) post a rundown of what is basically included in the Treasury sub-dept. budget?

Ok, but if the President would look through the Treasury budget himself, he would discover that other than some rather minor expenses here and there (1 billion to run the Mint, 8 billion for Financial Management Services and a couple of other minor things), there are basically two major expenses that the Treasury Dept. does that make up all of its budget.

1.  Running of the IRS (roughly about 59 billion)

2.  Paying off the interest on the National Debt (roughly about 350 billion)

Now, if you want to get rid of the IRS, I have no problem with that, but we'd better have an alternative tax system in place before.

Simply put, there is pretty much no way to really get into the budget deficit without cutting either:

1. Social programs (things to do with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, in that order)

2. Defense expenditures  (I think there are some things you can cut out of here (as being wasteful), but probably not more than 50 billion max.)

Or you can:

3. Raise taxes.

Or you can:

4. Keep spending increases down and hope for another 1990s to boom the federal coffers.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Akno21 on April 10, 2005, 08:40:44 PM
Cutting even 25 billion out of defense wouldn't be such a bad option, since some of it's waste anyhow.

We should leave raising taxes on the table, we don't have to do it by much, but considering the spending increases, it's about time we do that.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Sam Spade on April 10, 2005, 08:48:31 PM
Cutting even 25 billion out of defense wouldn't be such a bad option, since some of it's waste anyhow.

We should leave raising taxes on the table, we don't have to do it by much, but considering the spending increases, it's about time we do that.

Considering the spending increases that we've had, it is high time we cut the pointless spending increases and cut spending in other places.

I will oppose tax increases on the hard-working citizens of Atlasia unless it is "absolutely" necessary, which is almost never.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Akno21 on April 10, 2005, 08:57:24 PM
Cutting even 25 billion out of defense wouldn't be such a bad option, since some of it's waste anyhow.

We should leave raising taxes on the table, we don't have to do it by much, but considering the spending increases, it's about time we do that.

Considering the spending increases that we've had, it is high time we cut the pointless spending increases and cut spending in other places.

I will oppose tax increases on the hard-working citizens of Atlasia unless it is "absolutely" necessary, which is almost never.

We should do what we can to make sure the cuts aren't totally slanted one way, cut equally from favored programs of both sides. If we do that, we save ourselves the precious time that would otherwise be spent on a never-ending argument over whether building a school or a bomber is a more effective use of money.

How about a tax increase (if this is already done, then there's no need, but I'm trouble getting onto the Wiki at the moment) on those over $500,000. I don't mean to sound like Naso throwing around random numbers, I think if the senate considers raising taxes, which is a viable option, that is a good starting point, which can be tweaked by those who know better what they are talking about. 



Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Sam Spade on April 10, 2005, 09:09:51 PM

We should do what we can to make sure the cuts aren't totally slanted one way, cut equally from favored programs of both sides. If we do that, we save ourselves the precious time that would otherwise be spent on a never-ending argument over whether building a school or a bomber is a more effective use of money.

How about a tax increase (if this is already done, then there's no need, but I'm trouble getting onto the Wiki at the moment) on those over $500,000. I don't mean to sound like Naso throwing around random numbers, I think if the senate considers raising taxes, which is a viable option, that is a good starting point, which can be tweaked by those who know better what they are talking about. 


I have no favored programs whatsoever.  I am a fiscal hawk true and true.  If there is no need for a new school or a new bomber, then I won't spend for it (though the last time I checked, the Federal government does not build local schools, local school districts do).

I'll be quite honest that my knowledge of wasteful social programs and unfunded mandates is quite better than my knowledge of wasteful military spending.

If the Secretary of the Defense or John Ford or Jake would have ideas as to wasteful defense spending that could be cut, I'm all ears.

But I will not raise taxes during a weak and stagnant economy unless "absolutely" necessary.  Please talk to your Senators or someone in the Senate willing to place a bill raising taxes.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Jake on April 10, 2005, 09:19:11 PM
Depends on what you call wasteful.  If you don't like the Missle Defense Research, you would cut that, if you think, like Akno, that we shouldn't build a replacement for 30 year old fighters, you could cut the F-35 and F-22 programs, if you think we don't need new amphibious assault ships, you can cut funding to build the new San Antonio Class warships. 


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Akno21 on April 10, 2005, 09:43:04 PM

We should do what we can to make sure the cuts aren't totally slanted one way, cut equally from favored programs of both sides. If we do that, we save ourselves the precious time that would otherwise be spent on a never-ending argument over whether building a school or a bomber is a more effective use of money.

How about a tax increase (if this is already done, then there's no need, but I'm trouble getting onto the Wiki at the moment) on those over $500,000. I don't mean to sound like Naso throwing around random numbers, I think if the senate considers raising taxes, which is a viable option, that is a good starting point, which can be tweaked by those who know better what they are talking about. 


I have no favored programs whatsoever.  I am a fiscal hawk true and true.  If there is no need for a new school or a new bomber, then I won't spend for it (though the last time I checked, the Federal government does not build local schools, local school districts do).

I'll be quite honest that my knowledge of wasteful social programs and unfunded mandates is quite better than my knowledge of wasteful military spending.

If the Secretary of the Defense or John Ford or Jake would have ideas as to wasteful defense spending that could be cut, I'm all ears.

But I will not raise taxes during a weak and stagnant economy unless "absolutely" necessary.  Please talk to your Senators or someone in the Senate willing to place a bill raising taxes.

I'm certainly open to cutting social programs, such as the cutting of the Educational Act, since I now realize it was a poorly written bill, and overall I'm happy with the 4 billion or so that will go to the education sub-department.

You may not favor new military expenses, but many on your side of the fence do. I also think we cannot cut vital (wide definition obviously, which makes it hard to legislate) social programs during a weak and stagnant economy unless it's absolutely neccessary.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: King on April 10, 2005, 10:19:53 PM
Senate Introduction Act

Clause #1
Those who are members of Senate, must wait 72 hours (three days) before proposing legislation. Therefore, if a senator proposes legislation on a Monday, that Senator must wait 72 hours, until Friday.

Clause #2
All Senators, including the President-Pro Tempore must obey this rule.

Clause #3
Any senator who goes against this law, will not be allowed to propose legislation for 120 hours, or five days.

Clause #4
If this bill passes, and is signed by the President, the law should be put into affect by June the first, 2005.

If a Senator proposes it Monday, then he can't really propose it until 72 hours which would be Wednesday but he has to wait an additional 72 hours until he proposes it then?

Also, Senate law isn't a Presidential thing...no signature needed.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: KEmperor on April 10, 2005, 10:24:22 PM
Senate Introduction Act

Clause #1
Those who are members of Senate, must wait 72 hours (three days) before proposing legislation. Therefore, if a senator proposes legislation on a Monday, that Senator must wait 72 hours, until Friday.

Clause #2
All Senators, including the President-Pro Tempore must obey this rule.

Clause #3
Any senator who goes against this law, will not be allowed to propose legislation for 120 hours, or five days.

Clause #4
If this bill passes, and is signed by the President, the law should be put into affect by June the first, 2005.


Ok, I don't really get Clause #1.  You say a Senator must wait 72 hours (three days) before proposing legislation. Therefore, if a senator proposes legislation on a Monday, that Senator must wait 72 hours, until Friday.  First off, three days after monday is Thursday, not Friday.  But beyond that, how can you propose legislation before you can propose legislation?  The law makes no sense as written.  So if I were a Senator, I would have to propose legislation on a Monday, which is illegal, and then propose the same legislation again on Friday?  Insane.

Also, Clause #3 says that anyone who opposes this law isn't allowed to propose legislation for 120 hours?  So anyone who votes against this law won't be able to propose legislation for 5 days if it passes?  That is beyond stupid, and probably unconstitutional.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: King on April 10, 2005, 10:27:49 PM
Ok, I don't really get Clause #1.  You say a Senator must wait 72 hours (three days) before proposing legislation. Therefore, if a senator proposes legislation on a Monday, that Senator must wait 72 hours, until Friday.  First off, three days after monday is Thursday, not Friday.  But beyond that, how can you propose legislation before you can propose legislation?  The law makes no sense as written.  So if I were a Senator, I would have to propose legislation on a Monday, which is illegal, and then propose the same legislation again on Friday?  Insane.

Also, Clause #3 says that anyone who opposes this law isn't allowed to propose legislation for 120 hours?  So anyone who votes against this law won't be able to propose legislation for 5 days if it passes?  That is beyond stupid, and probably unconstitutional.

It isn't unconstitutional because it is a Senate law and is sort of non-binding to the constitution.

Anyway, it has been deleted...nothing to see here folks!

Naso, please stop writing your own legislation and let King write it for you next time.

Don't get Keystone Phil and Akno started on that...


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: MAS117 on April 10, 2005, 10:31:49 PM
Senate Introduction Act

Clause #1
Those who are members of Senate, must wait 72 hours (three days) before proposing legislation. Therefore, if a senator proposes legislation on a Monday, that Senator must wait 72 hours, until Friday.

Clause #2
All Senators, including the President-Pro Tempore must obey this rule.

Clause #3
Any senator who goes against this law, will not be allowed to propose legislation for 120 hours, or five days.

Clause #4
If this bill passes, and is signed by the President, the law should be put into affect by June the first, 2005.

wow, i dont understand at all. since when can we jsut delete bills introduced also?


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: King on April 10, 2005, 10:38:14 PM
Senate Introduction Act

Clause #1
Those who are members of Senate, must wait 72 hours (three days) before proposing legislation. Therefore, if a senator proposes legislation on a Monday, that Senator must wait 72 hours, until Friday.

Clause #2
All Senators, including the President-Pro Tempore must obey this rule.

Clause #3
Any senator who goes against this law, will not be allowed to propose legislation for 120 hours, or five days.

Clause #4
If this bill passes, and is signed by the President, the law should be put into affect by June the first, 2005.

wow, i dont understand at all. since when can we jsut delete bills introduced also?

Why do you want to continue this madness?  It is gone, he silently withdrew it...there is no law on this anyway.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Gabu on April 11, 2005, 03:20:56 AM
Senate Procedure Resolution on Introduced Legislation
§1.  The Senate of Atlasia shall form a 3-person Senate Committee on Introduced Legislation.

§2.  Before a bill shall be allowed to be put to a vote, the Committee shall be required to approve of the legislation.

§3.  The Committee shall have the power to amend the bills for the purpose of keeping the legislation Constitutional, original*, and grammatically suitable for legislative action.

§4.  If a proposal is urgent, the President Pro Tempore or President of the Senate shall have the power to suspend the rules and send the bill directly to a vote.

Footnotes
* The term original shall be defined as not including laws or appropriating funds already similar or equal to that of existing law.

While I understand the purpose for this, I have two problems with sections 1, 2, and 3 of this legislation:

1. This introduces more bureaucracy and hoops that we must jump through before we're able to do our job.  I would personally prefer to keep the process involving as few steps as is necessary.

2. I really don't like the fact that three people would be able to effectively kill any legislation that they want.  This seems entirely undemocratic and contrary to what the Senate is supposed to be for: a place where any ideas can be brought to the floor, discussed, and then voted on.  I don't like the thought of having three people who are able to say "no, you can't discuss this".

I recognize that this is intended to speed up the Senate's workings by tossing out pointless legislation, but given that we have resolutions in place that allow for a vote after only twenty-four hours, I don't really think anything along these lines is necessary.  It seems too open to abuse; the potential good does not outweight the potential bad, in my opinion.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Sam Spade on April 11, 2005, 04:13:19 AM
I also dislike the fact a three-man committee decides what will be voted on and what won't be voted on.  And if you can't write legislation that's not constitutional or original, then you shouldn't be writing legislation at all.

Personally, I have at least taken the time to read the Constitution, as every Senator should imo, and if I have any qualms about Constitutional questions on legislation, I ask the experts first.

Clause 4 seems redundant.  Doesn't the PPT or the President of the Senate already have that power?

The system, as it right now, works fine.  Things have gone much, much faster and better legislation has been written as a whole.

I also find it ironic that the person whose bills fit the profile of some of things this legislation is trying to supposedly fix is coming up with this legislation himself.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Colin on April 11, 2005, 10:35:32 AM
I personally do not like the idea of a three man committee. It is too susceptable to cronyism and corruption. The committee could stop rightist or leftist or centrist, depending on who controls the committee, legislation from being debated on. It could also be used against opponents of the committee. People that the committee doesn't like could not have any of their legislation approved. This can also be used to sway elections by not allowing the Senator to seem active. Also the committee could twist and amend the bills so much that they go against their original purpose. All of these things could harm the activities of the Senate and lead to an increase in corruption.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: King on April 11, 2005, 08:11:16 PM
They don't decide just because they don't like the bill.  It has to have unconstitutional parts and they can only get rid of or change the language on those circumstances...it isn't like they could amend a healthcare bill into a declaration of war just because they disagree with it...


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Peter on April 15, 2005, 02:31:28 PM
Referring to Senator Spade's new SPR:

A Bill is something that is in (or awaiting) debate in the Senate; A Bill becomes an Act when it achieves passage into Law (e.g. when the President signs the Bill after Senate approval). At least this is the technical definitions that are generally used, though people here seem to introduce "Acts" into the Senate. Maybe we ought to codify this relationship at some point.

In Section 3 Clause 1, I would also point out that the Senate does debate Resolutions, and these have been counted against the limits for legislation on the floor.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Gabu on April 15, 2005, 02:34:43 PM
A Bill is something that is in (or awaiting) debate in the Senate; A Bill becomes an Act when it achieves passage into Law (e.g. when the President signs the Bill after Senate approval). At least this is the technical definitions that are generally used, though people here seem to introduce "Acts" into the Senate. Maybe we ought to codify this relationship at some point.

This has always bugged me, so I certainly wouldn't mind it if we did something on it, although I'm afraid it might confuse or scare off people if we yell at them every time they introduce an "act" to the Senate.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Sam Spade on April 15, 2005, 02:35:41 PM
Referring to Senator Spade's new SPR:

A Bill is something that is in (or awaiting) debate in the Senate; A Bill becomes an Act when it achieves passage into Law (e.g. when the President signs the Bill after Senate approval). At least this is the technical definitions that are generally used, though people here seem to introduce "Acts" into the Senate. Maybe we ought to codify this relationship at some point.

In Section 3 Clause 1, I would also point out that the Senate does debate Resolutions, and these have been counted against the limits for legislation on the floor.

These are good points.  I will amend the following proposed resolution to take care of them.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Peter on April 15, 2005, 02:44:40 PM
This has always bugged me, so I certainly wouldn't mind it if we did something on it, although I'm afraid it might confuse or scare off people if we yell at them every time they introduce an "act" to the Senate.

I don't suggest anything so harsh, perhaps the PPT is of the understanding that when he starts the new thread, he starts it as a Bill regardless of what it was in the Introduction thread.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Sam Spade on April 15, 2005, 02:56:39 PM
Bill has been changed to deal with Peter's suggestions.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: King on April 18, 2005, 08:20:04 PM
The New Mexico - Montana Regional Bill

Clause I

The State of New Mexico shall henceforth be located in the Pacific Region.

Clause II

The State of Montana shall henceforth be located in the Midwest Region.

Clause III

This bill shall take effect following the next Regional election upon approval by the Senate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Y'all knew it had to appear sometime. :D

You need the consent from both regions and everybody in the states affected before a change can become official.  Also, nothing says there has to be 10 states for each region...you could just pay the Governor of the Midwest for New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming without giving them any land.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: KEmperor on April 18, 2005, 08:24:41 PM
The New Mexico - Montana Regional Bill

Clause I

The State of New Mexico shall henceforth be located in the Pacific Region.

Clause II

The State of Montana shall henceforth be located in the Midwest Region.

Clause III

This bill shall take effect following the next Regional election upon approval by the Senate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Y'all knew it had to appear sometime. :D

You need the consent from both regions and everybody in the states affected before a change can become official.  Also, nothing says there has to be 10 states for each region...you could just pay the Governor of the Midwest for New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming without giving them any land.

Actually, it DOES say that there have to be 10 states per region.  At least it did in the old Constitution, I don't know if the new one says that.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Peter on April 18, 2005, 08:25:29 PM
Actually, it DOES say that there have to be 10 states per region.  At least it did in the old Constitution, I don't know if the new one says that.

That was a ridiculous requirement that we removed.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: WMS on April 18, 2005, 08:33:32 PM
The New Mexico - Montana Regional Bill

Clause I

The State of New Mexico shall henceforth be located in the Pacific Region.

Clause II

The State of Montana shall henceforth be located in the Midwest Region.

Clause III

This bill shall take effect following the next Regional election upon approval by the Senate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Y'all knew it had to appear sometime. :D

You need the consent from both regions and everybody in the states affected before a change can become official.  Also, nothing says there has to be 10 states for each region...you could just pay the Governor of the Midwest for New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming without giving them any land.

Actually, it DOES say that there have to be 10 states per region.  At least it did in the old Constitution, I don't know if the new one says that.

I DO have the approval of both Midwest Governor Ilikeverin and Pacific Governor Wildcard. If they don't post here themselves, I can provide the necessary documentation. But I'll bug them to post here as I asked. :)

And from my discussion with Peter Bell, the mechanics of the trade are for the two Regions to decide, with the Senate approving or disapproving as a whole. I did run this by him to ensure that it is Constitutional...I'm not too proud to ask for assistance in such matters. ;)


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: ilikeverin on April 19, 2005, 04:10:53 PM
I HAFF KONSENTEED


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Peter on April 25, 2005, 08:43:58 PM
How much more legislation are we going to be bothering with considering that we have just over 10 days left in the legislative session, and we have a number of vacancies (or effective vacancies): Nym90, Naso, NixonNow.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Sam Spade on April 25, 2005, 08:45:13 PM
How much more legislation are we going to be bothering with considering that we have just over 10 days left in the legislative session, and we have a number of vacancies (or effective vacancies): Nym90, Naso, NixonNow.

If legislation does not get voted on or considered, I will re-introduce it next session if need be.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Gabu on April 25, 2005, 09:15:15 PM
How much more legislation are we going to be bothering with considering that we have just over 10 days left in the legislative session, and we have a number of vacancies (or effective vacancies): Nym90, Naso, NixonNow.

I plan to get through as much as we can; I don't see why having only 10 days left is a reason to simply halt everything.  Obviously we're not going to get through everything, but we might as well see what we can do.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: MAS117 on April 25, 2005, 09:17:23 PM
How much more legislation are we going to be bothering with considering that we have just over 10 days left in the legislative session, and we have a number of vacancies (or effective vacancies): Nym90, Naso, NixonNow.

I plan to get through as much as we can; I don't see why having only 10 days left is a reason to simply halt everything.  Obviously we're not going to get through everything, but we might as well see what we can do.

I agree.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Jake on April 25, 2005, 09:19:08 PM
Which is why you're currently stalling legislation and wasting space.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: MAS117 on April 25, 2005, 09:21:11 PM
Which is why you're currently stalling legislation and wasting space.

I like to say filibustering Jake.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Sam Spade on April 25, 2005, 09:24:36 PM
Which is why you're currently stalling legislation and wasting space.

I like to say filibustering Jake.

If you're going to filibuster, please be a little more creative, MAS, that's all I ask.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: WMS on April 25, 2005, 10:06:47 PM
I would like to actually vote on the NM-MT Bill, if possible. We'll see if it happens...


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Sam Spade on April 25, 2005, 10:14:31 PM
I would like to actually vote on the NM-MT Bill, if possible. We'll see if it happens...

It will be reintroduced, regardless.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: MAS117 on April 25, 2005, 10:17:35 PM
Which is why you're currently stalling legislation and wasting space.

I like to say filibustering Jake.

If you're going to filibuster, please be a little more creative, MAS, that's all I ask.

give me some stuff then sammy:)


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Sam Spade on April 25, 2005, 10:20:01 PM
Which is why you're currently stalling legislation and wasting space.

I like to say filibustering Jake.

If you're going to filibuster, please be a little more creative, MAS, that's all I ask.

give me some stuff then sammy:)

I'm not writing your own filibustering amendments like King wrote Naso's legislation.  Sorry, MAS.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: WMS on April 25, 2005, 10:38:57 PM
I would like to actually vote on the NM-MT Bill, if possible. We'll see if it happens...

It will be reintroduced, regardless.

Thanks, Senator. Good to see something will be done. :)


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Gabu on April 25, 2005, 10:58:09 PM
I would like to actually vote on the NM-MT Bill, if possible. We'll see if it happens...

It will be reintroduced, regardless.

Thanks, Senator. Good to see something will be done. :)

I'd reintroduce it if no one else did.  The Pacific welcomes New Mexico! ;)


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: King on April 25, 2005, 11:01:08 PM
I would like to actually vote on the NM-MT Bill, if possible. We'll see if it happens...

It will be reintroduced, regardless.

Thanks, Senator. Good to see something will be done. :)

I'd reintroduce it if no one else did.  The Pacific welcomes New Mexico! ;)

Reintroduce it as the The New Mexico - Montana SCREW THE MIDWEST Regional Bill with the necessary modifications. ;)


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: WMS on April 26, 2005, 12:40:06 AM
I would like to actually vote on the NM-MT Bill, if possible. We'll see if it happens...

It will be reintroduced, regardless.

Thanks, Senator. Good to see something will be done. :)

I'd reintroduce it if no one else did.  The Pacific welcomes New Mexico! ;)

Reintroduce it as the The New Mexico - Montana SCREW THE MIDWEST Regional Bill with the necessary modifications. ;)

Thanks Gabu! :)

And King, I still think I'd need the Midwest's approval, even under the new Constitution...but :D at the new phrasing.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: A18 on April 27, 2005, 03:58:24 PM
On Gabu's amendment proposal--

I think it would be better to just take Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, scratch out the word 'Congress,' and add the word 'Senate' in its place.

That would make the game more realistic, anyway.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Peter on April 28, 2005, 07:37:52 PM
Replying to Supersoulty's proposed amendment:

Without commenting on the substance of your amendment, I would like to comment that I think we should do the Constitutional Amendments as in the US Constitution for easier reference - i.e. Amendment I, Amendment II, etc., rather than inserting them into the present document.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: 12th Doctor on April 28, 2005, 07:53:00 PM
Replying to Supersoulty's proposed amendment:

Without commenting on the substance of your amendment, I would like to comment that I think we should do the Constitutional Amendments as in the US Constitution for easier reference - i.e. Amendment I, Amendment II, etc., rather than inserting them into the present document.

What Amendment would this be then?


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Peter on April 28, 2005, 07:56:34 PM
Replying to Supersoulty's proposed amendment:

Without commenting on the substance of your amendment, I would like to comment that I think we should do the Constitutional Amendments as in the US Constitution for easier reference - i.e. Amendment I, Amendment II, etc., rather than inserting them into the present document.

What Ammendment would this be then?

Inserting new clauses on to the bottom of specific sections of the Constitution, but just list them on the bottom of the Constitution and have them numbered.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: King on April 28, 2005, 08:17:52 PM
Super, it would be nice if your amendments gave more direction on what clauses would be modified (if any).  We don't want to have a contradicting constitution again.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: 12th Doctor on April 28, 2005, 08:33:35 PM
Super, it would be nice if your amendments gave more direction on what clauses would be modified (if any).  We don't want to have a contradicting constitution again.

Acctually, no clause is modified by the passage of this Amendment.  It is simply an addition.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: A18 on April 28, 2005, 10:21:17 PM
It's amendment. No double 'm'.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: 12th Doctor on April 29, 2005, 11:42:01 AM

Sorry, I have a tendency to insert double "m's" and "n's" where there are none.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Peter on April 29, 2005, 11:20:55 PM
There are presently two gaps on the floor, and we've got a few days, so I'm going to put the next couple of pieces on the floor since they are relatively easy to handle.

I will not be introducing the Assault Weapons Ban Bill from NixonNow because Gabu does not recognise him as a Senator and therefore it has no sponsor, nor the SPR from Naso since he's definitely resigned.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Sam Spade on April 29, 2005, 11:36:16 PM
There are presently two gaps on the floor, and we've got a few days, so I'm going to put the next couple of pieces on the floor since they are relatively easy to handle.

I will not be introducing the Assault Weapons Ban Bill from NixonNow because Gabu does not recognise him as a Senator and therefore it has no sponsor, nor the SPR from Naso since he's definitely resigned.

Sounds good to me.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: King on April 30, 2005, 11:04:07 AM
Do we have a new legislation intro thread for the 7th session or will the current be used until it is 100 pages long?


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Peter on April 30, 2005, 01:15:28 PM
Do we have a new legislation intro thread for the 7th session or will the current be used until it is 100 pages long?

Hopefully we will get a new one, but we're going to need a moderator to change the sticky over, and I don't want to particuarly delete the old one at this point.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Gabu on May 02, 2005, 04:43:57 PM
Do we have a new legislation intro thread for the 7th session or will the current be used until it is 100 pages long?

I plan on making another one.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Joe Republic on May 07, 2005, 06:22:03 PM
Candidacy Declaration Bill[/u]

Primary Sponsor:[/b] Senator MAS117

The Senate notes that:

1. Under Article I, Section 4, Clause 6 and Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution the Senate is delegated the power to determine procedures for declaration of candidacy in federal elections.

2. In the interim, Article VIII, Section 2, Clause 3 sets the Candidacy Declaration period at 7 days for Scheduled elections and 2 days for Regular elections.

Clauses:

1. All declarations of candidacy must be submitted to a thread established by the Secretary of Forum Affairs for this purpose in the (Voting Booth ?). This thread shall be linked from the Atlas Forum Headquarters and Government Headquarters threads.

2. The Secretary of Forum Affairs shall post in the thread when the candidacy declaration period for a particular election shall have expired.

3. All declarations must list the office being sought and the party label being used by the candidate. Such declarations of candidacy may be withdrawn or amended up to the end of the candidacy declaration period, and the declaration of withdrawl of a candidacy must be done in the same thread that the candidate declared in.

4. For all declarations of candidacy to the Senate, the candidate must be resident in the relevant District or Region at the time of candidacy declaration, else the declaration shall not be valid.


This bill is unnecessary.  Why regulate something that pretty much already happens?  I really don't see the need for even more rules and regulations.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Peter on May 07, 2005, 06:36:57 PM
This bill is unnecessary.  Why regulate something that pretty much already happens?  I really don't see the need for even more rules and regulations.

I think you'll find that the District 5 mess of the last election has presented ample need for this legislation: It was impossible for Sight nor SoFA to really determine in which seats DanielX was still running.

This bill will hopefully also make a less active SoFA's job much more easier come election time.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Joe Republic on May 07, 2005, 06:51:25 PM
All it'll invite is people to make an unwitting mistake in declaring their candidacy, and somebody to jump on them saying "no, you're not supposed to do it like that".  Stuff like this really takes the fun out of fantasy elections.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: MasterJedi on May 07, 2005, 07:10:01 PM
Yes I b elieve that bill is unnecessary and will vote against it!


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Jake on May 09, 2005, 05:16:52 PM
As to MAS's bill for the procurement of 15 Apache-Ds and 50 Cobra-Zs, why is this necessary and what units specifically require new attack helicopters?


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Peter on May 10, 2005, 07:29:07 PM
Section 5 of Master Jedi's bill is unconstitutional - you cannot require a supermajority via statute to change a statute - it unconstitutionally binds future Senates.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: A18 on May 10, 2005, 08:23:40 PM
So the Senate is not allowed to set its own rules? What a sh**tty constitution.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Emsworth on May 10, 2005, 08:26:02 PM
So the Senate is not allowed to set its own rules?
The Senate can set its own rules, but it cannot bind future Senates.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: A18 on May 10, 2005, 08:29:37 PM
Can someone give me a link to the Constitution?


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Emsworth on May 10, 2005, 08:31:00 PM
Can someone give me a link to the Constitution?
See here (http://www.progressnj.com/atlaswiki/index.php/Second_Constitution)


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: A18 on May 10, 2005, 08:35:01 PM
The Senate may establish rules for its own proceedings, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of its number, expel a Senator.

I don't see anything about binding future Senates. Heck, that's right out of the U.S. Constitution, and the Congress certainly has many bills requiring a supermajority to raise taxes, consider certain bills, etc.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Emsworth on May 10, 2005, 08:53:27 PM
The Senate may establish rules for its own proceedings, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of its number, expel a Senator.
The Senate may certainly establish its own rules, as you say. However, such rules must be made internally, and should not be prescribed by statute.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: MasterJedi on May 11, 2005, 06:37:49 AM
Well that part will probably be taken out of the bill when it comes to the Senate floor. But we'll see what happens.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Colin on May 11, 2005, 02:16:25 PM
The Senate may establish rules for its own proceedings, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of its number, expel a Senator.
The Senate may certainly establish its own rules, as you say. However, such rules must be made internally, and should not be prescribed by statute.


Exactly. If Senator MasterJedi wants to change the rules to allow for tax changes to be approved by a two-thirds majority than he must do that through a Senate Procedural Resolution and not a bill.

Well that part will probably be taken out of the bill when it comes to the Senate floor. But we'll see what happens.

No we wont see what happens because it must be taken out or you run the risk of the entire bill being struck down, that's a long shot, or that section being struck. Either way I don't want more court cases than we need since they are usually rather crazy affairs.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: A18 on May 11, 2005, 02:41:25 PM
Several bills before Congress would create rules for the entire legislature, and yes, by statute.

When it comes to the Senate floor, he's saying we'll see what happens. Not after it is passed.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Colin on May 11, 2005, 02:43:09 PM
Several bills before Congress would create rules for the entire legislature, and yes, by statute.

When it comes to the Senate floor, he's saying we'll see what happens. Not after it is passed.

This ain't Congress dumbass. ;)

We go by different rules than America and you need to learn that.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Emsworth on May 11, 2005, 03:20:33 PM
Several bills before Congress would create rules for the entire legislature, and yes, by statute.
These (real life) bills are, in my opinion, unconstitutional, as they clearly violate the provision whereby each house is empowered to determine the rules of its own proceedings. The alleged power of Congress to determine such rules is not enumerated, and does not fall under the necessary and proper clause, except where both houses are involved simultaneously (for instance, counting electoral votes).


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: MasterJedi on May 11, 2005, 03:23:08 PM
When it comes to the Senate floor, he's saying we'll see what happens. Not after it is passed.

Yea this is what I meant, not after it passes. If someone tried to cut it the bill would still pass I'd support that or the way it is now.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Colin on May 11, 2005, 03:41:54 PM
When it comes to the Senate floor, he's saying we'll see what happens. Not after it is passed.

Yea this is what I meant, not after it passes. If someone tried to cut it the bill would still pass I'd support that or the way it is now.

I'm just saying it would be alot easier for you to just get rid of that clause just in case, and to make the debate and amending procedure more focused on the tax cuts instead of on that clause.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: A18 on May 11, 2005, 04:20:15 PM
Several bills before Congress would create rules for the entire legislature, and yes, by statute.
These (real life) bills are, in my opinion, unconstitutional, as they clearly violate the provision whereby each house is empowered to determine the rules of its own proceedings. The alleged power of Congress to determine such rules is not enumerated, and does not fall under the necessary and proper clause, except where both houses are involved simultaneously (for instance, counting electoral votes).

Both houses obviously have to pass the bill, and I believe there are already plenty of congressional rules determined by statute, such as how every bill has to begin "Be it enacted by..."


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Emsworth on May 11, 2005, 04:27:11 PM
Several bills before Congress would create rules for the entire legislature, and yes, by statute.
These (real life) bills are, in my opinion, unconstitutional, as they clearly violate the provision whereby each house is empowered to determine the rules of its own proceedings. The alleged power of Congress to determine such rules is not enumerated, and does not fall under the necessary and proper clause, except where both houses are involved simultaneously (for instance, counting electoral votes).

Both houses obviously have to pass the bill
Of course, I do not contend that this is not the case. However, each House must have absolute authority over its own rules, independent of the other. Changing statute requires the consent of both Houses and, in most cases, the President; changing rules should require nothing more than a simple resolution by the House concerned.

Quote
I believe there are already plenty of congressional rules determined by statute, such as how every bill has to begin "Be it enacted by..."
These are not constraints on the internal rules of a House, but are constitutionally permitted generic provisions.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: A18 on May 11, 2005, 08:30:46 PM
I'm not seeing the difference. In both cases, a house's ability to pass a certain law is restricted.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: True Democrat on May 17, 2005, 09:51:48 PM
I didn't know where to put this, so here.

Can a Senator introduce a bill to change the Government Thread Act, so that the first sentence of Clause 2 reads:

-It is the responsibility of each member of the Cabinet to create and/or maintain a thread in the Atlas Forum Government Board or the public discussion forum relating to their office.

Instead of. . .

-It is the responsibility of each member of the Cabinet to create and/or maintain a thread in the Atlas Forum Government Board relating to their office.

I realize it isn't urgent, but I think it should be done.  I believe Alcon already has his office on the regular board, and it would be better if the Secretary of Forum Affairs could make the General Info thread into their department thread.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: True Democrat on May 22, 2005, 11:40:00 AM
I didn't know where to put this, so here.

Can a Senator introduce a bill to change the Government Thread Act, so that the first sentence of Clause 2 reads:

-It is the responsibility of each member of the Cabinet to create and/or maintain a thread in the Atlas Forum Government Board or the public discussion forum relating to their office.

Instead of. . .

-It is the responsibility of each member of the Cabinet to create and/or maintain a thread in the Atlas Forum Government Board relating to their office.

I realize it isn't urgent, but I think it should be done.  I believe Alcon already has his office on the regular board, and it would be better if the Secretary of Forum Affairs could make the General Info thread into their department thread.

Does anyone care?


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: King on May 22, 2005, 01:43:14 PM
It also says the SoFA has to manage it and I am.  I'll introduce  an amendment later.


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: MasterJedi on May 24, 2005, 04:03:11 PM
Well I guess this is the best place to ask it but does anyone think they can help me that lets Atlasians buy percription drugs from Canada. I asked Ford if it's the same problem as America, he said yes so I want to go ahead! :)


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Gabu on May 29, 2005, 04:07:33 PM
As requested of me by former Senator Bono, I will introduce two Amendments to the Constitution (in separate posts) that he has asked me to introduce.

If there are any problems or changes with either of these, Bono, please let me know and I will do so.  I have modified the wording very slightly to make it sound in keeping with the rest of the document.

Addition to the Bill of Rights, Article VI

16.  Each individual shall have the inherent Right of defending the life, liberty and property of any individual using whatever force is necessary, through whatever means available, including the use of deadly force.

The vague wording of this makes it seem kind of dangerous in my eyes.  What's to stop someone from murdering someone else and then just saying, "Well, I was defending my liberty"?


Title: Re: NEW Bitch and Debate about Introduced Legislation Thread (NB-DILT)
Post by: Sam Spade on May 29, 2005, 04:15:26 PM
As requested of me by former Senator Bono, I will introduce two Amendments to the Constitution (in separate posts) that he has asked me to introduce.

If there are any problems or changes with either of these, Bono, please let me know and I will do so.  I have modified the wording very slightly to make it sound in keeping with the rest of the document.

Addition to the Bill of Rights, Article VI

16.  Each individual shall have the inherent Right of defending the life, liberty and property of any individual using whatever force is necessary, through whatever means available, including the use of deadly force.

The vague wording of this makes it seem kind of dangerous in my eyes.  What's to stop someone from murdering someone else and then just saying, "Well, I was defending my liberty"?

Fwiw, I have made the same points. 

I will be introducing an amendment on this, as I have already told Bono, to make it so that an individual can only protect his/her own life, liberty, property through whatever means necessary.

That would be sort of like the Florida "Castle Law'.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: MAS117 on June 22, 2005, 12:32:35 PM
Why the hell is Cosmo Kramer trying to expand fantasy government and add positions which are CLEARLY not needed? I hope all Senators vote in the negative on this rather dumb bill. We have talked about this at least twice before, each time deciding against it.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: KEmperor on June 22, 2005, 12:44:27 PM
As a Justice, I try not to comment on legislation.  However, expanding the court to 5 justices is NOT a good idea.  It's hard enough to work with just three of us.  Five would be increadably unwieldy.  I urge all Senators to please vote AGAINST this amendment.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: jokerman on June 23, 2005, 11:04:40 AM
I urge my fellow Senators to pass the bill and thus let the people decide on the fate of the supreme court and it's decisions.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: King on June 23, 2005, 11:30:08 AM
I urge my fellow Senators to pass the bill and thus let the people decide on the fate of the supreme court and it's decisions.

Stuffing the court to pass a populist agenda while voters have defeated populist candidates across the board is bad taste, no?


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Nation on June 23, 2005, 11:37:35 AM
I urge my fellow Senators to pass the bill and thus let the people decide on the fate of the supreme court and it's decisions.

Stuffing the court to pass a populist agenda while voters have defeated populist candidates across the board is bad taste, no?

ZING


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: JohnFKennedy on June 23, 2005, 11:56:17 AM
I urge my fellow Senators to pass the bill and thus let the people decide on the fate of the supreme court and it's decisions.

Stuffing the court to pass a populist agenda while voters have defeated populist candidates across the board is bad taste, no?

;D Don't worry, Siege is one of us........ ;)


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: jokerman on June 23, 2005, 12:18:21 PM
I urge my fellow Senators to pass the bill and thus let the people decide on the fate of the supreme court and it's decisions.

Stuffing the court to pass a populist agenda while voters have defeated populist candidates across the board is bad taste, no?
It's a constitutional amendment.  If the voters don't like it they can vote against it.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Peter on June 23, 2005, 12:23:04 PM
The Mideast has the right idea:

Signature and Avatar Amendment
1.  The Senate of the Republic of Atlasia hereby recognizes that a mandatory statement of a voter's registration in a person's avatar or signature is no longer necessary to aide the administrator of an election to determine the state in which a voter is registered.

2.  Upon this recognition, the Senate of Atlasia with the formal consent of the Regions shall repeal Article V, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Atlasian Constitution effective on August 18, 2005.

I thank the Senator for this much needed reform.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: MAS117 on June 24, 2005, 10:55:57 PM
Why the hell is the Senate moving so damn slow?


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Alcon on June 25, 2005, 04:57:31 AM
Preston, although Siege is a populist, he seems willing to compromise, especially on economic issues, and I would be unsurprised if he nominated libertarians to the court if he got a chance, as they are the vast majority on the board.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Emsworth on June 25, 2005, 07:59:42 AM
Preston, although Siege is a populist, he seems willing to compromise, especially on economic issues, and I would be unsurprised if he nominated libertarians to the court if he got a chance, as they are the vast majority on the board.
Siege is certainly willing to compromise here - for instance, he chose me as his running mate, although I'm not exactly a populist.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Joe Republic on June 25, 2005, 08:49:54 AM
The Mideast has the right idea:

Signature and Avatar Amendment
1.  The Senate of the Republic of Atlasia hereby recognizes that a mandatory statement of a voter's registration in a person's avatar or signature is no longer necessary to aide the administrator of an election to determine the state in which a voter is registered.

2.  Upon this recognition, the Senate of Atlasia with the formal consent of the Regions shall repeal Article V, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Atlasian Constitution effective on August 18, 2005.

I thank the Senator for this much needed reform.

As do I.  :)


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Sam Spade on June 25, 2005, 12:23:18 PM
Why the hell is the Senate moving so damn slow?

Recent bills (Social Security Bill, Secret Ballot Bill) have produced much debate and tons of amendments from Senators.

All in all, we have voted on 16 pieces of legislation this session, as compared to the rapid fire pace of 28 pieces of legislation last session.

One of the main problems has been is that the quality of legislation introduced this session has not been anywhere near the quality of legislation introduced last session.

This session, I've voted Nay six times and Abstain once.  Compare this to my voting Nay only three times last session and two of those were against Mike Naso bills.

All in all, I predict we'll end up voting on around 20 pieces of legislation this session, give or take a few.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Bono on June 28, 2005, 01:26:14 PM
Why the hell is the Senate moving so damn slow?

Recent bills (Social Security Bill, Secret Ballot Bill) have produced much debate and tons of amendments from Senators.

All in all, we have voted on 16 pieces of legislation this session, as compared to the rapid fire pace of 28 pieces of legislation last session.

One of the main problems has been is that the quality of legislation introduced this session has not been anywhere near the quality of legislation introduced last session.

This session, I've voted Nay six times and Abstain once.  Compare this to my voting Nay only three times last session and two of those were against Mike Naso bills.

All in all, I predict we'll end up voting on around 20 pieces of legislation this session, give or take a few.
That's because you people are so picky.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Colin on June 30, 2005, 12:41:27 PM
Why the hell is the Senate moving so damn slow?

Recent bills (Social Security Bill, Secret Ballot Bill) have produced much debate and tons of amendments from Senators.

All in all, we have voted on 16 pieces of legislation this session, as compared to the rapid fire pace of 28 pieces of legislation last session.

One of the main problems has been is that the quality of legislation introduced this session has not been anywhere near the quality of legislation introduced last session.

This session, I've voted Nay six times and Abstain once.  Compare this to my voting Nay only three times last session and two of those were against Mike Naso bills.

All in all, I predict we'll end up voting on around 20 pieces of legislation this session, give or take a few.

I attribute this lack of good bills to Peter not being as involved in the production of legislation as before. If you look at a lot of the major bills passed in the last Senate Peter Bell was behind most of them and wrote a good majority of them. Seriously though we've had a little slump in the writing of bills during this Senate but it should pick up later in the Summer when more people are active and less people are either away or busy.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Peter on July 17, 2005, 06:18:42 AM
Replying to Sam's latest rendition of War and Peace:

Article 2, Clause 5:

Quote
A marriage between two persons that is recognized as valid in another country is not valid in the Republic of Atlasia only if the marriage is not prohibited or made unlawful under Section 3 or 4 of this article.

Thats a bit like Naso's 'I support abortion except in cases of rape and incest' position isn't it? I look forward to welcoming the Cows recently wed in Thailand to Atlasia.

Quote
[Article 4], Section 2 – Restrictions on Civil Unions

1.   An officer shall not issue a civil union license when either party to the intended civil union is:
a.   under 18 years of age;
b.   non compos mentis;
c.   under guardianship, without the written consent of such guardian.

2.   A clerk who knowingly violates Clause 7 of this Section shall be fined not more than $20.00. A person who aids in procuring a civil union license by falsely pretending to be the guardian having authority to give consent to the civil union shall be fined not more than $500.00.

Obviously, if this passes, I'm suing Atlasia in a federal court under the Ex Posto Facto clause.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Sam Spade on July 17, 2005, 12:35:18 PM
Replying to Sam's latest rendition of War and Peace:

Article 2, Clause 5:

Quote
A marriage between two persons that is recognized as valid in another country is not valid in the Republic of Atlasia only if the marriage is not prohibited or made unlawful under Section 3 or 4 of this article.

Thats a bit like Naso's 'I support abortion except in cases of rape and incest' position isn't it? I look forward to welcoming the Cows recently wed in Thailand to Atlasia.

Quote
[Article 4], Section 2 – Restrictions on Civil Unions

1.   An officer shall not issue a civil union license when either party to the intended civil union is:
a.   under 18 years of age;
b.   non compos mentis;
c.   under guardianship, without the written consent of such guardian.

2.   A clerk who knowingly violates Clause 7 of this Section shall be fined not more than $20.00. A person who aids in procuring a civil union license by falsely pretending to be the guardian having authority to give consent to the civil union shall be fined not more than $500.00.

Obviously, if this passes, I'm suing Atlasia in a federal court under the Ex Posto Facto clause.

Look, I know that you don't like this and I occasionally put a wrong word here or there when I'm dealing with transferring state law to the federal level (which I did in this case).  Obviously it provides for good material to attack, I don't deny that.

If anyone is curious, I essentially stole the language of article 2 from a combination of Arizona and Washington family law.  Article 3-4 come from Vermont's Civil Union statute.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: The Dowager Mod on July 18, 2005, 06:58:49 PM
I urge both of my senators to vote against Senator Wixteds amendment(s) to the voting system reform bill.
By trying to lessen the number of ordinary citicenzes
and increasing the number of bureaucrats the proposed commision will lose most if not all credibility.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Sam Spade on July 18, 2005, 07:10:24 PM
I urge both of my senators to vote against Senator Spades amendment(s) to the voting system reform bill.
By trying to lessen the number of ordinary citicenzes
and increasing the number of bureaucrats the proposed commision will lose most if not all credibility.


I haven't proposed any amendments to the Voting System Reform Bill, Texasgurl.  :)

As far as I know, Colin's the only one who has.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: DanielX on August 04, 2005, 02:06:33 PM
You know, I just realized I oppose the next three bills in succession.

1. Pledge of Allegiance Bill of 2005
  - Bah, the resulting pledge sounds dumb. Frankly, 'under God' breaks it up a little.

2. Atlasian Senate Term Limit Bill
  - Why bother? No one seems to have been around 16 months anyway...

3. Species Bill of 2005
 - Yeah, me no like environment.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Emsworth on August 04, 2005, 02:08:52 PM
1. Pledge of Allegiance Bill of 2005
  - Bah, the resulting pledge sounds dumb. Frankly, 'under God' breaks it up a little.
Let us, then, abolish the pledge itself.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: MasterJedi on August 04, 2005, 02:33:56 PM
1. Pledge of Allegiance Bill of 2005
  - Bah, the resulting pledge sounds dumb. Frankly, 'under God' breaks it up a little.
Let us, then, abolish the pledge itself.

No, let us just leave it the way it is.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Emsworth on August 04, 2005, 02:35:21 PM
1. Pledge of Allegiance Bill of 2005
  - Bah, the resulting pledge sounds dumb. Frankly, 'under God' breaks it up a little.
Let us, then, abolish the pledge itself.
No, let us just leave it the way it is.
That would fly in the face  of the notion of religoius freedom. For the government to presume that a God exists, or that everyone believes or should believe in God, is the height of arrogance. And therefore, the pledge should be abolished, or the phrase "under God" taken out.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: MasterJedi on August 04, 2005, 03:10:02 PM
1. Pledge of Allegiance Bill of 2005
  - Bah, the resulting pledge sounds dumb. Frankly, 'under God' breaks it up a little.
Let us, then, abolish the pledge itself.
No, let us just leave it the way it is.
That would fly in the face  of the notion of religoius freedom. For the government to presume that a God exists, or that everyone believes or should believe in God, is the height of arrogance. And therefore, the pledge should be abolished, or the phrase "under God" taken out.

You're not required to say that part or the whole pledge in general. For all I care (as well as most people) you could say "under Allah" or "under Budda" and nobody would really care. If it needs to be changed (which it shouldn't be anyway) it should be done so that it doesn't reguire you to say God but whatever God or Goddess you worship.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Emsworth on August 04, 2005, 03:13:14 PM
You're not required to say that part or the whole pledge in general. For all I care (as well as most people) you could say "under Allah" or "under Budda" and nobody would really care.
That is not relevant. The point is that the government is making a categorical statement that God exists, by including such an assertion in the pledge. Moreover, the government is associating allegiance to religion: which is, in my opinion, the very concept which the Framers would have abhorred.

Quote
If it needs to be changed (which it shouldn't be anyway) it should be done so that it doesn't reguire you to say God but whatever God or Goddess you worship.
That presumes that everyone worships a deity, which presumption is untrue.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: True Democrat on August 08, 2005, 02:01:02 PM
Can I motion to bring bills to the front of list?


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Emsworth on August 08, 2005, 02:04:56 PM
Can I motion to bring bills to the front of list?
Only the PPT and VP, acting together, can bring bills to the front of the list.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: True Democrat on August 08, 2005, 02:06:09 PM
Can I motion to bring bills to the front of list?
Only the PPT and VP, acting together, can bring bills to the front of the list.

Well, may I suggest you bring the Peter's voting code bill to the front, along the with the Niger bill.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: MasterJedi on August 08, 2005, 02:58:23 PM
Can I motion to bring bills to the front of list?
Only the PPT and VP, acting together, can bring bills to the front of the list.

I wouldn't mind this, come on Gabu, on your feet! ;D

Well, may I suggest you bring the Peter's voting code bill to the front, along the with the Niger bill.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Sam Spade on August 08, 2005, 03:21:49 PM
Can I motion to bring bills to the front of list?
Only the PPT and VP, acting together, can bring bills to the front of the list.

Technically, if you wanted to make a motion and have the Senate vote on such a matter, you could bring it forward with the support of a majority of Senators.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Emsworth on August 08, 2005, 03:22:48 PM
Can I motion to bring bills to the front of list?
Only the PPT and VP, acting together, can bring bills to the front of the list.

Technically, if you wanted to make a motion and have the Senate vote on such a matter, you could bring it forward with the support of a majority of Senators.
Yes, of course, but that would tend to be a rather cumbersome process. It's much simpler just to leave it to us :D


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Emsworth on August 16, 2005, 02:47:16 PM
With regard to the Sealand Recognition Bill, I would have to state my unequivocal opposition.

"Sealand" is actually not an island or a territory, but merely a man-made structure: a partially sunken Royal Navy barge in the North Sea. The structure was built by the British government, and lies within the limit of British waters; thus, by any reasonable interpretation of international law, it is the property of the United Kingdom (albeit abandoned).

Recognition of this place with a population of five would be, in my opinion, a very unfortunate idea. So, I would request Sen. King to withdraw the proposal.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: King on August 16, 2005, 03:23:36 PM
Recognition of this place with a population of five would be, in my opinion, a very unfortunate idea. So, I would request Sen. King to withdraw the proposal.

Huh?  Did I submit this?


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Emsworth on August 16, 2005, 03:24:39 PM
Recognition of this place with a population of five would be, in my opinion, a very unfortunate idea. So, I would request Sen. King to withdraw the proposal.

Huh?  Did I submit this?
Yes: see here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=16936.msg575119#msg575119).


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: MAS117 on August 16, 2005, 04:53:40 PM
I hope the Senator does not table it.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Emsworth on August 16, 2005, 05:05:53 PM
With all due respect, could the Governor please explain the justification for the recognition of a sunken ship as a sovereign nation?


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: MasterJedi on August 16, 2005, 05:40:28 PM
With all due respect, could the Governor please explain the justification for the recognition of a sunken ship as a sovereign nation?

It's MAS, that's all we can say. I can also say that I won't be voting for this.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: MAS117 on August 16, 2005, 05:44:21 PM
With all due respect, could the Governor please explain the justification for the recognition of a sunken ship as a sovereign nation?

It's MAS, that's all we can say. I can also say that I won't be voting for this.

To tell the truth I don't care, but heres an idea that MasterJedi might like, lets make it a state in Atlasia!


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: MasterJedi on August 16, 2005, 05:50:12 PM
With all due respect, could the Governor please explain the justification for the recognition of a sunken ship as a sovereign nation?

It's MAS, that's all we can say. I can also say that I won't be voting for this.

To tell the truth I don't care, but heres an idea that MasterJedi might like, lets make it a state in Atlasia!

Haw haw there MAS. You've gone really far downhill since your the last few weeks in your Senate term.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: MAS117 on August 16, 2005, 06:01:07 PM
With all due respect, could the Governor please explain the justification for the recognition of a sunken ship as a sovereign nation?

It's MAS, that's all we can say. I can also say that I won't be voting for this.

To tell the truth I don't care, but heres an idea that MasterJedi might like, lets make it a state in Atlasia!

Haw haw there MAS. You've gone really far downhill since your the last few weeks in your Senate term.

For wanting to make every single island a state? Ahhh, cmon young Jedi.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: True Democrat on September 02, 2005, 10:33:58 AM
Could someoen put the Military Enlargement bill on the wiki?  I can, but I'm really not very good at putting stuff on there.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Joe Republic on September 20, 2005, 12:20:46 PM
Forestry (Sustainable Development) Bill

For every tree cut down by a company, co-operative or individual working in the forestry industry, that company, co-operative or individual must plant two or more trees in the same forest or other woodland environment

Good bill, Al.  Though I'd recommend stating that the newly planted trees must be protected for a certain length of time after planting.  Otherwise the same individuals will just cut down the new ones as soon as they've planted them, and so on, and the whole thing becomes a giant mess.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Emsworth on September 20, 2005, 05:43:54 PM
Forestry (Sustainable Development) Bill

For every tree cut down by a company, co-operative or individual working in the forestry industry, that company, co-operative or individual must plant two or more trees in the same forest or other woodland environment

Good bill, Al.  Though I'd recommend stating that the newly planted trees must be protected for a certain length of time after planting.  Otherwise the same individuals will just cut down the new ones as soon as they've planted them, and so on, and the whole thing becomes a giant mess.
Hmm, this will probably lead to Bono v. Atlasia III. :)


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Gabu on September 22, 2005, 03:37:22 PM
Forestry (Sustainable Development) Bill

For every tree cut down by a company, co-operative or individual working in the forestry industry, that company, co-operative or individual must plant two or more trees in the same forest or other woodland environment

Good bill, Al.  Though I'd recommend stating that the newly planted trees must be protected for a certain length of time after planting.  Otherwise the same individuals will just cut down the new ones as soon as they've planted them, and so on, and the whole thing becomes a giant mess.
Hmm, this will probably lead to Bono v. Atlasia III. :)

We need to abolish the courts. :P


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Peter on September 23, 2005, 06:11:03 AM
Could someoen put the Military Enlargement bill on the wiki?  I can, but I'm really not very good at putting stuff on there.

Maintaining the legislative statutes has generally been considered to be the job of the Justice department.


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: KEmperor on September 23, 2005, 11:38:43 PM
Forestry (Sustainable Development) Bill

For every tree cut down by a company, co-operative or individual working in the forestry industry, that company, co-operative or individual must plant two or more trees in the same forest or other woodland environment

Good bill, Al.  Though I'd recommend stating that the newly planted trees must be protected for a certain length of time after planting.  Otherwise the same individuals will just cut down the new ones as soon as they've planted them, and so on, and the whole thing becomes a giant mess.
Hmm, this will probably lead to Bono v. Atlasia III. :)

We need to abolish the courts. :P

Or Bono himself.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The Dowager Mod on September 27, 2005, 05:06:17 PM
Is there even a PPT anymore?


Title: Re: "Itchy-Bitchy" Legislative Debate
Post by: Jake on September 27, 2005, 05:12:54 PM
Forestry (Sustainable Development) Bill

For every tree cut down by a company, co-operative or individual working in the forestry industry, that company, co-operative or individual must plant two or more trees in the same forest or other woodland environment

Good bill, Al.  Though I'd recommend stating that the newly planted trees must be protected for a certain length of time after planting.  Otherwise the same individuals will just cut down the new ones as soon as they've planted them, and so on, and the whole thing becomes a giant mess.

Most forestry companies re-plant the area after they have made their selective cut anyway. Also, I know that alot of the time, trees are harvested simply to thin out the forest. This bill would prevent that action.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Colin on September 27, 2005, 05:13:51 PM

Yeah I'm here. I, constitutionally, can't do anything, though, unless Emsworth is away so my position is nearly useless. Emsworth has the overall authority to control the bill debates, decide which amendments to dispose of, and when to start votes. I only do it very rarely and when it is needed.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Emsworth on September 27, 2005, 05:18:19 PM
Yeah I'm here. I, constitutionally, can't do anything, though, unless Emsworth is away so my position is nearly useless. Emsworth has the overall authority to control the bill debates, decide which amendments to dispose of, and when to start votes. I only do it very rarely and when it is needed.
On the contrary, you are perfectly at liberty to act whenever you please. The Senate rules allow it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Colin on September 27, 2005, 05:28:26 PM
Yeah I'm here. I, constitutionally, can't do anything, though, unless Emsworth is away so my position is nearly useless. Emsworth has the overall authority to control the bill debates, decide which amendments to dispose of, and when to start votes. I only do it very rarely and when it is needed.
On the contrary, you are perfectly at liberty to act whenever you please. The Senate rules allow it.

Oh good. I thought the Constitution limited me to a purely secondary role.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on September 27, 2005, 07:39:00 PM
Yeah I'm here. I, constitutionally, can't do anything, though, unless Emsworth is away so my position is nearly useless. Emsworth has the overall authority to control the bill debates, decide which amendments to dispose of, and when to start votes. I only do it very rarely and when it is needed.
On the contrary, you are perfectly at liberty to act whenever you please. The Senate rules allow it.

Oh good. I thought the Constitution limited me to a purely secondary role.

Nope.  In fact, the OSPR really gives you primary control over internal Senate affairs.  :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The Dowager Mod on September 27, 2005, 09:42:55 PM
Yeah I'm here. I, constitutionally, can't do anything, though, unless Emsworth is away so my position is nearly useless. Emsworth has the overall authority to control the bill debates, decide which amendments to dispose of, and when to start votes. I only do it very rarely and when it is needed.
On the contrary, you are perfectly at liberty to act whenever you please. The Senate rules allow it.

Oh good. I thought the Constitution limited me to a purely secondary role.

Nope.  In fact, the OSPR really gives you primary control over internal Senate affairs.  :)
That's why i was wondering.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on September 27, 2005, 09:53:51 PM
Yeah I'm here. I, constitutionally, can't do anything, though, unless Emsworth is away so my position is nearly useless. Emsworth has the overall authority to control the bill debates, decide which amendments to dispose of, and when to start votes. I only do it very rarely and when it is needed.
On the contrary, you are perfectly at liberty to act whenever you please. The Senate rules allow it.

Oh good. I thought the Constitution limited me to a purely secondary role.

Nope.  In fact, the OSPR really gives you primary control over internal Senate affairs.  :)
That's why i was wondering.

Well, the Constitution simply says that the Senate can create its own body of laws to govern itself.  The OSPR is that set of laws.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Gabu on September 27, 2005, 10:22:11 PM
Yeah I'm here. I, constitutionally, can't do anything, though, unless Emsworth is away so my position is nearly useless. Emsworth has the overall authority to control the bill debates, decide which amendments to dispose of, and when to start votes. I only do it very rarely and when it is needed.
On the contrary, you are perfectly at liberty to act whenever you please. The Senate rules allow it.

Oh good. I thought the Constitution limited me to a purely secondary role.

Nope.  In fact, the OSPR really gives you primary control over internal Senate affairs.  :)
That's why i was wondering.

Emsworth is by far the most active VP we've had so far, and when I was PPT, he routinely took action so fast that I never had a chance to do a thing.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: CheeseWhiz on October 07, 2005, 11:50:41 AM
Yeah I'm here. I, constitutionally, can't do anything, though, unless Emsworth is away so my position is nearly useless. Emsworth has the overall authority to control the bill debates, decide which amendments to dispose of, and when to start votes. I only do it very rarely and when it is needed.
On the contrary, you are perfectly at liberty to act whenever you please. The Senate rules allow it.

Oh good. I thought the Constitution limited me to a purely secondary role.

Nope.  In fact, the OSPR really gives you primary control over internal Senate affairs.  :)
That's why i was wondering.

Emsworth is by far the most active VP we've had so far, and when I was PPT, he routinely took action so fast that I never had a chance to do a thing.

That's how I'm starting to feel about Jas.  Man, that guy is efficient :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on October 07, 2005, 01:34:52 PM
Yeah I'm here. I, constitutionally, can't do anything, though, unless Emsworth is away so my position is nearly useless. Emsworth has the overall authority to control the bill debates, decide which amendments to dispose of, and when to start votes. I only do it very rarely and when it is needed.
On the contrary, you are perfectly at liberty to act whenever you please. The Senate rules allow it.

Oh good. I thought the Constitution limited me to a purely secondary role.

Nope.  In fact, the OSPR really gives you primary control over internal Senate affairs.  :)
That's why i was wondering.

Emsworth is by far the most active VP we've had so far, and when I was PPT, he routinely took action so fast that I never had a chance to do a thing.

That's how I'm starting to feel about Jas.  Man, that guy is efficient :P

Hey, I thought we had an agreement about not badmouthing each other in public!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: CheeseWhiz on October 07, 2005, 01:39:38 PM
Yeah I'm here. I, constitutionally, can't do anything, though, unless Emsworth is away so my position is nearly useless. Emsworth has the overall authority to control the bill debates, decide which amendments to dispose of, and when to start votes. I only do it very rarely and when it is needed.
On the contrary, you are perfectly at liberty to act whenever you please. The Senate rules allow it.

Oh good. I thought the Constitution limited me to a purely secondary role.

Nope.  In fact, the OSPR really gives you primary control over internal Senate affairs.  :)
That's why i was wondering.

Emsworth is by far the most active VP we've had so far, and when I was PPT, he routinely took action so fast that I never had a chance to do a thing.

That's how I'm starting to feel about Jas.  Man, that guy is efficient :P

Hey, I thought we had an agreement about not badmouthing each other in public!

But I was complimenting you! :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on October 07, 2005, 01:50:01 PM
Yeah I'm here. I, constitutionally, can't do anything, though, unless Emsworth is away so my position is nearly useless. Emsworth has the overall authority to control the bill debates, decide which amendments to dispose of, and when to start votes. I only do it very rarely and when it is needed.
On the contrary, you are perfectly at liberty to act whenever you please. The Senate rules allow it.

Oh good. I thought the Constitution limited me to a purely secondary role.

Nope.  In fact, the OSPR really gives you primary control over internal Senate affairs.  :)
That's why i was wondering.

Emsworth is by far the most active VP we've had so far, and when I was PPT, he routinely took action so fast that I never had a chance to do a thing.

That's how I'm starting to feel about Jas.  Man, that guy is efficient :P

Hey, I thought we had an agreement about not badmouthing each other in public!

But I was complimenting you! :P

Very well, long may it continue. 8)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: CheeseWhiz on October 07, 2005, 01:52:22 PM
Yeah I'm here. I, constitutionally, can't do anything, though, unless Emsworth is away so my position is nearly useless. Emsworth has the overall authority to control the bill debates, decide which amendments to dispose of, and when to start votes. I only do it very rarely and when it is needed.
On the contrary, you are perfectly at liberty to act whenever you please. The Senate rules allow it.

Oh good. I thought the Constitution limited me to a purely secondary role.

Nope.  In fact, the OSPR really gives you primary control over internal Senate affairs.  :)
That's why i was wondering.

Emsworth is by far the most active VP we've had so far, and when I was PPT, he routinely took action so fast that I never had a chance to do a thing.

That's how I'm starting to feel about Jas.  Man, that guy is efficient :P

Hey, I thought we had an agreement about not badmouthing each other in public!

But I was complimenting you! :P

Very well, long may it continue. 8)

As long as you keep up the good work :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on October 08, 2005, 11:12:37 AM
Yeah I'm here. I, constitutionally, can't do anything, though, unless Emsworth is away so my position is nearly useless. Emsworth has the overall authority to control the bill debates, decide which amendments to dispose of, and when to start votes. I only do it very rarely and when it is needed.
On the contrary, you are perfectly at liberty to act whenever you please. The Senate rules allow it.

Oh good. I thought the Constitution limited me to a purely secondary role.

Nope.  In fact, the OSPR really gives you primary control over internal Senate affairs.  :)
That's why i was wondering.

Emsworth is by far the most active VP we've had so far, and when I was PPT, he routinely took action so fast that I never had a chance to do a thing.

That's how I'm starting to feel about Jas.  Man, that guy is efficient :P

Hey, I thought we had an agreement about not badmouthing each other in public!

But I was complimenting you! :P

Very well, long may it continue. 8)

As long as you keep up the good work :)

I knew there was a catch! :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Platypus on October 08, 2005, 07:17:39 PM
this asbestos bill is really bad; who proposed it?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on October 08, 2005, 07:28:08 PM
this asbestos bill is really bad; who proposed it?

MasterJedi


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MAS117 on November 14, 2005, 07:49:22 PM
I urge all Senators to vote down Al's Sealand war bill!!!!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Platypus on December 12, 2005, 07:43:14 PM
nobody got anything to protest about or analyse?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Gabu on December 12, 2005, 07:45:16 PM
nobody got anything to protest about or analyse?

I'll protest and analyze you.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Platypus on December 12, 2005, 07:52:15 PM
feel free, but do it thoroughly; I don't want some little "YOU SUCK COS YOU DIDN'T VOTE LIKE I WANTED" ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 14, 2005, 12:48:20 PM
On the request of a concerned constituent:

Deregistration Bill

Whereas,
1. Federal Statutes and the Constitution are seemingly silent on the matter of "deregistration".
2. To date the ability to deregister has apparently been at the whim of the Executive, with Presidents apparently changing its status by Executive Order.

The Senate resolves that,
1. A right to deregister, specifically, the right to have oneself removed from the voter rolls, is hereby granted to all citizens of Atlasia.
2. Any citizen who has deregistered shall no longer be able to vote in any federal election or vote.
3. Should a citizen who has deregistered, re-register with Atlasia within sixty days of their deregistration, then they remain bound by the requirements of Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 as amended by the Seventh Amendment.
4. The Department of Forum Affairs may make regulations as necessary to specify how requests for deregistration should be made.
5. Previous deregistration requests that have been honored should remain so, and those that have not been honored should remain so.
6. All Executive Orders issued in contradiction of this Law in the past or future are void.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on December 15, 2005, 08:31:45 AM
Presuming thats introduced legislation, I think you are in the wrong thread Al.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: KEmperor on December 15, 2005, 09:06:33 AM
Perhaps he is protesting the citizen who is concerned himself.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on December 17, 2005, 04:40:37 PM
MAS, is there any reason why you are attempting to (badly) rewrite the Official Senate Procedural Resolution and remove the Legislation Introduction Thread and various safeguards and procedures written into the Resolution?

Also, why are you introducing this as a Act, when it is clearly a Senate resolution?

A couple of things you have added here might be nice to add to the Senate rules (such as decorum, unanimous consent and tabling motions), but the other essentially tries to rewrite what has already been written (and not any better, I might add).

I can't help it that the PPT or the VP chooses not to read the document.  That's their problem, not mine.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MAS117 on December 17, 2005, 05:30:14 PM
MAS, is there any reason why you are attempting to (badly) rewrite the Official Senate Procedural Resolution and remove the Legislation Introduction Thread and various safeguards and procedures written into the Resolution?

Also, why are you introducing this as a Act, when it is clearly a Senate resolution?

A couple of things you have added here might be nice to add to the Senate rules (such as decorum, unanimous consent and tabling motions), but the other essentially tries to rewrite what has already been written (and not any better, I might add).

I can't help it that the PPT or the VP chooses not to read the document.  That's their problem, not mine.

I'm not trying to get rid of the that thread, bills should be introduced in that thread. Like I said, I am very open to all amendments to the bill. I'll edit it to read resolution. I think the rules of decorum, etc. would be good for this legislative body.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Democrat on December 28, 2005, 11:47:47 PM
Isn't there supposed to be a confirmation thread for Ebowed?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 29, 2005, 05:27:56 PM
Isn't there supposed to be a confirmation thread for Ebowed?

He's still a Senator isn't he?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on December 29, 2005, 06:14:54 PM
Isn't there supposed to be a confirmation thread for Ebowed?

He's still a Senator isn't he?

It's at the start of the next session that Defarge will resign on so that's when the hearing for Ebowed will have to be.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on January 24, 2006, 02:51:24 PM
I'm aware that I'm prohibited from using the Senate Legislative Introduction Thread as I'm not yet a sitting Senator

However, can someone confirm for me whether this thread is the place for me to comment or make suggestions -as a Citizen re-current Senate Debate or do I use the appropriate thread as a Citizen for designated for any particular legislation? For example, were I to make a suggestion on the Tennessee Valley Authority Privatisation Act

I just thought I'd ask with this thread being inactive of late

Thanks :)

Dave (currently trawlling his way through wads and wads of Atlasia stuff ;D)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Gabu on January 24, 2006, 03:06:37 PM
I'm aware that I'm prohibited from using the Senate Legislative Introduction Thread as I'm not yet a sitting Senator

However, can someone confirm for me whether this thread is the place for me to comment or make suggestions -as a Citizen re-current Senate Debate or do I use the appropriate thread as a Citizen for designated for any particular legislation? For example, were I to make a suggestion on the Tennessee Valley Authority Privatisation Act

I just thought I'd ask with this thread being inactive of late

Thanks :)

Dave (currently trawlling his way through wads and wads of Atlasia stuff ;D)

Techinically speaking, this is the thread to use until the legislation is on the floor, at which point you use the legislation's private thread.

Practically speaking, however, you can basically just talk about it wherever.  Restrictions are not followed religiously, if at all.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on January 24, 2006, 04:48:15 PM
I'm aware that I'm prohibited from using the Senate Legislative Introduction Thread as I'm not yet a sitting Senator

However, can someone confirm for me whether this thread is the place for me to comment or make suggestions -as a Citizen re-current Senate Debate or do I use the appropriate thread as a Citizen for designated for any particular legislation? For example, were I to make a suggestion on the Tennessee Valley Authority Privatisation Act

I just thought I'd ask with this thread being inactive of late

Thanks :)

Dave (currently trawlling his way through wads and wads of Atlasia stuff ;D)

Techinically speaking, this is the thread to use until the legislation is on the floor, at which point you use the legislation's private thread.

Practically speaking, however, you can basically just talk about it wherever.  Restrictions are not followed religiously, if at all.

There is a section in the OSPR which says something to the effect that "individuals that post in the legislation introduction thread may be subject to prosecution under relevant statute in criminal laws", but since no relevant statute has been added, the phrase is pretty much meaningless, though I would still hope most comments on legislation would remain in this thread.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: ilikeverin on January 24, 2006, 04:53:10 PM
I think we should divide the SoFA into three positions:

Department of Elections, for actually counting ballots
Department of AIM Handling, for dealing with assorted candidates and concerned citizens yammering on AIM at the SoE during the election
Department of Forum Affairs, for dealing with assorted candidates, concerned citizens, and Southeasterners yammering on the forum at the SoE during the election

;D


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on January 24, 2006, 05:24:45 PM
That AIM one is a waste of a position and makes the government too big.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: ilikeverin on January 24, 2006, 05:49:01 PM
That AIM one is a waste of a position and makes the government too big.

You're a waste of a position and make the government too big :(

In case you can't tell, this is all sarcasm... and if you can't, yet another reason to elect me President... so people will stop taking everything so darn seriously! :D


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on March 02, 2006, 02:54:09 PM
Discussion moved from Page 43 of the Introduction Thread:

While I think banning asbestos is overkill, Section 1 of the Act falls under clause 3 of the Enumerated Powers section of the Constitution; Section 3 falls under clause 10,; Section 4 and 5 falls under clause 9; and Section 6 is a statement of what the Act doesn't do.  The only potentially dicey section is Section 2, but if you can't sell, transport, or make something from the Asbestos once you've mined it, I think a reasonable intrepetation that it falls under clause 30 as a means to enforce the other Constitutional provisions can be made.  In short, while the Asbestos Ban Act has its faults, I don't think Constitutionality is among them.

Whilst I agree that Sections 1 and 3 of the act are justified by enumerated powers you cite, I have been long of the opinion that Sections 2, 4 and 5 are not, hence my explicit singling out of those in my preamblatory clauses.

Article I, Section 5, Clause 9 of our Second Constitution reads thus:
To fix standards of weights and measures and of such items of commerce as it deems needful throughout the Republic of Atlasia.
It is this you cite as justification for at least 4 & 5 of the Act.

To "fix standards ... of such items of commerce as it deems needful" does not convey to me a general commerce power - it articulates a specific commerce power that regulates actual standards, e.g. health and safety standards, water quality standards, etc. It does not cognize the authority to outright ban particular items of commerce, but to regulate particulars of those items.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on March 02, 2006, 04:21:01 PM
But if an item of commerce is such that it cannot be reasonably used in a safe and healthful manner, does not it follow that the regulation of its standard effectively must be a ban?  One can of course argue the case as to whether it could be reasonably used and whether such a decision should be left to a branch other than the legislative, but those are political not constitutional questions, in my opinion.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: WMS on March 03, 2006, 02:27:50 PM
Let me just say that on the bill involving cutting off aid to the Palestinians, while I agree in principle that a Hamas-led government should definitely not receive any Atlasian funding, I have some concerns over governmental flexibility. Thus I abstained. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Emsworth on March 16, 2006, 08:14:33 PM
Most of the states in District 1 may enjoy higher than average state per capita personal incomes, most of mine don't. All of the states you represent bar Maine (34) is in the national top 25. In District 4, only Virginia makes the top 10 and Florida just scrapes in the top 25 (at 24), while Alabama, South Carolina and Mississippi are in the bottom 10

The defense and its related industries are major employers in my neck of the woods- and I 'd say it's pretty important in parts of yours too. Connecticut, Maryland and Massachusetts just might be able to cushion the negative impact of defense cuts, but I don't think most of the states I represent could

I'm thinking of the little guy who works hard to support his family, here

'Hawk'
The sole purpose of the military is to defend the country. In my opinion, it is inappropriate to suggest that there is any legitimate reason for training men to kill, and for building weapons that can destroy lives and property, aside from the defense of the republic. The slippery slope begins with the argument that the military should be funded not for reasons of national defense, but for economic causes. Once this argument is accepted, it is not difficult to take the next step, and conclude that we should not only build up a military, but also go to war, for economic reasons.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against this line of reasoning in 1961. Days before leaving office, he said:

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society."

Forty-five years later, we should continue to pay heed to Eisenhower's warning. Once we start down the road of military buildup for reasons entirely unrelated to defense, it is difficult to stop.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on March 16, 2006, 09:23:38 PM

The sole purpose of the military is to defend the country. In my opinion, it is inappropriate to suggest that there is any legitimate reason for training men to kill, and for building weapons that can destroy lives and property, aside from the defense of the republic. The slippery slope begins with the argument that the military should be funded not for reasons of national defense, but for economic causes. Once this argument is accepted, it is not difficult to take the next step, and conclude that we should not only build up a military, but also go to war, for economic reasons.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against this line of reasoning in 1961. Days before leaving office, he said:

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society."

Forty-five years later, we should continue to pay heed to Eisenhower's warning. Once we start down the road of military buildup for reasons entirely unrelated to defense, it is difficult to stop.

The national security and defense of the nation is of paramount importance to me. The fact of the matter is the defense sector is a major employer, upon which the livelihoods of thousands, if not millions, of Atlasians, ultimately, depend. Atlasia's military muscle sits at the very heart of what it means to be a great nation. And yes, I will do whatever I can to safeguard the national interest and the living standards of hard working Atlasians

As I've pointed out major defense cuts could potentially lead to unacceptable increases in spending elsewhere. Money spent on defense is money well spent, money spent on welfare is a tragic waste of human potential but, as long it's necessary, to protect those who are unable to provide for themselves, then we must

Parts of District 4 lag behind many parts of Atlasia, economically. It's gone on for far too long. Major defense cuts could exacerbate what is far from the optimum situation as it is. I dread to think the socio-economic trauma major cuts would cause for, potentially, thousands of families, whose livelihoods depend on the defense sector

I'm not proposing to increase defense spending and, at this point in time, I've no intention of doing so. If the circumstances ever warrant it (i.e the defense and national security of our nation), it's something the Senate would need to consider

On this matter, you and I can respectfully agree :) to differ

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Emsworth on March 16, 2006, 09:30:14 PM
Parts of District 4 lag behind many parts of Atlasia, economically. It's gone on for far too long. Defense cuts would exacerbate what is far from the optimum situation as it is.
With all due respect, I would have to disagree with this line of reasoning. The federal government should not legislate in the interests of one district or another; no part of the country is entitled to special treatment. I do not mean to suggest that you should ignore the interests of your constituents. I am only saying that the fact that District 4 might suffer should be weighed against the benefits that the whole nation will receive.

If we need weapons, then, by all means, we should build them. However, I do not think that it makes sense to acquire arms that we do not need, merely to keep someone employed. The military is not a source of employment; it exists only to defend the country.

This line of reasoning could be used whenever any budget cut is proposed. It must be admitted, of course, that all budget cuts will somehow affect the jobs of some individuals, perhaps the jobs of many individuals. But that alone cannot, in my opinion, be an argument against making the cut. Unless we make difficult choices now, we will have to make even more difficult choices later, when the budget deficit is even higher.

For these reasons, I would fully support Senator TexasGurl's plan to reduce defense funding. A great bulk of defense spending is pork; I fear that the suggested reduction of 10% may not go far enough.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on March 16, 2006, 09:59:57 PM
Parts of District 4 lag behind many parts of Atlasia, economically. It's gone on for far too long. Defense cuts would exacerbate what is far from the optimum situation as it is.

With all due respect, I would have to disagree with this line of reasoning. The federal government should not legislate in the interests of one district or another; no part of the country is entitled to special treatment. I do not mean to suggest that you should ignore the interests of your constituents. I am only saying that the fact that District 4 might suffer should be weighed against the benefits that the whole nation will receive.


I'm not asking that the federal government legislate in the interests of one district or another. The defense and national security of the nation is what, some might argue, the primary role of the federal government. I ran as a 'defense' candidate, after all. I intend to my true to those convictions

What I am prepared to do is work with fellow Senators to do whatever we can to diversify, significantly defense-reliant, local economies Defense cuts, if necessary, might not be quite such a blow if alternative employment opportunities were available. As things stand, I think large scale defense cuts would have a disproportionately negative impact on most states in District 4 and I'd like to think cuts could be proportional or relative to the state's economic strength were they to be made

As it happpens, I don't think cuts beyond 1.4% (or up to 2.5% max.) is a feasible option. Not at the moment anyway. Still, I see no reason why we can't start preparing for what may be the inevitable and seeking to diverisfy local defense-based economies would be a start. I see a role regions could play in that

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on March 16, 2006, 10:19:33 PM

For these reasons, I would fully support Senator TexasGurl's plan to reduce defense funding. A great bulk of defense spending is pork; I fear that the suggested reduction of 10% may not go far enough.

Cuts of that scale are born-out of isolationist dogma. $95bn (10% plus that cut from the legislation she sought to repeal). Might as well just add it to the welfare pot because it's going to need it. I can'tsee  Atlasia being better off from either a defense/national security standpoint or a socio-economic standpoint

For a progressive Senator, to propose cuts which could potentially generate a higher level of unemployment and worse still destroy communities, just dismays me unutterably

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: jokerman on March 16, 2006, 11:05:57 PM

For these reasons, I would fully support Senator TexasGurl's plan to reduce defense funding. A great bulk of defense spending is pork; I fear that the suggested reduction of 10% may not go far enough.

Cuts of that scale are born-out of isolationist dogma. $95bn (10% plus that cut from the legislation she sought to repeal). Might as well just add it to the welfare pot because it's going to need it. I can'tsee  Atlasia being better off from either a defense/national security standpoint or a socio-economic standpoint

For a progressive Senator, to propose cuts which could potentially generate a higher level of unemployment and worse still destroy communities, just dismays me unutterably

'Hawk'
Agreed.  We slash spending heavily we will choke our economy and cut off our tax base, thus deapening the problem of the deficit.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: WMS on March 20, 2006, 02:15:59 PM

For these reasons, I would fully support Senator TexasGurl's plan to reduce defense funding. A great bulk of defense spending is pork; I fear that the suggested reduction of 10% may not go far enough.

Cuts of that scale are born-out of isolationist dogma. $95bn (10% plus that cut from the legislation she sought to repeal). Might as well just add it to the welfare pot because it's going to need it. I can'tsee  Atlasia being better off from either a defense/national security standpoint or a socio-economic standpoint

For a progressive Senator, to propose cuts which could potentially generate a higher level of unemployment and worse still destroy communities, just dismays me unutterably

'Hawk'

Furthermore, why are all of Senator Texasgurl's proposed cuts coming out of the military budget? I find this...targeting...of one particular department to be a bit suspicious in all honesty.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The Dowager Mod on March 20, 2006, 07:48:41 PM

For these reasons, I would fully support Senator TexasGurl's plan to reduce defense funding. A great bulk of defense spending is pork; I fear that the suggested reduction of 10% may not go far enough.

Cuts of that scale are born-out of isolationist dogma. $95bn (10% plus that cut from the legislation she sought to repeal). Might as well just add it to the welfare pot because it's going to need it. I can'tsee  Atlasia being better off from either a defense/national security standpoint or a socio-economic standpoint

For a progressive Senator, to propose cuts which could potentially generate a higher level of unemployment and worse still destroy communities, just dismays me unutterably

'Hawk'

Furthermore, why are all of Senator Texasgurl's proposed cuts coming out of the military budget? I find this...targeting...of one particular department to be a bit suspicious in all honesty.
Why not just have the balls to ask me instead of speculating.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: WMS on March 21, 2006, 01:59:28 PM

For these reasons, I would fully support Senator TexasGurl's plan to reduce defense funding. A great bulk of defense spending is pork; I fear that the suggested reduction of 10% may not go far enough.

Cuts of that scale are born-out of isolationist dogma. $95bn (10% plus that cut from the legislation she sought to repeal). Might as well just add it to the welfare pot because it's going to need it. I can'tsee  Atlasia being better off from either a defense/national security standpoint or a socio-economic standpoint

For a progressive Senator, to propose cuts which could potentially generate a higher level of unemployment and worse still destroy communities, just dismays me unutterably

'Hawk'

Furthermore, why are all of Senator Texasgurl's proposed cuts coming out of the military budget? I find this...targeting...of one particular department to be a bit suspicious in all honesty.
Why not just have the balls to ask me instead of speculating.
My, haven't we been hostile lately...

OK then, I was being polite, but: I think all your talk of balancing the budget is a smokescreen for a leftist attempt to gut the military. Why else would you only target one department?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The Dowager Mod on March 21, 2006, 03:22:45 PM
Because it is the only department left that hasn't been cut.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: WMS on March 21, 2006, 04:03:52 PM
Because it is the only department left that hasn't been cut.

*whispers* Just having some In-Character Fun ^_^

OK, fair enough. I'm willing to look at cutting the Missile Initiative program. ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bono on March 21, 2006, 04:06:52 PM


OK, fair enough. I'm willing to look at cutting the Missile Initiative program. ;)

Typical neocon, throwing our defensive capability out the window.

I guess it's more important to be capable to wipe out several dictators with funny hats at the same time than to protect american soil.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: WMS on March 21, 2006, 04:30:57 PM


OK, fair enough. I'm willing to look at cutting the Missile Initiative program. ;)

Typical neocon, throwing our defensive capability out the window.

I guess it's more important to be capable to wipe out several dictators with funny hats at the same time than to protect american soil.

::)

There's no pleasing some people :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The Dowager Mod on March 21, 2006, 06:47:07 PM
We need at the very least a 5% cut in defense spending, Which would be fairly easy if the military quit spending 500 bux for toilet seats.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on March 21, 2006, 08:17:14 PM
We need at the very least a 5% cut in defense spending, Which would be fairly easy if the military quit spending 500 bux for toilet seats.

$500 for a toilet seat? Is it gold-plated like? They had better have "Made in Atlasia" written on em ;)

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on March 21, 2006, 08:20:49 PM
Because it is the only department left that hasn't been cut.

*whispers* Just having some In-Character Fun ^_^

OK, fair enough. I'm willing to look at cutting the Missile Initiative program. ;)

I'll need to review that proposal on its own merits, once it reaches the floor of the Senate, and if it's not in Atlasia's interests to cut it, then I'll oppose it

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: WMS on March 22, 2006, 12:22:59 PM
Because it is the only department left that hasn't been cut.

*whispers* Just having some In-Character Fun ^_^

OK, fair enough. I'm willing to look at cutting the Missile Initiative program. ;)

I'll need to review that proposal on its own merits, once it reaches the floor of the Senate, and if it's not in Atlasia's interests to cut it, then I'll oppose it

'Hawk'

Fair enough.

And after having looked back on the original debate I still stand behind the creation of the two divisions, especially the pay raise I got put in there after PM-ing with John Ford. :) I'm willing to look at other parts of the military budget, but I won't vote to cut troop levels.

Oh, for Bono, on the creation of the first military division:
;D


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Q on March 22, 2006, 03:46:17 PM
Would it be possible for the Senate to pass legislation instructing the Governors to conduct redistricting in a certain manner, or would a resolution recommending such be the best this body could do?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on March 22, 2006, 05:41:38 PM
My reading of Article IV Section 4 makes it reasonably clear that the Senate controls the Census and the Governors control tthe redistricting thereof.  About the only thing the Senate could do to reform the redistricting process by law would be to move the census date a bit earlier so as gve the Governors a bit more time to cogitate if they need it.  They cranked out a plan reasonably fast this time (Too fast some might say.) but we have more leisurely conclaves of the Governors.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Emsworth on March 22, 2006, 05:57:41 PM
My reading of Article IV Section 4 makes it reasonably clear that the Senate controls the Census and the Governors control tthe redistricting thereof. 
I would have to agree that the ability of the Governors to make the ultimate decision cannot be regulated by the Senate. However, it can be argued the necessary and proper clause empowers the Senate to regulate the manner in which that decision is reached. For example, the Senate would be able to set a deadline for the submission of proposed maps, limit the number of maps each Governor may submit, or determine what voting system shall be used.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on March 22, 2006, 07:27:37 PM
My reading of Article IV Section 4 makes it reasonably clear that the Senate controls the Census and the Governors control tthe redistricting thereof. 
I would have to agree that the ability of the Governors to make the ultimate decision cannot be regulated by the Senate. However, it can be argued the necessary and proper clause empowers the Senate to regulate the manner in which that decision is reached. For example, the Senate would be able to set a deadline for the submission of proposed maps, limit the number of maps each Governor may submit, or determine what voting system shall be used.
I'd have to disagree with that.  For better or worse redistricting is located in Article IV which is dealing with the Regional governments and not " the government of the Republic of Atlasia, or ... any department or officer thereof".  Furthermore, if one were to make that argument, it would render superfluous the language in Article IV Section 4 Clause 2 that give the Senate the power to regulate the conducting of the census.

Even if one were to accept that the Senate could tell the Governors what to do in this limited context, I fail to see how the Senate could enforce that law.  To be homest I see that as a bit of a weakness in our system, but not a critical one.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Emsworth on March 22, 2006, 10:05:17 PM
I'd have to disagree with that.  For better or worse redistricting is located in Article IV which is dealing with the Regional governments and not " the government of the Republic of Atlasia, or ... any department or officer thereof".
It could be argued that the Governors are acting on behalf of the Republic of Atlasia when redistricting.

Quote
Furthermore, if one were to make that argument, it would render superfluous the language in Article IV Section 4 Clause 2 that give the Senate the power to regulate the conducting of the census.
A lot of explicit powers are superfluous, as they would be covered by the necessary and proper clause. For instance, the necessary and proper clause together with the power to "provide for the common defense of the Republic of Atlasia" would render a lot of the military-related powers superfluous.

Quote
Even if one were to accept that the Senate could tell the Governors what to do in this limited context, I fail to see how the Senate could enforce that law.
Like the Constitution, all fantasy laws, and all fantasy judicial decisions, it would depend upon the good faith of the officers in question. None of our laws can really be "enforced."


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on March 24, 2006, 07:44:49 AM
Dear Vice President Q and Senator MasterJedi, PPT

As you know, the territory of Puerto Rico is caught amid a storm of cotroversy at present and in particular has demanded Regionhood. Whilst the Senate has no power to grant Regionhood, it has been suggested by some that Puerto Rico might be granted Statehood and legislation has been introduced to this effect.

Whilst I have grave concerns about the legislation as submitted, it is correct that this legislation be considered as soon as possible. Whilst all five debate slots are presently occupied, three pieces of legislation are presently at their final vote and a slot will likely open within the next 48 hours. When this occurs I urge you to use your power as enumerated in Article VII, Section 1 of the OSPR to bring this legislation to our immediate consideration.

Regards,

Peter


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 24, 2006, 07:51:11 AM
The State Department backs what Senator Bell just said.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on March 24, 2006, 09:48:49 AM
I've posted to bump it up and now Q just have to agree with it and it'll be next to come up. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Q on March 25, 2006, 12:04:01 AM
I've posted to bump it up and now Q just have to agree with it and it'll be next to come up. :)

Consider it done.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on April 14, 2006, 05:30:12 AM
We presently have the following pieces of legislation on the floor of the Senate according to my count:

Amendment to Introduce a Parlimentary System to Atlasia
Abortion Restriction in Federal Territories Bill
Hate Crimes Statistics Bill
Useless Defense Spending Repeal Bill
Pacifican Statehood Act of 2006

This is obviously five pieces of legislation, so presumably one of these is occupying the "forum affairs" slot. Whilst not explicitly stated, it is strongly implied in our Procedural Rules that the Presiding Officer(s) must state when a piece of legislation is moved into these slots since the Senate is afforded a right to challenge something being moved into these slots.

My question to the Presiding Officers is: Which of these do you claim relates to forum affairs?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on April 14, 2006, 06:36:55 AM
My question to the Presiding Officers is: Which of these do you claim relates to forum affairs?

You could claim Parliment is but I wouldn't have added another bill.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: WMS on April 14, 2006, 05:09:38 PM
Just curious...where does my little Constitutional Amendment stand in the queue?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on April 14, 2006, 05:13:37 PM
Just curious...where does my little Constitutional Amendment stand in the queue?

You're two bills away. Next is Peter's bill and then your amendment comes up. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: WMS on April 14, 2006, 05:21:51 PM
Just curious...where does my little Constitutional Amendment stand in the queue?

You're two bills away. Next is Peter's bill and then your amendment comes up. :)

I thank the Honorable Senator for his response. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Q on April 14, 2006, 05:31:51 PM
My question to the Presiding Officers is: Which of these do you claim relates to forum affairs?

The Parliament bill is forum affairs legislation.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on April 19, 2006, 04:00:04 PM
Do you want to destroy nuclear power by repealing the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act?  Given what trial lawyers have done with other controversial industries such as asbestos in state courts, that's what the so-called Energy Policy Reform Act would do.  If this bill passes as written folks, enjoy the rolling brownouts that will start once all the reactors shut down, because no private  insurance company is going to be crazy enough to risk Atlasian state courts, and no private utility could fiscally manage the risk by itself.  Even if you think Price-Anderson is bad policy, simple repeal is even worse policy.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on April 23, 2006, 08:58:03 PM
In response to today's decision, I've prepared a draft law.  I'd like feedback on it before I try to corral a Senator next session to introduce it.

Campaigning Bill

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

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

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

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



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on April 26, 2006, 10:34:10 AM
I have a few issues that I need cleared up:

Clause 3(a) states that the voting booth administrator shall invalidate the ballot for the concerned offices. When does this occur, or more precisely, when is this allowed to occur?

In this past election, you stated an invalidation of TDs vote during the election. Is this when you actually invalidated the vote officially or did this occur at moment of certification. I think this needs to be cleared up because obviously if we impose a 72 hour limitation on appealing the decision, this may be important in the future because an appeal may or may not be untimely according to how we read the statute.

My next significant issue is with an alleged criminal campaigning violation in a close election. Presume for a moment that the administrator determines criminality, and then refers to the AG who promptly decides to prosecute, then we have situation in which the vote's status cannot be determined very quickly. In a case where that vote is decisive, i.e. it has the ability to decide the election, then it could be several days before a formal determination of its status can be made.

A criminal case could go on for several days - the Court must first appoint a presiding Justice, then assemble a Jury, then consider evidence and finally the jury may wish a little time to deliberate privately. Even in a regular election, there are only 11 days between end of election and swear-in, and this could soon fizzle, especially if a runoff might be required, thus leaving a constituency unrepresented.

In such a case I would allow for the Court to make a determination as to whether civil campaigning has or has not occured in advance of a criminal case so as to finesse the case above. Obviously any such ruling will have a significant impact on  a criminal case, but I feel the advantage of having an election able to proceed smoothly to a conclusion outweighs the problems of having a jury exposed to a judicial determination of whether a lesser offence has been commited.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on April 26, 2006, 02:33:33 PM
I have a few issues that I need cleared up:

Clause 3(a) states that the voting booth administrator shall invalidate the ballot for the concerned offices. When does this occur, or more precisely, when is this allowed to occur?

In this past election, you stated an invalidation of TDs vote during the election. Is this when you actually invalidated the vote officially or did this occur at moment of certification. I think this needs to be cleared up because obviously if we impose a 72 hour limitation on appealing the decision, this may be important in the future because an appeal may or may not be untimely according to how we read the statute.

When I made the announcement is when it was invalidated.  I did it during the election so that if the determination was disputed, it could be handled with in as timely a fashion as possible.

Quote
My next significant issue is with an alleged criminal campaigning violation in a close election. Presume for a moment that the administrator determines criminality, and then refers to the AG who promptly decides to prosecute, then we have situation in which the vote's status cannot be determined very quickly. In a case where that vote is decisive, i.e. it has the ability to decide the election, then it could be several days before a formal determination of its status can be made.

A criminal case could go on for several days - the Court must first appoint a presiding Justice, then assemble a Jury, then consider evidence and finally the jury may wish a little time to deliberate privately. Even in a regular election, there are only 11 days between end of election and swear-in, and this could soon fizzle, especially if a runoff might be required, thus leaving a constituency unrepresented.

In such a case I would allow for the Court to make a determination as to whether civil campaigning has or has not occured in advance of a criminal case so as to finesse the case above. Obviously any such ruling will have a significant impact on  a criminal case, but I feel the advantage of having an election able to proceed smoothly to a conclusion outweighs the problems of having a jury exposed to a judicial determination of whether a lesser offence has been commited.

Considering that it needs two seperate people to go forward with a criminal campaigning case, I think we can safely assume that it would almost always meet the standard for civil campaigning.  Neither True Democrat's vote in the last election, nor any of the votes mentioned in the case's appendix rise to the standard of criminal camaigning ion the proposed bill, indeed most of the ones in the appendix don't even rise to the standard of civil campaigning.  I could see extending the ability to obtain an injunction for the counting of a vote pending a decision to criminal campaigning, but not a parallel determination of civil and criminal simultaneously.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on April 26, 2006, 03:20:18 PM
Note: With the Flexi-Time amendment off the floor there is nothing left that is forum affairs legislation, on the Senate floor and in the upcoming legislation list, and as such we shall go back to a 4 slot Senate.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Emsworth on April 26, 2006, 05:33:34 PM
Section 1: Purpose
1. This bill's aim is to remove ethnic-based, corporation-focused, and unnecessary holidays from Atlasian law, and for other purposes.

Section 2: Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month
1. Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month is hereby abolished.
2. Section 102 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 3: Flag Day
1. Flag Day is hereby abolished.
2. Section 110 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 4: Honor America Days
1. The Honor America Days celebration is hereby abolished.
2. Section 112 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 5: Leif Erikson Day
1. Leif Erikson Day is hereby abolished.
2. Section 114 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 6: Loyalty Day
1. Loyalty Day is hereby abolished.
2. Section 115 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 7: National Day of Prayer
1. The National Day of Prayer is hereby abolished.
2. Section 119 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 8: National Disability Employment Awareness Month
1. National Disability Employment Awareness Month is hereby abolished.
2. Section 121 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 9: National Flag Week
1. National Flag Week is hereby abolished.
2. Section 122 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 10: National Forest Products Week
1. National Forest Products Week is hereby abolished.
2. Section 123 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 11: National Hispanic Heritage Month
1. National Hispanic Heritage Month is hereby abolished.
2. Section 126 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 12: Save Your Vision Week
1. Save Your Vision Week is hereby abolished.
2. Section 138 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 13: Steelmark Month
1. Steelmark Month is hereby abolished.
2. Section 139 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 14: Stephen Foster Memorial Day
1. Stephen Foster Memorial Day is hereby abolished.
2. Section 140 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 15: White Cane Safety Day
1. White Cane Safety Day is hereby abolished.
2. Section 142 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 16: Wright Brothers Day
1. Wright Brothers Day is hereby abolished.
2. Section 143 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.
I think that a few other holidays could be abolished:

Carl Garner Federal Lands Cleanup Day (Section 104)

Constitution Week (Section 108): Our Constitution was not adopted in September, which is the month for Constitution Week.

National School Lunch Week (Section 132)

National Transportation Week (Section 133)

Pan American Aviation Day (Section 134)

Parents' Day (Section 135) or Father's Day (Section 109) and Mother's Day (117): Having Mothers' Day, Fathers' Day, and Parents' Day would be redundant.

Thomas Jefferson's Birthday (Section 141): Not Atlasia-centric


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on April 26, 2006, 05:36:35 PM
I think that a few other holidays could be abolished:

Carl Garner Federal Lands Cleanup Day (Section 104)

Constitution Week (Section 108): Our Constitution was not adopted in September, which is the month for Constitution Week.

National School Lunch Week (Section 132)

National Transportation Week (Section 133)

Pan American Aviation Day (Section 134)

Parents' Day (Section 135) or Father's Day (Section 109) and Mother's Day (117): Having Mothers' Day, Fathers' Day, and Parents' Day would be redundant.

Thomas Jefferson's Birthday (Section 141): Not Atlasia-centric

Hey Emsworth, I don't really have the time so I was wondering if you could write in those other holidays to the bill leaving Mother's and Father's day out? :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Democrat on April 27, 2006, 07:51:36 PM
When I do I have to help you guys with the budget?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on April 27, 2006, 09:58:59 PM
When I do I have to help you guys with the budget?

When the new Senators take the oath.  First Friday in March.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Democrat on April 29, 2006, 01:19:09 PM
When I do I have to help you guys with the budget?

When the new Senators take the oath.  First Friday in March.

So there's a new budget only once every year?  Or is the every four months?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on April 29, 2006, 01:45:25 PM
When I do I have to help you guys with the budget?

When the new Senators take the oath.  First Friday in March.

So there's a new budget only once every year?  Or is the every four months?

Every four months.  For some reason I typed "first Friday in March" when it should be "first Friday in May".


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Emsworth on May 02, 2006, 04:55:42 PM
Now that three regions have requested a constitutional convention, I would suggest the following resolution to the Senate, and request a Senator to introduce it:

Constitutional Convention Resolution
Whereas, the Mideast, Southeast, and Pacific Regions have applied for a Convention to amend the Constitution:

1. The Senate advises and consents to the calling of a Convention to amend the Constitution.
2. The President of Atlasia and the Governors of the Regions shall each appoint three delegates to the Convention.
3. The Convention may, with a two-thirds majority, expel a delegate for inactivity.


If I am not mistaken, the Senate procedures allow for such a resolution to be considered immediately upon introduction.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on May 03, 2006, 10:21:27 AM
Now that three regions have requested a constitutional convention, I would suggest the following resolution to the Senate, and request a Senator to introduce it:

Constitutional Convention Resolution
Whereas, the Mideast, Southeast, and Pacific Regions have applied for a Convention to amend the Constitution:

1. The Senate advises and consents to the calling of a Convention to amend the Constitution.
2. The President of Atlasia and the Governors of the Regions shall each appoint three delegates to the Convention.
3. The Convention may, with a two-thirds majority, expel a delegate for inactivity.


If I am not mistaken, the Senate procedures allow for such a resolution to be considered immediately upon introduction.

I believe we can bring this up right away but there isn't enough time for the 3 days and the like for it to pass. I'd suggest bringing it up at the beginning of next session after the budget and PPT stuff is through. I'll introduce your resolution but I'll also try and make it so the convention will look at a bunch of specific things instead of being allowed to have a full reign.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Q on May 06, 2006, 06:37:07 PM
As a reminder to Atlasia, per Article 3 of the Official Senate Procedural Resolution (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Ospr):

Section 1: Rules on Legislation Introduction

1. The PPT shall establish and maintain a thread for Senators to introduce legislation, to be further known in this document as the Legislation Introduction Thread. Only Senators who presently hold elected office may be allowed to post in this thread. Any Citizens or Individuals who post in this thread may be subject to legal action pursuant to the relevant clauses in federal Criminal Law legislation so passed by the Senate.

2. The PPT shall also establish and maintain a thread for all Citizens and Individuals of Atlasia to give opinions, thoughts, suggestions and ideas about recently introduced legislation or legislation presently under debate on the Senate floor. This clause is not meant to deny Citizens or Individuals their right to post on Senate debate threads dealing with specific legislation presently being debated on the Senate floor.

In other words, you've come to the right place if you want to comment on legislation that has been proposed in the Legislation Introduction Thread.

Thank you for abiding by these rules.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Q on May 06, 2006, 06:52:36 PM
I think this one will be replaced, as well.  Look for a new 'commentary' thread soon.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Q on May 07, 2006, 06:12:46 PM
I would like to see legislation to the effect that those violating the rules of the Senate be reprimanded in some way.  Current law provides no meaninful consequence to violation of these rules.

Does anyone have any ideas on this?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Emsworth on May 07, 2006, 07:12:19 PM
I would like to see legislation to the effect that those violating the rules of the Senate be reprimanded in some way.  Current law provides no meaninful consequence to violation of these rules.

Does anyone have any ideas on this?
There are several alternatives we could use:

- The Senate could be allowed to punish those who violated its rules. This was, traditionally, the practice of the U.S. Congress.
- The Senate could be allowed to issue a contempt of the Senate citation. However, the party would have to be tried in a court of law before he can receive any particular punishment. This is the modern practice of the U.S. Congress.
- A combination of the above two could be used. The Senate (or the President/ President pro tempore) could be allowed to reprimand an offender. However, only a court of law would be allowed to impose actual punishments, such as suspensions of voting rights.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Q on May 08, 2006, 07:29:27 PM
Thank you, Emsworth.

- The Senate could be allowed to issue a contempt of the Senate citation.

- The Senate (or the President/ President pro tempore) could be allowed to reprimand an offender.

Can either of these be done now, or would the Senate first need to implement new rules to allow this?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on May 12, 2006, 07:29:15 PM
Bumping this since the Senate needs new legislation:

Campaigning Bill

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

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

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

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




Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 14, 2006, 01:44:37 PM
I worked in liasion with TCash on this Bill, therefore, I, hereby,introduce this

Notification of Federal Election Polling Hours Bill

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

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

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

'Hawk'

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


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on May 14, 2006, 01:54:13 PM
I worked in liasion with TCash on this Bill, therefore, I, hereby,introduce this

Notification of Federal Election Polling Hours Bill

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

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

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

'Hawk'

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

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

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on May 15, 2006, 05:47:02 AM
There may be a possible further amendment to the ERSB from Brandon H. Could this be included with the above, but voted on separately, or not; or would I need to introduce it separately?

'Hawk'

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

FWIW, I'd like to humbly request all Senators to use the new Legislation Introduction Thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.0) instead of the old one.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: ilikeverin on May 15, 2006, 06:51:15 AM
I worked in liasion with TCash on this Bill, therefore, I, hereby,introduce this

Notification of Federal Election Polling Hours Bill

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

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

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

'Hawk'

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


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on May 15, 2006, 12:51:08 PM
I worked in liasion with TCash on this Bill, therefore, I, hereby,introduce this

Notification of Federal Election Polling Hours Bill

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

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

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

'Hawk'

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

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

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

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

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on May 16, 2006, 05:34:03 AM
Here's a proposal for the Senate to work with.  This is inspired by the recent banning of Hawkeye, who remains on the voter rolls despite being banned.

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


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MAS117 on May 17, 2006, 12:25:36 AM
I commend the President and all the Senators who voted against MasterImperalists bill.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on May 17, 2006, 03:51:34 AM
What is imperialist about a Bill that sought to allow the people of American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands to determine for themselves whether they desired statehood or not?

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

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

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on May 17, 2006, 05:20:46 AM
What is imperialist about a Bill that sought to allow the people of American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands to determine for themselves whether they desired statehood or not?

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

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


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on May 17, 2006, 05:39:38 AM
What is imperialist about a Bill that sought to allow the people of American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands to determine for themselves whether they desired statehood or not?

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

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

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

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

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on May 17, 2006, 06:52:39 AM
Well, I think this is one of those issues where we need to have a fine line between real life and Atlasian politics.  In real life, extending voting rights sounds like a good idea, but in Atlasia, I don't see the need to extend anything towards territories.  One of the things that needs to be considered is the practicality of such a move: i.e., people would have to go to extra lengths to make maps for presidential elections, there would be more eligible places to register that the SoFA would be required to keep track of, etc.  So I'm inclined to say that I wouldn't support such a proposal.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on May 17, 2006, 08:05:49 AM
Well, I think this is one of those issues where we need to have a fine line between real life and Atlasian politics.  In real life, extending voting rights sounds like a good idea, but in Atlasia, I don't see the need to extend anything towards territories.  One of the things that needs to be considered is the practicality of such a move: i.e., people would have to go to extra lengths to make maps for presidential elections, there would be more eligible places to register that the SoFA would be required to keep track of, etc.  So I'm inclined to say that I wouldn't support such a proposal.

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

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on May 18, 2006, 09:30:54 AM
Why is legislation to renumber sections in the ESRA necessary, or to incorporate UECA sections into it?

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


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on May 18, 2006, 09:35:00 AM
Why is legislation to renumber sections in the ESRA necessary, or to incorporate UECA sections into it?

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

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

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

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 19, 2006, 01:10:26 AM
I have two new bills, and I bet people will like! :)


South American Free Trade Act


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



Caribbean Free Trade Act


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

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


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on May 19, 2006, 01:29:27 AM
South American Free Trade Act
1. No tariffs, customs, or restrictions on movement of goods, except those that have been outlawed by the destination or interim nation, shall exist between the Republic of Atlasia, Columbia, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina and Chile.
2. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this bill.

The New Triple Entente

May 4, 2006

Carmen Sandiego

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

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

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



Caribbean Free Trade Act

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

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


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on May 19, 2006, 08:43:03 AM
Yeah, I shouldn't write things when I'm tired. :P  Anyway it's fixed.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on May 21, 2006, 06:30:31 AM
More free trade fun.  This will catch Atlasia up with the U.S. in terms of free trade agreements, I think.

Atlasian-Australia Free Trade Bill

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



Atlasian-Morocco Free Trade Bill

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



Atlasian-Singapore Free Trade Bill

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



Atlasian-Bahrain Free Trade Bill

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

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


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Emsworth on May 21, 2006, 07:23:02 AM
Perhaps all of the above bills, as well as the South American Free Trade Bill and Caribbean Free Trade Bill, could be combined into a single piece of legislation. I don't think that there is any point to having the same debate six separate times.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on May 21, 2006, 07:32:52 AM
Perhaps all of the above bills, as well as the South American Free Trade Bill and Caribbean Free Trade Bill, could be combined into a single piece of legislation. I don't think that there is any point to having the same debate six separate times.

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


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Emsworth on May 21, 2006, 07:42:29 AM
Perhaps all of the above bills, as well as the South American Free Trade Bill and Caribbean Free Trade Bill, could be combined into a single piece of legislation. I don't think that there is any point to having the same debate six separate times.

The areas are different, people might want free trade somewhere but not somewhere else. This seperates it in case.
Well, if that's the case, then the Senate could just amend the bill by removing the section that it disapproves. At the very least, even if the Senate is going to vote on the six separately, it makes sense to consider and debate them together.

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


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on May 21, 2006, 07:49:07 AM
Perhaps all of the above bills, as well as the South American Free Trade Bill and Caribbean Free Trade Bill, could be combined into a single piece of legislation. I don't think that there is any point to having the same debate six separate times.

The areas are different, people might want free trade somewhere but not somewhere else. This seperates it in case.
Well, if that's the case, then the Senate could just amend the bill by removing the section that it disapproves. At the very least, even if the Senate is going to vote on the six separately, it makes sense to consider and debate them together.

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

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


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Emsworth on May 21, 2006, 01:47:41 PM
More free trade fun.  This will catch Atlasia up with the U.S. in terms of free trade agreements, I think.
...
*Note:  The U.S. also has a free trade agreement with Chile, but that is covered in MasterJedi's South American Free Trade Bill.
I think that there are a couple of other sovereignty-infringing free trade agreements that need to be replaced with proper free trade bills, namely, the U.S.-Israel and U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreements.

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


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on May 21, 2006, 05:35:20 PM
Might these Free Trade Bills not be more correctly styled Atlasia rather than Atlasian

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on May 22, 2006, 02:38:12 AM
Actual Farm Subsidies Abolition Bill

Whereas, F.L. 9-13 "Farm Subsidies Abolition Act" did not abolish farm subsidies:
1. Sections I, II, IV, and V of the Farm Subsidies Abolition Act are repealed.
2. All farm subsidies are hereby abolished, effective from Fiscal Year 2007.



Atlasian-Israel-Jordan Free Trade Bill

Section 1: Jordan
1. No tariffs, customs, or restrictions on movement of goods, except those that have been outlawed by the destination or interim nation, shall exist between the Republic of Atlasia and Jordan.
2. The United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement is repealed.

Section 2: Israel
1. No tariffs, customs, or restrictions on movement of goods, except those that have been outlawed by the destination or interim nation, shall exist between the Republic of Atlasia and Israel.
2. The United States-Israel Free Trade Agreement is repealed.

Section 3: Designation of Powers
1. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this act.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bono on May 22, 2006, 03:32:36 AM


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

I've sugested this myself.
It's nearly a great idea, though I'd sugest a small revenue raising tarif.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on May 23, 2006, 07:17:41 AM
Food for thought:

Adoption Bill
1. No adoption agency run by or funded, either in full or in part, by the federal government of Atlasia shall bar any individual or couple from adopting a minor based solely or primarily on their sexual orientation.
2. Any agency outlined above shown to be in violation of this act shall be liable to a three month suspension of their funding pending further investigation.
3. This act shall not be construed as to deny adoption agencies the ability to deny adoption rights to someone with a criminal record of sexual misconduct, nor shall the definition of "sexual orientation" be interpreted to include predators of children.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: afleitch on May 23, 2006, 09:19:32 PM
Firstly, with regards to the Carribean and South American FTA's -why not unify them? They are both the exact same, there are no exceptions based on individual goods or servives, just nations, so why have two bills? They can be unified, and exceptions made based on the list of nations in the Foreign Policy Review and on those outlined above, but apply to the whole South American and Carribean region. The distinction between South America and the Carribean is complex - see Trinidad and Tobago for example.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Jake on May 23, 2006, 09:21:47 PM
Food for thought:

Adoption Bill
1. No adoption agency run by or funded, either in full or in part, by the federal government of Atlasia shall bar any individual or couple from adopting a minor based solely or primarily on their sexual orientation.
2. Any agency outlined above shown to be in violation of this act shall be liable to a three month suspension of their funding pending further investigation.
3. This act shall not be construed as to deny adoption agencies the ability to deny adoption rights to someone with a criminal record of sexual misconduct, nor shall the definition of "sexual orientation" be interpreted to include predators of children.

This is not the Republic of Sodom and Gomorrah


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: afleitch on May 23, 2006, 09:23:21 PM
This is not the Republic of Sodom and Gomorrah

Neither is it Jesusland :)

This bill must be debated on its merits, not personal preference.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Jake on May 24, 2006, 08:39:08 PM
We've gone over this, though many of you refuse to accept the argument that a child needs parents of both sexes to develop normally. The fact that adoption policies are discriminating against gays is not reason enough to change laws.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on May 24, 2006, 09:03:28 PM


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

I've sugested this myself.
It's nearly a great idea, though I'd sugest a small revenue raising tarif.

The whole world? I think not

For a start, the whole world wouldn't be suitable for Free Trade Agreements, certain countries are subject to economic restrictions

Furthermore, for many countries, their political, and human rights, record leave a lot to be desired :( - but I like the idea of a revenue raising tariff as in the classical protectionist tradition; however, it wouldn't be necessarily small, or uniform, either but variable depending on how recalcitrant undemocratic regimes might be. The more they move towards being a fully functioning liberal democracy, with political freedoms and civil rights, we could consider reducing the tariff if Atlasia was to go down this road

Free Trade should be all about levelling other countries up to our high economic and political standards, which is why I favor such a stick and carrot approach. Plus revenue raised by tariffs could be used to reduce the tax burden on our businesses :)

But for now, I'll look at each and every Free Trade Bill on the status, as per the Foreign Policy Review, of the specific regions, or countries, to which they pertain before deciding whether I support it or not

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on May 24, 2006, 09:14:19 PM
We've gone over this, though many of you refuse to accept the argument that a child needs parents of both sexes to develop normally

Are you saying that a child adopted by same-sex parents is likely to develop the same sexual orientation of their adoptive parents (assuming the child is the same sex as their adoptive parents)? What about the role genetics may play in the development of sexual orientation?

Not to mention that different sex parents can do a poor job of raising children

This is not as black and white as it seems with both arguments for and against

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Jake on May 24, 2006, 09:44:26 PM
I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying the child's development will be hindered without both a male and female role model. We're already seeing the affects of single parent families in the US, and ignoring the economic factors involved, I think we'd see similar emotional and social problems with children raised by a same sex couple.

Also, the issue of different sex parents raising their own children is not germane to this topic. Bad parents are screened out as best as possible at adoption agencies.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on May 24, 2006, 09:47:52 PM
I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying the child's development will be hindered without both a male and female role model. We're already seeing the affects of single parent families in the US, and ignoring the economic factors involved, I think we'd see similar emotional and social problems with children raised by a same sex couple.

Also, the issue of different sex parents raising their own children is not germane to this topic. Bad parents are screened out as best as possible at adoption agencies.

Thanks for clarifying your thoughts on the issue

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: ilikeverin on May 25, 2006, 06:46:17 AM
That doesn't change the fact that any parents are better than no parents.  If I even buy the "lack of female and male role models" argument.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: jerusalemcar5 on May 25, 2006, 02:59:09 PM
I think we'd see similar emotional and social problems with children raised by a same sex couple.

Except that we aren't...


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Gabu on May 25, 2006, 03:15:35 PM
If absolutely all else is equal, then yes, I would agree that having a male and a female is probably better than not having one gender present.

However, in the real world, there is never a case where "all else is equal".  A child will most assuredly turn out better in a family of two loving males than in a family of a male and a female who don't give a damn.  There are so many other factors that affect a child's development that it really is rather silly to ignore all of the others in lieu of barring homosexual couples.  Allowing homosexual couples to adopt does not mean that they will be given first dibs on every child.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on May 28, 2006, 07:58:27 AM
Written by Brandon H.

Medicare and Medicaid Reform Bill
1. A senior shall be defined as a person age 60 or over.
2. Seniors shall have the right to opt out of medicare and this shall not affect their Social Security benefits.
3. Seniors receiving Medicare benefits shall have the option of using private doctors for services covered by Medicare without penalty.
4. Persons who have paid into the Medicare system shall be elegible for a voucher upon becoming a senior.  The value of the voucher shall be based on past medical history and probablity of future health risks.
5. Employees shall have the option of contributing the 1.45% Medicare Tax into a Retirement Health Savings Account.
6. The Federal Government shall cease future spending on Medicaid.  All current funds allocated to Medicaid shall be distributed to the regions as grants.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: jerusalemcar5 on May 29, 2006, 12:40:20 PM
Written by Brandon H.

Medicare and Medicaid Reform Bill
1. A senior shall be defined as a person age 60 or over.
2. Seniors shall have the right to opt out of medicare and this shall not affect their Social Security benefits.
3. Seniors receiving Medicare benefits shall have the option of using private doctors for services covered by Medicare without penalty.
4. Persons who have paid into the Medicare system shall be elegible for a voucher upon becoming a senior.  The value of the voucher shall be based on past medical history and probablity of future health risks.
5. Employees shall have the option of contributing the 1.45% Medicare Tax into a Retirement Health Savings Account.
6. The Federal Government shall cease future spending on Medicaid.  All current funds allocated to Medicaid shall be distributed to the regions as grants.

What is this Retirement Health Savings Account?

Are you abolishing medicaid?  I guess that's one good way to eliminate poverty.  Exterminate all the poor people...


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on June 03, 2006, 07:18:54 AM
Unified Federal Territories Sex Crimes Bill

Section 1: Applicability
This law shall only apply in the District of Columbia and in federal territories that do not form part of any Region.

Section 2: Rape
1. Rape shall be defined as the unlawful penetration (however slight):
(a) of the mouth by the penis, or
(b) of the anus or the vagina by the penis or any object held or manipulated by another person.
2. To be found guilty it must be proved that at the time of the act the actor knows that the victim does not consent, or is reckless as to whether the victim does or does not consent to it.  Any person found guilty of rape may liable to a term of life imprisonment.

Section 3: Age of Consent
1. The age at which a person may consent to engage in sexual relations with another person shall be 16.  The following exceptions are made:
(a) A person between the ages of 14 and 16 may consent to have sex with another person of the same age;
(b) A person between the ages of 15 and 17 may consent to have sex with another person of the same age;
(c) A person aged 16 or 17 may not consent to have sex with another person over 18 if that person is in a position of authority over the 16 or 17 year old;
(d) In order to partake in group sexual relations, all participants must be at least or older than 18 years old.
2. Any person who is 18 years old or older that has sex with any person who is between the ages of 14 and 15 years old shall be guilty of statutory rape; they shall be sentenced to no more than ten years in prison and may be subject to rehabilitation and counseling sessions as determined by the jury.
3. Any person who is 16 years old or older that has sex with any person who is 13 years old or younger shall be guilty of child molestation; they may be liable to a term of life imprisonment depending upon the severity and frequency of the violations.  Persons 18 years old or older who violate this law will be sentenced to no less than ten years in jail and may be subject to rehabilitation and counseling sessions as determined by the jury.
4. "Group sexual relations" (as referred to in Clause 1(d)) is defined as sexual activities consisting of three or more people.

Section 4: Bestiality
The act of bestiality, which is defined as gross sexual imposition, sexual assault, or the committing of a deviant sexual act with an animal that is not a human being, shall be illegal.  Any person found guilty of bestiality shall be sentenced to no more than one year in jail and/or shall be fined no more than $2000.

Section 5: Penetration of a Human Corpse
1. Sexual acts relating to necrophilia shall be illegal.  Any person found guilty of sexual acts relating to necrophilia shall be sentenced to no more than one year in jail and/or shall be fined no more than $2000.  Appropriate penalties relating to restrictions on cemetery visits and in particular contact with the family of the person whose corpse has been defiled may be applied by juries as they see fit.
2. "Sexual acts relating to necrophilia" is defined as:
(a) a person intentionally performing an act of penetration with a part of his or her body or anything else,
(b) what is penetrated is a part of the body of a dead person,
(c) the person knows that, or is reckless as to whether, that is what is penetrated, and
(d) the penetration is sexual, and in particular not for medical, scientific, forensic or investigative reasons.

Section 6: Incest
1. No two people or group of persons who are closely biologically related may engage in sexual relations with each other.  Any person found guilty of willingly violating this law shall be sentenced to no more than one year in jail and/or shall be fined no more than $2000.
2. "Closely biologically related" is defined as to restrict sexual actions between a person and his or her biological mother, father, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, first cousin, niece, nephew, daughter, son, granddaughter, grandson, great-granddaughter, great-grandson, great-grandmother, or great-grandfather.

Section 7: Pornography
It shall be legal for persons of 16 years of age or older to buy, possess and view pornography depicting only persons of 18 years of age or older.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: jerusalemcar5 on June 03, 2006, 05:01:30 PM
Unified Federal Territories Sex Crimes Bill

Section 1: Applicability
This law shall only apply in the District of Columbia and in federal territories that do not form part of any Region.

Section 2: Rape
1. Rape shall be defined as the unlawful penetration (however slight):
(a) of the mouth by the penis, or
(b) of the anus or the vagina by the penis or any object held or manipulated by another person.
2. To be found guilty it must be proved that at the time of the act the actor knows that the victim does not consent, or is reckless as to whether the victim does or does not consent to it.  Any person found guilty of rape may liable to a term of life imprisonment.

Section 3: Age of Consent
The age at which a person may consent to engage in sexual relations with another person shall be 16.  The following exceptions are made:
(a) A person between the ages of 14 and 16 may consent to have sex with another person of the same age;
(b) A person between the ages of 15 and 17 may consent to have sex with another person of the same age;
(c) A person aged 16 or 17 may not consent to have sex with another person over 18 if that person is in a position of authority over the 16 or 17 year old;
(d) In order to partake in group sexual relations, all participants must be at least or older than 18 years old.

Section 4: Bestiality
The act of bestiality, which is defined as gross sexual imposition, sexual assault, or the committing of a deviant sexual act with an animal that is not a human being, shall be illegal.  Any person found guilty of bestiality shall be sentenced to no more than one year in jail and/or shall be fined no more than $2000.

Section 5: Penetration of a Human Corpse
1. Sexual acts relating to necrophilia, as defined in Clause 2 shall be illegal.  Any person found guilty of sexual acts relating to necrophilia shall be sentenced to no more than one year in jail and/or shall be fined no more than $2000.  Appropriate penalties relating to restrictions on cemetery visits and in particular contact with the family of the person whose corpse has been defiled may be applied by juries as they see fit.
2. "Sexual acts relating to necrophilia" is defined as:
(a) a person intentionally performing an act of penetration with a part of his or her body or anything else,
(b) what is penetrated is a part of the body of a dead person,
(c) the person knows that, or is reckless as to whether, that is what is penetrated, and
(d) the penetration is sexual, and in particular not for medical, scientific, forensic or investigative reasons.

Section 6: Incest
1. No two people or group of persons who are closely biologically related may engage in sexual relations with each other.  Any person found guilty of willingly violating this law shall be sentenced to no more than one year in jail and/or shall be fined no more than $2000.
2. "Biologically related" is defined as to restrict sexual actions between a person and his or her biological mother, father, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, first cousin, niece, nephew, daughter, son, granddaughter, grandson, great-granddaughter, great-grandson, great-grandmother, or great-grandfather.

Section 7: Pornography
It shall be legal for persons of 16 years of age or older to buy, possess and view pornography depicting only persons of 18 years of age or older.

A 14 yr old can't have sex with a 17 yr old?  There is a three year age difference.  I think that's a little restrictive.

Section 7 has been and will be violated over and over and over.  It is far more normal and less gross for a teenager to be viewing pornography than a 45 yr old man with a wife and kids.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on June 04, 2006, 09:14:33 AM
Yet another attempt to violate the general freedom that is granted to each of the non-State/Regional territories in their individual legislatures.  They can and should have the right to determine criminal justice issues for themselves. Having the federal legislature which is elected by other people decide these issues for them is non-democratic.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on June 12, 2006, 04:29:55 AM
We should consider making it so that if a declared candidate for federal office doesn't log in for a set period of time (say, two weeks) without advance explanation, that candidate is withdrawn from the ballot unless he comes back before voting begins and claims he wants to remain on the ballot.

I've also noticed that the Senate will soon be in dire need of more legislation, so I'm opening up my backlog of little pet projects and posting a few more of them here.  Anything that appeals to Senators, feel free to introduce.

Recognition of the Armenian Genocide Resolution

1. The government of Atlasia recognizes the forced evacuation and resultant deaths of over a million Armenians as ordered by the government of the Young Turks from 1915 to 1917 to be genocide.
2. The government of Atlasia hereby condemns the government of Turkey for refusing to acknowledge the said events as genocide.

(for more information see The Armenian Genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide))



Atlasia-New Zealand Free Trade Bill

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



Atlasia-Oman Free Trade Bill

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



Atlasia-India Free Trade Bill

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



Atlasia-Thailand Free Trade Bill

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



Atlasia-Malaysia Free Trade Bill

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



The Ensuring Personal Security Bill

Section 1: Applicability
1. This act shall only apply in the District of Columbia and in federal territories which do not form part of any region.

Section 2: Identity Fraud and Privacy Protection
(a) The security of personal information that could be used to identify a citizen is hereby protected.  This information shall be known as Protected Personal Information, or "PPI."
(b) PPI shall be defined to include both financial and medical information.
(c) Medical records as well as any genetic information that has been generated may only be viewed by another party when a citizen specifically and voluntarily authorizes that information to be shared. An insurer shall not require the release of genetic information by a preexisting or potential customer, nor shall any genetic information be taken into consideration when insurance-related decisions are made. The disclosure of personal medical information of any nature shall be limited to between the patient and the medical care provider, but the patient shall be permitted to authorize disclosure to other entities, as necesary in the course of treatment or for other purposes, at the patient's discretion. This information shall be used only within the legal relationships established voluntarily by the patient.
(d) Personal financial information of a citizen may be viewed only by individuals or entities specifically and voluntarily authorized by that citizen. Financial guarantors, whether individuals or commercial entities, may request financial PPI. Disclosure by the citizen shall be optional, but the guarantor may decline transacting with the individual solely on the grounds of refusal by the individual to release requested financial PPI. The guarantor may also decline transacting with the individual solely because of the nature and status of that individual's financial PPI.
(e) Commercial entities and individuals shall not sell PPI or pass it on in any way or by any means that violate the rules established by this act.
(f) Fines for violations shall be $10,000 per individual whose PPI has been handled illegally, to be imposed upon the violator of the provisions of this act.

(blatantly stolen from a Southeast initiative written by Q)



Return to Normalcy Bill

1. The Metric Converstion Act of 1975 is hereby repealed.



Ebowed Needs A Life Bill

1. See title.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: ○∙◄☻Ątπ[╪AV┼cVę└ on June 12, 2006, 04:38:25 AM
What's wrong with allowing them to get elected, and if they don't show up, declaring them to be Hale Boggs, and replacing them.

In case you don't get the reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hale_Boggs


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on June 12, 2006, 04:39:43 AM
What's wrong with allowing them to get elected, and if they don't show up, declaring them to be bogged down (a reference to Hales Bogg), and replacing them.

Nothing, although it does slow the process down a bit.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Q on June 12, 2006, 12:06:44 PM
The Ensuring Personal Security Bill

...

(blatantly stolen from a Southeast initiative written by Q)

;D


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on June 12, 2006, 02:52:02 PM
Return to Normalcy Bill

1. The Metric Converstion Act of 1975 is hereby repealed.

I'm an advocate of metrification, but I have no problems with this.  All the act does is provide for a Atlasia Metric Board which does nothing that actually helps us metrify and add some layers of paper work in federal construction projects that end up with us doing them in traditional units anyway


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: jerusalemcar5 on June 12, 2006, 07:02:17 PM
I'm getting annoyed by all this free trade.  If you want to kill Atlasian industry and labor rights, just do it in one fell swoop.  Doing it country by country is painstakingly slow.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on June 15, 2006, 09:49:48 AM
I'll introduce this bill for BrandonH but I'm omitting the last clause because I can't support getting rid of Medicaid.


Medicare Reform Bill

1. A senior shall be defined as a person age 60 or over.
2. Seniors shall have the right to opt out of medicare and this shall not affect their Social Security benefits.
3. Seniors receiving Medicare benefits shall have the option of using private doctors for services covered by Medicare without penalty.
4. Persons who have paid into the Medicare system shall be elegible for a voucher upon becoming a senior.  The value of the voucher shall be based on past medical history and probablity of future health risks.
5. Employees shall have the option of contributing the 1.45% Medicare Tax into a Retirement Health Savings Account.

Why don't you introduce the Bill with Clause 6? Propose an amendment striking it. The Senate can then determine whether it stands or not

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on June 15, 2006, 09:58:40 AM
I'll introduce this bill for BrandonH but I'm omitting the last clause because I can't support getting rid of Medicaid.


Medicare Reform Bill

1. A senior shall be defined as a person age 60 or over.
2. Seniors shall have the right to opt out of medicare and this shall not affect their Social Security benefits.
3. Seniors receiving Medicare benefits shall have the option of using private doctors for services covered by Medicare without penalty.
4. Persons who have paid into the Medicare system shall be elegible for a voucher upon becoming a senior.  The value of the voucher shall be based on past medical history and probablity of future health risks.
5. Employees shall have the option of contributing the 1.45% Medicare Tax into a Retirement Health Savings Account.

Why don't you introduce the Bill with Clause 6? Propose an amendment striking it. The Senate can then determine whether it stands or not

'Hawk'

Because I felt it was horrible and I had the right to introduce it without it. Besides I know this Senate won't get rid of Medicaid and it was a way to save time as well.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on June 15, 2006, 10:04:53 AM
I'm getting annoyed by all this free trade.  If you want to kill Atlasian industry and labor rights, just do it in one fell swoop.  Doing it country by country is painstakingly slow.

Do you honestly think the Senate will approve free trade to all and sundry in one full swoop? We have both full, and partial, military and economic restrictions on a number of countries. The former of which shouldn't even be considered for free trade agreements at all, the others not without certain 'conditions'

And I've no intention of sitting back and watch Atlasian industry and labor rights erode. I've always made it clear that should protectionist measures be necessary , then it's an option

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on June 15, 2006, 10:15:41 AM
I'll introduce this bill for BrandonH but I'm omitting the last clause because I can't support getting rid of Medicaid.


Medicare Reform Bill

1. A senior shall be defined as a person age 60 or over.
2. Seniors shall have the right to opt out of medicare and this shall not affect their Social Security benefits.
3. Seniors receiving Medicare benefits shall have the option of using private doctors for services covered by Medicare without penalty.
4. Persons who have paid into the Medicare system shall be elegible for a voucher upon becoming a senior.  The value of the voucher shall be based on past medical history and probablity of future health risks.
5. Employees shall have the option of contributing the 1.45% Medicare Tax into a Retirement Health Savings Account.

Why don't you introduce the Bill with Clause 6? Propose an amendment striking it. The Senate can then determine whether it stands or not

'Hawk'

Because I felt it was horrible and I had the right to introduce it without it. Besides I know this Senate won't get rid of Medicaid and it was a way to save time as well.

I'm not disputing the fact it is horrible nor your right to introduce it as you saw fit. I just think the Bill as the President intended should be considered even if it means my introducing Clause 6 only to vote against it. That's the point I'm trying to make

I've introduced an Atlasian-Jordan Free Trade Bill (in the event of my amendment to the Atlasian-Israel-Jordan Free Trade Bill passing) as per the President's 'terms' yet I expect it could well possibly be subject to my amendment

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on June 23, 2006, 04:36:17 PM
Where do I put consitutional amendment suggestions? Here?
Yes please!  Anything to interrupt the monotonous stream of bilateral free trade bills!

Thats an exetremely good point you make. I have one more question before I do though:

Does Bono V. Atlasia II still stand relevant? i.e., can the senate still not pass a minimum wage law for the nation? Can it still not run certain means of production?

This is not the place for asking questions, the debate thread is. This is just for introducing amendments.
Eh, I dont feel like re-typing it, so Ill just skip it. Thanks for telling me for future reference though.

It's called copying and pasting. :P And the Senate can't pass a minimum wage until the amendment passes, it failed last time.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Speed of Sound on June 23, 2006, 04:38:25 PM
Where do I put consitutional amendment suggestions? Here?
Yes please!  Anything to interrupt the monotonous stream of bilateral free trade bills!

Thats an exetremely good point you make. I have one more question before I do though:

Does Bono V. Atlasia II still stand relevant? i.e., can the senate still not pass a minimum wage law for the nation? Can it still not run certain means of production?

This is not the place for asking questions, the debate thread is. This is just for introducing amendments.
Eh, I dont feel like re-typing it, so Ill just skip it. Thanks for telling me for future reference though.

It's called copying and pasting. :P And the Senate can't pass a minimum wage until the amendment passes, it failed last time.
Yeah, im even feeling too lazy for that. Im aware of that, but I wanted to know if the simple striking of the free market line in Article I, Section 5, line 4 would be enough to make a national minimum wage legal.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on June 24, 2006, 05:22:03 AM
The Court actually rejected the free market argument in Bono v. Atlasia II. Simply put, the Court ruled that no enumerated power encompasses the power to set a minimum wage.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 24, 2006, 07:10:26 AM
Why does the Senate hate Local Government?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: jerusalemcar5 on June 24, 2006, 10:44:06 PM
Why does the Senate hate Local Government?

Why does the Senate hate respect and honor?  That is a better question.  Hopefully I will be able to fix that if elected, but Keystone Phil said I would not be entering the Senate and I'm still waiting because he might just have a trick up his sleeve.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on June 25, 2006, 09:19:51 PM
This is open to suggestions.

Rebellion Aid Bill

1. $750 million in monetary aid is given to the Government of the Northeast to help it in restoring harm done by the recent anti-Atlasia rebellion in the states of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey.
2. $25 million in monetary aid is given to the Government of the Mideast to help it in restoring harm done by the above mentioned rebellion in the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland.
3. The Senate of Atlasia expresses its heartfelt grief for the friends and families of the 270 people who died in the violence of the rebellion.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: jerusalemcar5 on June 25, 2006, 09:24:43 PM
This is open to suggestions.

Rebellion Aid Bill

1. $750 million in monetary aid is given to the Government of the Northeast to help it in restoring harm done by the recent anti-Atlasia rebellion in the states of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey.
2. $25 million in monetary aid is given to the Government of the Mideast to help it in restoring harm done by the above mentioned rebellion in the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland.
3. The Senate of Atlasia expresses its heartfelt grief for the friends and families of the 270 people who died in the violence of the rebellion.

No damage was officially reported in Delaware and Maryland, so scratch those.  Besides that sounds good.  Well maybe a little less for Maryland.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on June 26, 2006, 06:51:55 AM
Open to suggestions.

Treasonous Rebellion Bill

1. The following acts are hereby declared Acts of Treason.
a.) Rebellion, defined as the use of military forces to overthrow the Federal or any Regional government of Atlasia.
b.) Aiding of a rebellion, defined as the fully knowing and intentional direction of funds, military aid, or strategic advice to a person or group seeking to engage in rebellion.
c.) Terrorism, defined as the unlawful or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating civilians and/or the federal and/or regional governments of Atlasia.

2. Sentencing of an above defined Act of Treason shall be by the presiding Justice; he may use any combination of the following as punishment, depending upon the severity of the offense:
a.) Up to a lifetime ban from voting in any Atlasian elections.
b.) Up to lifetime incarceration in an Atlasian Fantasy Prison.
c.) A fine of up to $1,000,000,000 in fantasy currency.

3. Rights of the defendant.
a.) The defendant shall not be denied the access to adequate legal counsel in the form of an upstanding, active citizen of Atlasia. The defendant also has the right to waive their right to legal counsel.
If the defendant requests legal counsel, but is unable to secure his own adequate legal counsel according to the stipulations above, the presiding Justice shall request the chief judicial officer of the Region which said Defendant resides in, to serve as legal counsel to represent the defense. The chief judicial officer of the Region shall have the right to refuse such a request.
b.) If there is no chief judicial officer of said Region or if the chief judicial officer refuses this request, the Senior Senator of the Region shall be appointed as chief legal counsel, or if there is no Regional senator, the Senior Senator of the District in which Defendant resides in shall be appointed as chief legal counsel.
If the Senior Senator of the Region or District, as stated above, and the Defendant are the same person, then the Junior Senator of the Region shall be appointed as chief legal counselor, or if there is no Regional senator, the Junior Senator of the District in which Defendant resides in shall be appointed as chief legal counsel.
c.) For this clause, active citizen is defined as someone who voted in the last federal election and upstanding citizen is defined as someone who is presently, or who has previously, held elected office in Atlasia.
d.) The defendant shall have the right to a speedy trial as defined in Amendment 3 to the Constitution. In addition to this Amendment, the following section will be used as definition of a speedy trial:
(I) If a brief by the Plaintiff is not filed within one week (7 days) of the presiding Justice opening the trial against the defendant, the case will be dismissed and all charges will be dropped.
(II) A one week (7 days) leniency period may be granted by the presiding Justice by request of the Plaintiff, but any further delays may not be granted by the presiding Justice, except in the case of grave illness or publicly announced absence from the forum.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on June 26, 2006, 09:02:39 AM
I formally request that the President of the Senate and the PPT agree to bumping the Rebellion Aid Bill and the Treasonous Rebellion Bill up the Senate agena

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on June 27, 2006, 03:59:56 AM
Seeing as the Northeast Governor has graciously refused to accept federal money to aid in fixing rebellion damage, it should accordingly be removed from the relevant bill

I've also added a "rights of the defendant" section to the treason bill.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on June 28, 2006, 11:34:35 AM
Regarding Consolidated electoral reform legislation:

Section 7 contains an unnecessary self-reference, but its only an annoyance as opposed to an actual problem

Section 8:
Quote
1.   The candidacy declaration deadline for regular elections to the Senate shall be seven days before the commencement of the election (i.e. this would be no later than midnight Eastern Standard time on the Thursday prior to the election) and for special elections to the Senate shall be two days before the commencement of the election.
2.   The candidacy declaration deadline for full tickets of a Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate to declare shall be seven days before the commencement of the election (i.e. this would be no later than midnight Eastern Standard time on the Thursday prior to the election). However, should the Vice-Presidential candidate withdraw his candidacy, then the Presidential candidate may nominate a new Vice-Presidential candidate up to 72 hours before the commencement of the election.

This is actually a logical contradiction - given that an election could start at say 8 pm Thursday, then according to the first sentence, the candidacy declaration deadline is 8 pm Thursday the week before. However, the section in parentheses sets the candidacy declaration deadline at midnight Thursday the week before. God knows how the Court would bypass this absurdity, so I suggest we save them the hassle.

In order to alleviate this problem, please delete the parentheses in both clauses and then insert between "before the" and "commencement of the election" the words "earliest possible" in both clauses.

Section 10, Clause 3 of the Act refers to Section 12, where it should refer to Section 11 because of the effects of renumbering.

It would also be advisable to repeal all operative sections of previous electoral legislation.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on June 28, 2006, 11:56:07 AM
Regarding Consolidated electoral reform legislation:

Section 7 contains an unnecessary self-reference, but its only an annoyance as opposed to an actual problem

Section 8:
Quote
1.   The candidacy declaration deadline for regular elections to the Senate shall be seven days before the commencement of the election (i.e. this would be no later than midnight Eastern Standard time on the Thursday prior to the election) and for special elections to the Senate shall be two days before the commencement of the election.
2.   The candidacy declaration deadline for full tickets of a Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate to declare shall be seven days before the commencement of the election (i.e. this would be no later than midnight Eastern Standard time on the Thursday prior to the election). However, should the Vice-Presidential candidate withdraw his candidacy, then the Presidential candidate may nominate a new Vice-Presidential candidate up to 72 hours before the commencement of the election.

This is actually a logical contradiction - given that an election could start at say 8 pm Thursday, then according to the first sentence, the candidacy declaration deadline is 8 pm Thursday the week before. However, the section in parentheses sets the candidacy declaration deadline at midnight Thursday the week before. God knows how the Court would bypass this absurdity, so I suggest we save them the hassle.

In order to alleviate this problem, please delete the parentheses in both clauses and then insert between "before the" and "commencement of the election" the words "earliest possible" in both clauses.

Section 10, Clause 3 of the Act refers to Section 12, where it should refer to Section 11 because of the effects of renumbering.

It would also be advisable to repeal all operative sections of previous electoral legislation.

Thanks :). I'll make the appropriate adjustments although I did point out on the FACE thread that I wasn't sure exactly how to best incorporate the points 2) and 3) that you raised into the consolidated legislation, so I proceeded as best as I understood

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Q on June 28, 2006, 01:03:50 PM
Section 7 contains an unnecessary self-reference, but its only an annoyance as opposed to an actual problem

lol


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on June 28, 2006, 01:06:03 PM
Section 7 contains an unnecessary self-reference, but its only an annoyance as opposed to an actual problem

lol

Section 7 is how it stands from the original ESRA, so I decided to just leave it

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on June 29, 2006, 07:07:58 PM
My CESRB has been withdrawn by the PPT at my request, it is my intention to reintroduce it once I've "fixed" it :). My apologies. This legislation is proving more tricky than I'd ever envisaged

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: ilikeverin on July 04, 2006, 05:53:23 PM
Does anyone know Atlasia's procedure for signing international treaties?  I'm talking multinational treaties that have already been signed by other countries, not the free trade stuff we're doing now, if it makes any difference.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on July 04, 2006, 06:33:45 PM
Does anyone know Atlasia's procedure for signing international treaties?  I'm talking multinational treaties that have already been signed by other countries, not the free trade stuff we're doing now, if it makes any difference.

I'm not sure but the Senate probably has to pass it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on July 05, 2006, 02:38:14 AM
Does anyone know Atlasia's procedure for signing international treaties?  I'm talking multinational treaties that have already been signed by other countries, not the free trade stuff we're doing now, if it makes any difference.

I'm not sure but the Senate probably has to pass it.

A treaty is same as any other law under our Atlasian constitution.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Q on July 07, 2006, 03:29:41 PM
That's a good concept for a bill, Vlad.  It needs a little bit more of the bureacratic trimmings before it's fit for proposal, though, I think.  I'll write my own draft and pm it to you.

Commentary in this thread, please. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Emsworth on July 13, 2006, 12:39:20 PM

Yes, and you (Jerusalemcar) might want to familiarize yourself somewhat with the Senate operating procedures (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Ospr).  It will make your time as a Senator more effective and more enjoyable.
To be fair, the Senate's rules as they stand right now are quite complicated. Towards the end of my term as VP, I had written a shortened version of the rules, keeping nearly everything the same. (The only changes I made involved some rules that, in my experience as presiding officer, were never actually applied.) However, I did not get a chance to submit the rules for the Senate's consideration.

While substantively the same as the old rules, this new version is not even half as long (three and a half pages, as opposed to nine). If the PPT would like me to do so, I could send this version to him.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Q on July 13, 2006, 01:53:02 PM
Yes, and you (Jerusalemcar) might want to familiarize yourself somewhat with the Senate operating procedures (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Ospr).  It will make your time as a Senator more effective and more enjoyable.
To be fair, the Senate's rules as they stand right now are quite complicated. Towards the end of my term as VP, I had written a shortened version of the rules, keeping nearly everything the same. (The only changes I made involved some rules that, in my experience as presiding officer, were never actually applied.) However, I did not get a chance to submit the rules for the Senate's consideration.

While substantively the same as the old rules, this new version is not even half as long (three and a half pages, as opposed to nine). If the PPT would like me to do so, I could send this version to him.

I agree that they are excessively complicated; I was suggesting to the Senator that he take a look at them, because even after more than six months combined time as Senator and President of the Senate, I still get tripped up by them sometimes.

And would you please send me your draft of a new OSPR as well?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Q on July 14, 2006, 09:10:15 PM
Under Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Second Constitution of Atlasia I hereby call for impeachment proceedings to begin against President Ebowed for comitting several acts of murder, most notably Southeast Governor Harry. 

So that the Senate is aware, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is responsible for opening and presiding over this trial.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Emsworth on July 16, 2006, 03:35:19 PM
Sponsored by Senator Earl A. Washburn (SDP-NY), co-sponsored by Senator jerusalemcar5 (SDP-ME)

AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF ATLASIA

The President of the Republic of Atlasia has under no circumstances
the right to relieve the duties of any elected official. The President
may not also have the have the power to relieve the duties any member
of the Supreme Court of Atlasia or any member of a regional court.
The President may not in his executive powers dismiss any Senator,
the Vice President or any elected member of the regions.
My personal opinion is that this amendment is redundant and unnecessary. The President may have jokingly claimed a particular power; however, that does not mean that the power actually exists. I would note that there is already a Supreme Court decision (SamSpade v. Ebowed) in which the Court has declared that the President's powers are not unlimited--their extent is determined by legal history.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on July 19, 2006, 07:10:54 AM
I'd like to bump Jas's Middle East Resolution to the front of the legislative agenda if Q will agree.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on July 19, 2006, 07:34:45 AM
It has come to my attention (thanks to the SoFA) that for countless senate sessions we have been unintentionally ignoring the fact that resolutions unrelated to senate procedural rules are subject to the same presidential signature/veto conditions as regular legislation.  Since there is a recently introduced resolution now in the queue, I thought I would just bring this to light so that we make sure to follow proper procedure from now on.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on July 19, 2006, 03:19:04 PM
That would apply only if a Resolution were to become Law.  I fail to see what "law" the Resolution on the Middle East Conflict seeks to implement.  It neither creates nor destroys any obligation or authority upon any person or entity.  Since  Of course, there is nothing that says a President can't attach his signature to it, but since it ain't a Law, it ain't needed.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on July 19, 2006, 05:50:08 PM
Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 states in part:

"For any Bill or Resolution to pass the Senate, it shall have gained a majority in a valid vote. Before the Bill or Resolution becomes Law, it shall be presented to the President of the Republic of Atlasia, unless it be concerning the rules for the proceedings of the Senate..."

The only disqualifier this makes for resolutions is those regarding Senate procedure.  On the other hand, it states "Before the ... Resolution becomes Law," implying that the resolution would need to enact some sort of law for it to be subject to the presidential signature/veto.  So two interpretations are possible here.  I think disallowing only resolutions related to Senate procedure is more likely, given the strict disqualifier given in the aforementioned clause.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on July 21, 2006, 05:03:03 AM
Does anyone know where the VP is?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on July 23, 2006, 04:37:42 AM
I would like to note my disappointment at the moving of the GTO bill as emergency legislation, while Beirut burns and this government continues to do nothing about it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on July 23, 2006, 07:22:55 AM
I would like to note my disappointment at the moving of the GTO bill as emergency legislation, while Beirut burns and this government continues to do nothing about it.

The reason I did it is frankly I feel Israel is doing what it needs to be doing to get rid of Hezbellah (probably spelled that wrong, don't feel like checking now), even if that means burning Beirut to the ground. Lebanon won't do anything Hezbellah and wants the international community to stop Israel for their rightful attack.

Aside from that after the GTO bill this will be bumped up into that spot.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: jerusalemcar5 on July 23, 2006, 11:40:49 AM
I would like to note my disappointment at the moving of the GTO bill as emergency legislation, while Beirut burns and this government continues to do nothing about it.

The reason I did it is frankly I feel Israel is doing what it needs to be doing to get rid of Hezbellah (probably spelled that wrong, don't feel like checking now), even if that means burning Beirut to the ground. Lebanon won't do anything Hezbellah and wants the international community to stop Israel for their rightful attack.

Aside from that after the GTO bill this will be bumped up into that spot.

So let's change some names here.

Terrorist Group A bombs the CN Tower.  A few Canadians die.  The Terrorist Group A headquarters are in Milwaukee.  Now Atlasia tried to get rid of Terrorist Group A, but it had overextended its resources (probably protecting petting zoos in Wyoming :P) and since Terrorist Group A had never attacked Atlasia, it wan't a big deal.  So, Canada begins bombing Milwaukee.  Their airport and highways are destroyed.  Electricity is cut off and a bombing of the local power station.  Dozens of Atlasians die in the attacks on neighborhoods considered to be harboring Terrorist Group A and Milwaukee begins to crumble.

^Canada acted justly by bombing Milwaukee, right?  Regardless of the fact Atlasia is a sovereign nation?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on July 23, 2006, 11:44:57 AM
I would like to note my disappointment at the moving of the GTO bill as emergency legislation, while Beirut burns and this government continues to do nothing about it.

The reason I did it is frankly I feel Israel is doing what it needs to be doing to get rid of Hezbellah (probably spelled that wrong, don't feel like checking now), even if that means burning Beirut to the ground. Lebanon won't do anything Hezbellah and wants the international community to stop Israel for their rightful attack.

Aside from that after the GTO bill this will be bumped up into that spot.

So let's change some names here.

Terrorist Group A bombs the CN Tower.  A few Canadians die.  The Terrorist Group A headquarters are in Milwaukee.  Now Atlasia tried to get rid of Terrorist Group A, but it had overextended its resources (probably protecting petting zoos in Wyoming :P) and since Terrorist Group A had never attacked Atlasia, it wan't a big deal.  So, Canada begins bombing Milwaukee.  Their airport and highways are destroyed.  Electricity is cut off and a bombing of the local power station.  Dozens of Atlasians die in the attacks on neighborhoods considered to be harboring Terrorist Group A and Milwaukee begins to crumble.

^Canada acted justly by bombing Milwaukee, right?  Regardless of the fact Atlasia is a sovereign nation?

Lebanon has never tried to get rid of Hezbellah, while some may not like it there they haven't done anything to get rid of it. And really bad analogy there kid.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: jerusalemcar5 on July 23, 2006, 11:48:40 AM
I would like to note my disappointment at the moving of the GTO bill as emergency legislation, while Beirut burns and this government continues to do nothing about it.

The reason I did it is frankly I feel Israel is doing what it needs to be doing to get rid of Hezbellah (probably spelled that wrong, don't feel like checking now), even if that means burning Beirut to the ground. Lebanon won't do anything Hezbellah and wants the international community to stop Israel for their rightful attack.

Aside from that after the GTO bill this will be bumped up into that spot.

So let's change some names here.

Terrorist Group A bombs the CN Tower.  A few Canadians die.  The Terrorist Group A headquarters are in Milwaukee.  Now Atlasia tried to get rid of Terrorist Group A, but it had overextended its resources (probably protecting petting zoos in Wyoming :P) and since Terrorist Group A had never attacked Atlasia, it wan't a big deal.  So, Canada begins bombing Milwaukee.  Their airport and highways are destroyed.  Electricity is cut off and a bombing of the local power station.  Dozens of Atlasians die in the attacks on neighborhoods considered to be harboring Terrorist Group A and Milwaukee begins to crumble.

^Canada acted justly by bombing Milwaukee, right?  Regardless of the fact Atlasia is a sovereign nation?

Lebanon has never tried to get rid of Hezbellah, while some may not like it there they haven't done anything to get rid of it. And really bad analogy there kid.

That's because they don't have the resources and no one has bothered to provide it.  It is like taking a stick to fight a guy with two automatic rifles and a grenade.  I think the government would choose to stay in power and not be slaughtered to bits. 

And my analogy was EXCELLENT :P.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on July 23, 2006, 11:51:51 AM
I would like to note my disappointment at the moving of the GTO bill as emergency legislation, while Beirut burns and this government continues to do nothing about it.

The reason I did it is frankly I feel Israel is doing what it needs to be doing to get rid of Hezbellah (probably spelled that wrong, don't feel like checking now), even if that means burning Beirut to the ground. Lebanon won't do anything Hezbellah and wants the international community to stop Israel for their rightful attack.

Aside from that after the GTO bill this will be bumped up into that spot.

So let's change some names here.

Terrorist Group A bombs the CN Tower.  A few Canadians die.  The Terrorist Group A headquarters are in Milwaukee.  Now Atlasia tried to get rid of Terrorist Group A, but it had overextended its resources (probably protecting petting zoos in Wyoming :P) and since Terrorist Group A had never attacked Atlasia, it wan't a big deal.  So, Canada begins bombing Milwaukee.  Their airport and highways are destroyed.  Electricity is cut off and a bombing of the local power station.  Dozens of Atlasians die in the attacks on neighborhoods considered to be harboring Terrorist Group A and Milwaukee begins to crumble.

^Canada acted justly by bombing Milwaukee, right?  Regardless of the fact Atlasia is a sovereign nation?

Lebanon has never tried to get rid of Hezbellah, while some may not like it there they haven't done anything to get rid of it. And really bad analogy there kid.

That's because they don't have the resources and no one has bothered to provide it.  It is like taking a stick to fight a guy with two automatic rifles and a grenade.  I think the government would choose to stay in power and not be slaughtered to bits. 

Still, they haven't done anything, even diplomatically. And that's beside the fact that Syria and Iran control Lebanon. It would be in Israel's best interests to reduce Lebanon to a smoldering wasteland and have complete control over the area.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on July 24, 2006, 12:13:26 PM
I would like to note my disappointment at the moving of the GTO bill as emergency legislation, while Beirut burns and this government continues to do nothing about it.

The reason I did it is frankly I feel Israel is doing what it needs to be doing to get rid of Hezbellah (probably spelled that wrong, don't feel like checking now), even if that means burning Beirut to the ground. Lebanon won't do anything Hezbellah and wants the international community to stop Israel for their rightful attack.

Aside from that after the GTO bill this will be bumped up into that spot.

I do not wish to engage here on a debate on the rights and wrongs of the conflict in the Middle East, suffice to say that I respect that you and I and indeed the other Senators may have divergent views on the rights and wrongs of the conflict. You are entitled to espouse and defend your views on the matter as much as any other Senator.

What I would question is the use of your powers as PPT to influence such a debate, because it favours your political views for the matter to go undiscussed or at least be delayed. This to me seems to represent a politically biased use of the powers of the PPT (a job which I feel on the whole you have been more than adequate at) and is something which I do not favour. While I respect that there may be differing views as to what constitutes an emergency, I would have thought that a consensus would be more inclined to believe that the situation in Israel/Lebanon is more pressing than the GTO.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on July 24, 2006, 07:32:51 PM
I might as well say that once the GTO bill is off the floor and Jas's resolution is in the 5th slot I'll be introducing this amendment to re-write the bill.

Resolution on the Middle East Conflict

Recognizing that the security and stability of the Middle East is threatened by the current conflict between Hezbollah and Israel,

The Atlasian Senate hereby recognizes that:
1. The terrorist group, Hezbollah, is acting without legitimate cause or grievance and is slaughtering innocent Israeli citizens.
2. It is acting with the tacit support of the Syrian and Iranian governments.

Thus the Atlasian Senate hereby:
1. Condemns Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.
2. Condemns Hezbollah for launching rockets from civilian areas, thus making Israel attack civilian areas and causing undue death of Lebanese citizens to protect its own citizens.
3. Gives wholehearted support to the Israeli government in their attacks against Hezbollah and supports its complete destruction.
4. Is willing to sell Israel weapons and munitions in their continuing fight against terrorism.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on July 24, 2006, 07:37:57 PM
I might as well say that once the GTO bill is off the floor and Jas's resolution is in the 5th slot I'll be introducing this amendment to re-write the bill.

Resolution on the Middle East Conflict

Recognizing that the security and stability of the Middle East is threatened by the current conflict between Hezbollah and Israel,

The Atlasian Senate hereby recognizes that:
1. The terrorist group, Hezbollah, is acting without legitimate cause or grievance and is slaughtering innocent Israeli citizens.
2. It is acting with the tacit support of the Syrian and Iranian governments.

Thus the Atlasian Senate hereby:
1. Condemns Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.
2. Condemns Hezbollah for launching rockets from civilian areas, thus making Israel attack civilian areas and causing undue death of Lebanese citizens to protect its own citizens.
3. Gives wholehearted support to the Israeli government in their attacks against Hezbollah and supports its complete destruction.
4. Is willing to sell Israel weapons and munitions in their continuing fight against terrorism.

I concur with the Senator's proposed amendment to the Resolution on the Middle East Conflict

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 24, 2006, 07:59:36 PM
Nothing on the people in Lebanon who have nothing to do with Hizbollah being killed?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on July 25, 2006, 04:15:47 AM
Nothing on the people in Lebanon who have nothing to do with Hizbollah being killed?
^^^^^^


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: jerusalemcar5 on July 25, 2006, 10:17:35 AM
Nothing on the people in Lebanon who have nothing to do with Hizbollah being killed?
^^^^^^

Master Jedi doesn't care about Arab people.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Virginian87 on July 25, 2006, 11:00:15 AM
I might as well say that once the GTO bill is off the floor and Jas's resolution is in the 5th slot I'll be introducing this amendment to re-write the bill.

Resolution on the Middle East Conflict

Recognizing that the security and stability of the Middle East is threatened by the current conflict between Hezbollah and Israel,

The Atlasian Senate hereby recognizes that:
1. The terrorist group, Hezbollah, is acting without legitimate cause or grievance and is slaughtering innocent Israeli citizens.
2. It is acting with the tacit support of the Syrian and Iranian governments.

Thus the Atlasian Senate hereby:
1. Condemns Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.
2. Condemns Hezbollah for launching rockets from civilian areas, thus making Israel attack civilian areas and causing undue death of Lebanese citizens to protect its own citizens.
3. Gives wholehearted support to the Israeli government in their attacks against Hezbollah and supports its complete destruction.
4. Is willing to sell Israel weapons and munitions in their continuing fight against terrorism.

I'm not comfortable with Article IV of your resolution.  If we are to sell the Israelis weapons, wouldn't we stand at risk of further terrorist attacks from Islamic extremists?  We are currently trying to quell resistance movements in Iraq as well as stop the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons.  If we make it known in the eyes of the Arabs that we are against them and for Israel, I think Atlasia would be putting herself in a tough situation.  I'm not saying we should support Hezbollah; quite the oppposite.  I just fear that overt support of Israel would lead to our being dragged into an increasingly prickly conflict when we have enough on our plate in the Middle East as it is.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: jerusalemcar5 on July 25, 2006, 11:05:53 AM
I might as well say that once the GTO bill is off the floor and Jas's resolution is in the 5th slot I'll be introducing this amendment to re-write the bill.

Resolution on the Middle East Conflict

Recognizing that the security and stability of the Middle East is threatened by the current conflict between Hezbollah and Israel,

The Atlasian Senate hereby recognizes that:
1. The terrorist group, Hezbollah, is acting without legitimate cause or grievance and is slaughtering innocent Israeli citizens.
2. It is acting with the tacit support of the Syrian and Iranian governments.

Thus the Atlasian Senate hereby:
1. Condemns Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.
2. Condemns Hezbollah for launching rockets from civilian areas, thus making Israel attack civilian areas and causing undue death of Lebanese citizens to protect its own citizens.
3. Gives wholehearted support to the Israeli government in their attacks against Hezbollah and supports its complete destruction.
4. Is willing to sell Israel weapons and munitions in their continuing fight against terrorism.

I'm not comfortable with Article IV of your resolution.  If we are to sell the Israelis weapons, wouldn't we stand at risk of further terrorist attacks from Islamic extremists?  We are currently trying to quell resistance movements in Iraq as well as stop the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons.  If we make it known in the eyes of the Arabs that we are against them and for Israel, I think Atlasia would be putting herself in a tough situation.  I'm not saying we should support Hezbollah; quite the oppposite.  I just fear that overt support of Israel would lead to our being dragged into an increasingly prickly conflict when we have enough on our plate in the Middle East as it is.

I agree.  This resolution is insane, biased, and one-sided.  It slaps the Arab world in the face and doesn't give a damn.  I will be voting a very strong NAY on this unless it actually admits Israel has been terrible in this series of events.  This reolution should and will receieve international condemnation and strengthen terrorists against us.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on July 25, 2006, 11:17:37 AM
I'm also thinking about adding a clause supporting the Lebanese government and willing to sell them weapons and munitions as well if they agree to help Israel attack Hezbollah.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 25, 2006, 11:19:14 AM
I don't think that offering to sell anyone arms that the moment would be an especially good signal for us to send out... and the Lebanese government is in no position to attack Hizbollah.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on July 25, 2006, 08:03:36 PM
Actual Free Trade Bill

1. Section 3, F.L. 13-10 is hereby repealed.
2. Section 3, F.L. 13-11 is hereby repealed.
3. Section 3, F.L. 13-12 is hereby repealed.
4. Section 3, F.L. 13-19 is hereby repealed.
5. Section 3, F.L. 13-20 is hereby repealed.
6. Section 2 & 4, F.L. 13-23 is hereby repealed, and the sections are renumbered to reflect the above changes.
7. Section 3, F.L. 14-4 is hereby repealed.
8. Section 3, F.L. 14-5 is hereby repealed.

On this Senator, you and I shall not be in concurrence. When it comes to free trade, I have a vision :), which is both grounded in my convictions and highly principled to boot!  More on this once it reaches the floor

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Frodo on July 29, 2006, 03:17:42 PM
Atlasian-Djibouti Free Trade Bill

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



Atlasian-Ethiopia Trade Bill

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



Atlasian-Kenya Free Trade Bill

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



Atlasian-Tanzania Free Trade Bill

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



Atlasian-Namibia Free Trade Bill

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

Atlasian-Botswana Free Trade Bill

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



Atlasian-Mali Free Trade Bill

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



Atlasian-Gabon Free Trade Bill

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



Atlasian-Benin Free Trade Bill

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



Atlasian-Ghana Free Trade Bill

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



Atlasian-Senegal Free Trade Bill

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

Wouldn't it be simpler simply to have one large bill entitled the 'Atlasia-Sub-Saharan African Free Trade Bill', and have a list of all the countries in this region with which we wish to have free trade?  :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on July 29, 2006, 03:19:34 PM
Wouldn't it be simpler simply to have one large bill entitled the 'Sub-Sahara African Free Trade Agreement', and have a list of all the countries in this region with which we wish to have free trade?  :P

Not really because the Senate might want to have the trade with some but not the others and it gives each bill debate by itself. (Though I hope they all pass anyway) :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on July 29, 2006, 05:30:54 PM
If a Senator opposes free trade with any of those countries, he could propose an amendment to remove it from the hypothetical "Sub-Saharan Africa Free Trade Bill".


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on July 30, 2006, 07:49:00 AM
If a Senator opposes free trade with any of those countries, he could propose an amendment to remove it from the hypothetical "Sub-Saharan Africa Free Trade Bill".
^^^^^^^^

Has anyone had any contact with Vice President Q?
He appears to have been absent for almost 2 weeks.
Does anyone know if he's on official leave of absence or if somethings happened?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on July 30, 2006, 07:54:37 AM
Has anyone had any contact with Vice President Q?
He appears to have been absent for almost 2 weeks.
Does anyone know if he's on official leave of absence or if somethings happened?

He's just left, he's been gone and nobody has seen him (at least I think nobody has heard from him).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 02, 2006, 08:10:16 PM
I wish to point out to the Senate, my stated opinions on the Amtrak Privatization Bill (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=43066.msg951697#msg951697) and the Whaling Bill (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=43066.msg954312#msg954312) in my campaign thread.

In addition to my objections to the Whaling Bill, stated there, I have another.  Section 1 of the bill is unconstitutional.  The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission is a private organization, not a government entity, so it can't be abolished by the government.  The AEWC does have authority to manage the taking of whales by Alaska natives has been delegated to by the Department of Commerce in accordance with existing law, so if you want to end that delegation, that would be constitutional, but simply banning the AEWC is not.

Also, as it stands now, the self-defense and Good-Samaritan exemptions for killing a whale that is attacking someone would be lost.  If you must pass a bill that ends the exeption for coastal subsistence whaling by Alaskan natives, a narrower bill that addresses that by repealing subsection (b) of section 103 of Pub. L. 92-522 [16 U.S.C. 1371(b)] would do so in a much more acceptable manner.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: jerusalemcar5 on August 11, 2006, 06:36:58 PM
Atlasian-China Free Trade Bill

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

LOL!!  I love it.  There is nothing you could put on this to make it remotely acceptable.  I say this fails 1-9.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on August 11, 2006, 07:46:13 PM
Atlasian-China Free Trade Bill

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

LOL!!  I love it.  There is nothing you could put on this to make it remotely acceptable.  I say this fails 1-9.

Do we actually have any tariffs on Chinese imports? I'm well aware they have them on ours :(

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 11, 2006, 09:08:39 PM
Atlasian-China Free Trade Bill

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

LOL!!  I love it.  There is nothing you could put on this to make it remotely acceptable.  I say this fails 1-9.

I can think of one, amend "China" to "Republic of China". ;D


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on August 12, 2006, 07:40:18 AM
Atlasian-China Free Trade Bill

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

LOL!!  I love it.  There is nothing you could put on this to make it remotely acceptable.  I say this fails 1-9.

I can think of one, amend "China" to "Republic of China". ;D

You've just beat me to it ;D. Yes, I'm considering that as an amendment. I have no objection to free trade with the Republic of China, especially now that it's a fully fledged democracy having cast aside the autocracy of Chiang Kai-shek and his acolytes

Furthermore, it has favorable socio-economic conditions and in the sphere of human rights, there has been a significant transformation for the better

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: ilikeverin on August 12, 2006, 10:04:58 AM
Calling Taiwan the "Republic of China" would be a complete disaster diplomatically.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on August 12, 2006, 12:51:52 PM
Calling Taiwan the "Republic of China" would be a complete disaster diplomatically.

Calling Taiwan the "Republic of China" would be a complete disaster diplomatically.

Sadly, that would undoubtedly prove to be the case, which is why I'm minded rather than decided ;) but free trade with the PRC, NO!

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 16, 2006, 09:45:05 PM
Leaving aside the question of whether the Senate should override the decisions of the territorial governments on the issues of alcohol and minimum wage, I'd like to point out that in the case of American Samoa, you'll be almost tripling the minimum wage there.  In relative terms, it would be like raising the minimum wage in Wisconsin from the current real life state minimum of $6.50 to $17.33.  That's higher than even what opebo calls for!

The insular territories have very fragile economies that because of their location and size will never be fully integrated into the mainland economy.  They also have higher unemployment than the mainland.  Trying to apply mainland minimum wage rates will only force even more people to leave the insular territories for the mainland to find jobs than are already being forced by economic pressures already.  At least this foolishness won't apply to the Northern Marianas.  The Compact of Free Association we have with them leaves labor law up to the NMI.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on August 19, 2006, 07:55:20 AM
Just a note to give notice that I'll be on leave of absence for about a week.
If I may give notice on furture votes:
On my Alcohol Reform Bill amendment - Aye
On all other matters - Abstain


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 30, 2006, 12:44:10 PM
My views on the Copyright Reform Bill (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=44410.0).

First, while I agree that copyrights currently last too long, I think 25 years is probably too short.  30 to 50 years seems an appropriate term.

Second, while reducing the terms of existing copyrights as clause 2 of the bill provides is within the Senate's power (tho not their extension) it could prove expensive given clause 9 of our Bill of Rights.  If this isn't an example of takings, I don't know what ain't.  Cheaper to simply reduce the term of new copyrights, and simply let the old ones expire on their own.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on August 30, 2006, 03:14:55 PM
My views on the Copyright Reform Bill (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=44410.0).

First, while I agree that copyrights currently last too long, I think 25 years is probably too short.  30 to 50 years seems an appropriate term.

Second, while reducing the terms of existing copyrights as clause 2 of the bill provides is within the Senate's power (tho not their extension) it could prove expensive given clause 9 of our Bill of Rights.  If this isn't an example of takings, I don't know what ain't.  Cheaper to simply reduce the term of new copyrights, and simply let the old ones expire on their own.

Great, now watch nobody offer any amendments and then all vote against it in three days.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 30, 2006, 05:17:51 PM
More likely to die because of the start of the new Senate this Friday.  Unless someone reproposes it for the new Senate.  Only a little under 43 hours left before the current Senate closes up and the new one begns.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on September 17, 2006, 05:22:22 PM
TD, because you are in my district, I will formally introduce the legislation for you..... I have made a minor revision or two, but have not changed the spirit of the bill.

Atlasia Revitalization Act

1. The Vice President, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, one Governor as chosen out of the five, and two citizens appointed by the President shall make up the Atlasian Revitalization Committee.

2. The purpose of the said committee shall be to research and draw up a comprehensive plan in order to revitalize Atlasia through new citizens and more active participation in ways including but not limited to the following: advertising on other political forums, relations with other micronations,  to create a better atmosphere for all.

3. The Atlasian Revitalization Committee shall deliver its findings to the Senate of Atlasia. Upon which time, the Senate will deliberate on the committee's findings, and designate a proper solution.


Could this be moved to the top?  I believe it's pretty urgent, plus it's forum affairs legislation.

Yes, I consider it forum affairs legislation and will move it into the slot currently occupied by the Cabinet Restructuring Bill, once it has been resolved by the Senate

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on September 17, 2006, 05:43:37 PM
TD, because you are in my district, I will formally introduce the legislation for you..... I have made a minor revision or two, but have not changed the spirit of the bill.

Atlasia Revitalization Act

1. The Vice President, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, one Governor as chosen out of the five, and two citizens appointed by the President shall make up the Atlasian Revitalization Committee.

2. The purpose of the said committee shall be to research and draw up a comprehensive plan in order to revitalize Atlasia through new citizens and more active participation in ways including but not limited to the following: advertising on other political forums, relations with other micronations,  to create a better atmosphere for all.

3. The Atlasian Revitalization Committee shall deliver its findings to the Senate of Atlasia. Upon which time, the Senate will deliberate on the committee's findings, and designate a proper solution.


Could this be moved to the top?  I believe it's pretty urgent, plus it's forum affairs legislation.

Yes, I consider it forum affairs legislation and will move it into the slot currently occupied by the Cabinet Restructuring Bill, once it has been resolved by the Senate

'Hawk'

Actually, Senator Jas has withdrawn his GM Resolution. It can take its place

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Democrat on October 05, 2006, 07:41:48 PM
On Dr. Cynic's works bill, there is no federal minimum wage.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on October 05, 2006, 07:51:39 PM
On Dr. Cynic's works bill, there is no federal minimum wage.

Senator Dr Cynic will either have to adjust his Bill to reflect that before it reaches the floor or the Senate will have to amend it once it reaches the floor

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 05, 2006, 08:07:33 PM
I have amended my bill.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on October 06, 2006, 10:42:19 PM
In response to Senator's Hawk requestfor postal information, I have the following.

I am unaware of any countries that have totally provatized ther postal system.  However, several countries have done away with the monopoly status of their government owned postal system, allowing for competion for all classes of domestic mail service, and in the case of New Zealand, international mail service (altho no company has yet gotten into that, probably because of hassles from the UPU).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on October 07, 2006, 09:55:47 AM
In response to Senator's Hawk requestfor postal information, I have the following.

I am unaware of any countries that have totally provatized ther postal system.  However, several countries have done away with the monopoly status of their government owned postal system, allowing for competion for all classes of domestic mail service, and in the case of New Zealand, international mail service (altho no company has yet gotten into that, probably because of hassles from the UPU).

Thank you :)

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on October 08, 2006, 05:58:32 PM

And what empowers the Senate to create and maintain (the National Zoo)? Seriously, I'm curious.

Article I Section 5 Clauses 12 and 15 would apply to any zoo in Atlasia and Article I Section 5 Clause 25 applies to the National Zoo in particular.  Clauses 12 and 15 have no counterpart in the U.S. Constitution, but they provide an explict grant of power for research and education activities in the Atlasian Constitution.



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on October 10, 2006, 02:07:25 PM
I am going to have to object to section 1 of the Military Modernization and Readiness Bill.  The reason the first four Ohios were converted from SSBN's to SSGN's was because the arms controls treaties we've signed limit us to 14 SSBN's, so we had the choice of either retiring the vessels or modifying them to the SSGN configuration.  The next four Ohios (SSBN-730 to SSBN-733) have just recently completed an upgrade that included replacing the C-4 Trident I missiles with the same D-5 Trident II missiles that were in the remaining 10 Ohio-class subs (SSBN-734 to SSBN-743).  Altering any further SSBN-726's to the SSGN-726 configuration only makes sense if we are going to further reduce the size of our submarine launched ballistic missile force, and absent a new arms control treaty with the Russians, that is not something I could support.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on October 10, 2006, 05:20:49 PM
I am going to have to object to section 1 of the Military Modernization and Readiness Bill.  The reason the first four Ohios were converted from SSBN's to SSGN's was because the arms controls treaties we've signed limit us to 14 SSBN's, so we had the choice of either retiring the vessels or modifying them to the SSGN configuration.  The next four Ohios (SSBN-730 to SSBN-733) have just recently completed an upgrade that included replacing the C-4 Trident I missiles with the same D-5 Trident II missiles that were in the remaining 10 Ohio-class subs (SSBN-734 to SSBN-743).  Altering any further SSBN-726's to the SSGN-726 configuration only makes sense if we are going to further reduce the size of our submarine launched ballistic missile force, and absent a new arms control treaty with the Russians, that is not something I could support.

You are more than welcome to raise your concerns in the actual Senate debate, Governor

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on October 23, 2006, 06:22:15 PM
I'm pre-filing these four bills for the Sixteenth Senate.  The fourth is primarily intended for fun, as I'm not serious about it, but it certainly should provide for a few sparks and sputters of righteous indignation.

I won't be adding them to the agenda for the Fifteenth Senate then

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Frodo on October 24, 2006, 03:34:47 PM
Draka Illegal Immigration and Labor Act

(...) §3. New slaves
   (a) To insure that permanent indentured servants are easily identifiable, new permanent indentured servants shall have an RFID chip implanted in their body.
   (b) To insure that no children are born to permanent indentured servants, new permanent indentured servants shall be surgically sterilized.
   (c) Contracts for new permanent indentured servants shall be disposed of in the same manner as surplus property under subtitle I of title 40 of the United States Code.

§4. Servant Code
   The Secretary of Labor shall within 180 days of the passage of this Act promulgate a Servant Code.  Such Code shall specify -
      (1) minimum standards of food, shelter, clothing, and working conditions a contractor must provide a servant,
      (2) the maximum level of discipline that a contractor may use to punish a servant that fails to obey,
      (3) penalties, consistent with penalties imposed for similar offenses under title 18 of the United States Code, for violations of the Servant Code, whether by a contractor, a servant, or a third party, and
      (4) such other rules and regulations as the Secretary determines are needful for an effective system of servant management.

You're hilarious, Ernest.  :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bdub on October 28, 2006, 03:56:30 PM
Might as well introduce this before I leave office since I supported it in the first place.


Amendment to Allow the Senate to Set a Minimum Wage

The Senate shall have power to set a minimum wage, as it deems necessary throughout the Republic of Atlasia.

Although I would normally support this, I can already see with the liberal economic stances of many of the new Senators and president, that they will end up passing some ridiculously high minimum wage which will shoot inflation through the roof and burden Atlasia's small businesses.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: afleitch on October 28, 2006, 04:02:40 PM
Might as well introduce this before I leave office since I supported it in the first place.


Amendment to Allow the Senate to Set a Minimum Wage

The Senate shall have power to set a minimum wage, as it deems necessary throughout the Republic of Atlasia.

Although I would normally support this, I can already see with the liberal economic stances of many of the new Senators and president, that they will end up passing some ridiculously high minimum wage which will shoot inflation through the roof and burden Atlasia's small businesses.

I remember the debate about this last time round. I was vociferously opposed to what I perceived as being an 'anti region' bill. I will personally oppose (and organise opposition to) it again.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on October 29, 2006, 08:31:17 PM
That's just fine, Alfleitch... Al and I will come out in strong support of a minimum wage.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on October 30, 2006, 07:41:39 AM
For Senators' information, this is the Bill that the President had proposed in event of the Amendment to Allow the Senate to Set a Minimum Wage, which of course failed first time around:

Fair Minimum Wage Bill

Section 1: Nationwide Minimum Wage Standard
1. The minimum wage shall be set at $7.40 hourly for all persons aged 18 and above.
2. The minimum wage shall be set at $5.75 hourly for all persons aged 15 through 17.
3. Regions are permitted to pass a higher regional minimum wage than the national standard, should they so desire.  Regional laws with lower wages than defined in Clauses 1 and 2 will be overridden by this law.

Section 2: CPI Indexing
2. The nationwide minimum wage shall be indexed annually to the Consumer Pricing Index (CPI).




Personally, I support a federal minimum wage. The fact that Atlasia does not have one is just vindicative of how unprogressive we are in this respect

However, I would not support the above Bill. In fact, I favor abolishing the age differential and supporting a federal minimum wage at around $7.00 for all. I feel the age differential as it stands would work against the interests of working families in that you'd likely have employers employing those aged between 15 to 17 at the expence of those aged 18 or over, who are likely to have more responsibilities (i.e. dependents)

Of course, the Senate did once pass the Fair Wage Act but that was ruled unconstitutional in Bono vs Atlasia II

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 20, 2006, 06:04:38 PM
Could someone write a bill that stops the automatic purging of voters from the electoral roll?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on December 02, 2006, 07:17:47 PM
Given the serious deadlines involved, and the sense that the re-districting process may not be completed in time, I would urge that Senator Ernest's bill be brought to the floor by whatever means necessary.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 03, 2006, 11:32:44 AM
Could someone introduce a bill returning full funding to the Appalachian Regional Commision?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on December 06, 2006, 01:11:50 PM

Constitutional Amendment on Voter Registration and Voter Rules

Article V, Section 2, Clause 6 of the Atlasian Constitution is amended to read as follows:

Any registered voter who fails to vote in elections for four months shall have his registration no longer considered valid. This clause shall not be construed to deny a forum user the right to register anew.


The second proposed amendment is an alternative to Hawk's proposal which scraps clause 6 completely.  My version will eliminate only the part that concerns newly registered voters.

I pretty sure that could be considered as an amendment to my Amendment once it reaches the floor of the Senate

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bdub on December 06, 2006, 01:19:23 PM

Constitutional Amendment on Voter Registration and Voter Rules

Article V, Section 2, Clause 6 of the Atlasian Constitution is amended to read as follows:

Any registered voter who fails to vote in elections for four months shall have his registration no longer considered valid. This clause shall not be construed to deny a forum user the right to register anew.


The second proposed amendment is an alternative to Hawk's proposal which scraps clause 6 completely.  My version will eliminate only the part that concerns newly registered voters.

I pretty sure that could be considered as an amendment to my Amendment once it reaches the floor of the Senate

'Hawk'
Good idea.  I shall withdraw that amendment.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on December 06, 2006, 01:29:03 PM

Constitutional Amendment on Voter Registration and Voter Rules

Article V, Section 2, Clause 6 of the Atlasian Constitution is amended to read as follows:

Any registered voter who fails to vote in elections for four months shall have his registration no longer considered valid. This clause shall not be construed to deny a forum user the right to register anew.


The second proposed amendment is an alternative to Hawk's proposal which scraps clause 6 completely.  My version will eliminate only the part that concerns newly registered voters.

I pretty sure that could be considered as an amendment to my Amendment once it reaches the floor of the Senate

'Hawk'
Good idea.  I shall withdraw that amendment.

Thanks. I've had a little time to think since I echoed my sentiments on this during the debate on the Federal Activity Requirements Revision Bill and I'm open to compromise in order to for some 'reforming' Amendment to be considered

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on December 20, 2006, 09:07:34 PM
Atlasia Revitilization Committee Report Resolution

The Senate of Atlasia requests that the Atlasia Revitilization Committee (established under F.L. 15-3 Atlasia Revitilization Act), through a nominated representative, will deliver to the Senate a report of it's progress to date, any findings or reccomendations it has agreed so far, or any other matters which it deems worthy of the Senate's consideration, on or by the 29th of December 2006, three months after the committee's establishment.

Senator :),

I feel that the Atlasian Revitalization Committee doesn't have that much to report. And the one thing I suggested, my Constitutional Amendment on Voter Registration and Voting Rules is currently under consideration by the Senate, while Senator Ernest introduced his Federal Activity Requirements Revision Bill

The President has submitted his reform plan. A number of prominant Atlasians, Senator Colin Wixted, Associate Justice Afleitch and True Democrat, worked with him on that. It is currently being discussed and put together by Senator Ernest in the form of Constitutional Amendments, while True Democrat has drafted a new Constitution

Given that Atlasia now seems, thanks to the dedication :) of all involved in the President's plan, is now on the right track as far as structural government reform goes, I think it better the Senate focus on that rather than track back to the Atlasian Revitalization Committee as much as what was suggested as already been proposed

I'm happy to to allow it time of the floor, but I don't see the need. And once its on the floor, I'll just repeat this statement

Dave 'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Democrat on December 20, 2006, 09:42:17 PM
I fear that the session will end before my confirmation hearing does.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on December 20, 2006, 09:45:41 PM
I fear that the session will end before my confirmation hearing does.

Well, it looks like I'll have to give the Senate a kick up the arse then :). And I will if there isn't enough votes one way or the other in the morning. The same goes for Al's confirmation as Game Moderator

Of course, they do have up to 5 days to vote :P

'Hawk'



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on December 21, 2006, 02:10:31 PM
On the Atlasia Revitilisation Committee, I am willing to withdraw the resolution should the current reform package pass (which I presume would render the committee redundant) or should the committee disband before the resolution reaches the floor.

You make fair points Dave, but should neither or the aforesaid events happen, I would like to see a progress report of the committee for it's first three months. Trouble was taken to set the thing up, to find members and so forth. It would be nice to see some fruits of the labour, or at least some level of accountability.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Democrat on December 21, 2006, 07:52:49 PM
How many days are left in the session?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on December 21, 2006, 09:46:29 PM
How many days are left in the session?
14 days, 14 hours, and 14 minutes until noon Friday January 4.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on January 05, 2007, 04:20:19 AM

Comprehensive Free Trade Bill

1. No tariffs, customs, or restrictions on movement of goods, except those that have been outlawed by the destination or interim nation, shall exist between the Republic of Atlasia and the following countries: Singapore, Morocco, Bahrain, Thailand, Oman, India, Malaysia, and Jordan.
2. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this bill.
3. The following legislation is repealed: Atlasian-Singapore Free Trade Act, Atlasian-Morocco Free Trade Act, Atlasian-Bahrain Free Trade Act, Atlasia-Thailand Free Trade Act, Atlasia-Oman Free Trade Act, Atlasia-India Free Trade Act, Atlasia-Malaysia Free Trade Act, and Atlasia-Jordan Free Trade Act.


I was kind of expecting this. Still, if you desire unconditional free trade with countries where political conditions are not up to scratch and where basic human rights are either widely abused or tenuous, at best, then so be it. Just because I take a moral approach to free trade with such nations, I can hardly expect you to

Progressives like yourself should be firmly aligned to the Hawk Doctrine, which views free trade as a means of encouraging such progressive values as liberal democracy, freedom and civil rights

'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Speed of Sound on January 05, 2007, 06:41:10 AM

Comprehensive Free Trade Bill

1. No tariffs, customs, or restrictions on movement of goods, except those that have been outlawed by the destination or interim nation, shall exist between the Republic of Atlasia and the following countries: Singapore, Morocco, Bahrain, Thailand, Oman, India, Malaysia, and Jordan.
2. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this bill.
3. The following legislation is repealed: Atlasian-Singapore Free Trade Act, Atlasian-Morocco Free Trade Act, Atlasian-Bahrain Free Trade Act, Atlasia-Thailand Free Trade Act, Atlasia-Oman Free Trade Act, Atlasia-India Free Trade Act, Atlasia-Malaysia Free Trade Act, and Atlasia-Jordan Free Trade Act.


I was kind of expecting this. Still, if you desire unconditional free trade with countries where political conditions are not up to scratch and where basic human rights are either widely abused or tenuous, at best, then so be it. Just because I take a moral approach to free trade with such nations, I can hardly expect you to

Progressives like yourself should be firmly aligned to the Hawk Doctrine, which views free trade as a means of encouraging such progressive values as liberal democracy, freedom and civil rights

'Hawk'

I support the view of senator Hawk. From an SOEA's point of view, this bill is simply miserable. As my ideologiocal points wont make a difference, Ill simply go with the SOEA ones.

1.This is a reputation killer, through and through.By passing this, we are saying to all of our civil friends across the globe, "We do not wish to be a part of your class. We before moralless Third Worldism in the name of cheap funds." I dont think I need to spell out the kind of diplomatic power I would lose over this.

2.Due to 1, this will lessen our odds of landing major contracts with the nations that already are unsure if us. Many left leaning South American countries may quite trade all togather, with some of the even more powerful coming later with towering tarrifs or worse.

3. Due to 2, we'll probably end up losing all we gain, meaning there will be no economic profit for major moral loss.


Sounds like a flawed equation in the eyes of the SOEA. I urge all senators to send this bill right back from where it came: The trashbin.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on January 05, 2007, 08:03:38 AM
May I just say a word of thanks to Dave Hawk for all his work as PPT. I, and I'm sure my Senate colleagues from the 14th and 15th Senates, appreciate the considerable efforts you made in that role. Well done and best of luck with the future. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Democratic Hawk on January 05, 2007, 01:00:01 PM
May I just say a word of thanks to Dave Hawk for all his work as PPT. I, and I'm sure my Senate colleagues from the 14th and 15th Senates, appreciate the considerable efforts you made in that role. Well done and best of luck with the future. :)

May I thank the Senator for his kind words :). As for the future, lets just say I'm looking forward to a quiet life for a while ;)

Dave 'Hawk'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on January 05, 2007, 04:35:35 PM
Sounds like a flawed equation in the eyes of the SOEA.

That's only because you are ideologically opposed to it.  On the contrary of what you claim, Atlasia continuously gets flack from the international community for putting various pet interests above free trade.  Countries do not appreciate being given conditional free trade agreements that come with a threat to be reconsidered at any time.  This will alleviate that diplomatic nightmare and make your job easier because countries won't be asking you anymore why the Philippines didn't get the Hawk Treatment while Bahrain did.

We may discuss this more on the floor.  For now, I'm only disappointed that of all the bills that could have generated some sort of controversy, it had to be this one.  Abolishing Christmas is about fifty times more interesting than free trade.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Speed of Sound on January 05, 2007, 07:45:23 PM
Sounds like a flawed equation in the eyes of the SOEA.

That's only because you are ideologically opposed to it.  On the contrary of what you claim, Atlasia continuously gets flack from the international community for putting various pet interests above free trade.  Countries do not appreciate being given conditional free trade agreements that come with a threat to be reconsidered at any time.  This will alleviate that diplomatic nightmare and make your job easier because countries won't be asking you anymore why the Philippines didn't get the Hawk Treatment while Bahrain did.

We may discuss this more on the floor.  For now, I'm only disappointed that of all the bills that could have generated some sort of controversy, it had to be this one.  Abolishing Christmas is about fifty times more interesting than free trade.
Thats a great rebuttal of none points.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on February 13, 2007, 05:47:21 AM
Does anyone know where Porce is?
He hasn't logged on since the 10th and I haven't come across any post of his indicating an intended absence.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Colin on February 13, 2007, 11:44:53 AM
Does anyone know where Porce is?
He hasn't logged on since the 10th and I haven't come across any post of his indicating an intended absence.

He was having some trouble with his parents, at least that was what he told me around the time he left, so that might have something to do with it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Democrat on February 13, 2007, 03:11:08 PM
Maybe we can get Afleitch to fill in.  I'll PM him.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on February 13, 2007, 04:51:29 PM
Speak of the Devil.  He's back. ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on February 14, 2007, 05:36:08 AM
Glad to see you're back Porce. :)
Hope things are well.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on February 14, 2007, 07:55:49 PM
Thanks for the concern.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on February 16, 2007, 05:05:27 PM
Noting that the President seems to be ignoring all of our legislation save for his Third Constitution, I feel somewhat warranted in suspecting political motivation for his selective inactivity.  The vacancy in the Attorney General office, which has not even been addressed by the President, is also worrying.

I also think it is appropriate at this point in time to take action against inactive Senators who are also slowing down Senate business.  Expulsion motions will need the signature of three Senators (due to the current vacancy in the Pacific) to proceed.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Brandon H on February 16, 2007, 06:11:04 PM
Porce,
While I disagree with many of your positions, with the exception of a few days  recently which Colin explained was beyond your control, you have kept the Senate running smoothly while the President and Vice-President have hardly been seen.

Besides Senators I was wondering if whether the President or Vice-President could be considered inactive. However, based on the 14th and 15th Amendment, besides 2/3 of the Senate, the President or Vice-President is required to declare the other inactive.

On the other hand, elections are taking place this weekend and in two weeks the new officers will take over so I am not sure if it is worth pursuing.

Since the AG is vacant, do you want me to add those bills that have passed to the wiki?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on February 16, 2007, 06:54:49 PM
Updating the wiki would be a great help, if you are able to do it.

I certainly think it would be fair to deem both the President and the VP inactive especially as they have been online in other parts of the forum.  The President, in particular, pays generous attention to his own proposal, while leaving other legislation to rot.  I don't believe I have to send a PM to the President when there is legislation for him to consider, because this has not been a problem in the past.

We appear to be stuck in procedural gridlock because to declare either of them inactive, we need six senators, which would prove difficult to obtain.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on February 17, 2007, 11:54:44 AM
Can someone point me towards Everett's resignation?

On the point of inactivity, I am surprised by the relative absence of the President - but given the very limited amount of time left for his term, I doubt that moving to have him removed on that basis is worthwhile.

As to the VP, to my knowledge his presence hasn't really been required, so I won't join a motion to remove him at this time.

I am more concerned about the absence (or at least lack of any sign of active engagement with the Senate) of Senators, and could support expulsion on those grounds should a sufficient case be presented.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Colin on February 17, 2007, 12:08:27 PM
Can someone point me towards Everett's resignation?

Yes, please, I never saw this posted anywhere on either boards.

Quote
On the point of inactivity, I am surprised by the relative absence of the President - but given the very limited amount of time left for his term, I doubt that moving to have him removed on that basis is worthwhile.

I would have to agree as well. While his lack of presence is concerning the limited amount of time left in his term basically makes this a moot point. It probably also would have been a better idea to try and contact the President via PM to remind him of his duties and to tell him to sign or veto the pending legislation instead of coming directly to the Senate and calling for him to be expelled. 

Quote
As to the VP, to my knowledge his presence hasn't really been required, so I won't join a motion to remove him at this time.

The only time when he was needed was during Porce's short absence, for whatever reasons I was just giving my opinion of what it could be in the above posts, but beyond that he has no real job in these proceedings.

Quote
I am more concerned about the absence (or at least lack of any sign of active engagement with the Senate) of Senators, and could support expulsion on those grounds should a sufficient case be presented.

Yes absolutely. Senators like Gully Folly and DWPerry especially have been very inactive in the proceedings of this legislature and that is something that I cannot stand for.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on February 18, 2007, 01:39:21 AM
Can someone point me towards Everett's resignation?

Everett frequently deletes her threads for unclear reasons.  After posting her now-deleted resignation thread on Feb. 10 (shortly after 3am PST, which is also around her last vote in the Senate), she removed 'Senator' from her username and has stopped casting votes here.  This may leave with us with a problem, though I'm content to overlook it given that she's a.) cruising to re-election, b.) not voting now and c.) her replacement is ideologically similar.

BTW, I think it would be safe to begin assuming that two Senators (Clay and Gully Foyle) are on extended absence, bringing the quorum to eight.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on February 19, 2007, 08:06:24 AM
Can someone point me towards Everett's resignation?

Everett frequently deletes her threads for unclear reasons.  After posting her now-deleted resignation thread on Feb. 10 (shortly after 3am PST, which is also around her last vote in the Senate), she removed 'Senator' from her username and has stopped casting votes here.  This may leave with us with a problem, though I'm content to overlook it given that she's a.) cruising to re-election, b.) not voting now and c.) her replacement is ideologically similar.

OK, well so long as there is no doubt that such a resignation post was made, that it was witnessed by Atlasians such as yourself, and has not been withdrawn, then I'm happy to accept it's validity.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Brandon H on February 19, 2007, 12:13:16 PM
Jas introduced the following:
OSPR Amendment (Absent Senators) Resolution
That the following be added to the OSPR as 'Article 10: Absent Senators':

1. Where a Senator fails or neglects to post on any matter of Senate business for a period of not less than 14 days, said Senator shall be considered 'absent'.
2. At any time after the Senator is deemed 'absent', any Senator may motion in the Legislation Introduction Thread to call a vote to expel the absent Senator.
3. The PPT shall prioritise the motion, which shall then be dealt with as ordinary legislation.
4. This article shall not apply where Senators make a declaration to the effect that they shall be absent from the Senate for a time, which may or may not be explicitly stated.



OSPR Amendment (Absence of PPT) Resolution
That in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1b of the OSPR, the terms "seven (7)" be amended to read "three (3)".

Can we add something in here that would also include the Vice-President being absent as well?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on February 19, 2007, 12:20:54 PM
Can we add something in here that would also include the Vice-President being absent as well?

The 14th Amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Second_Constitution) allows for a declaration of vacancy of the office of the Vice President.

But I'm not sure if that's what you're getting at. 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Brandon H on February 19, 2007, 12:45:42 PM
The Vice-President is the President of the Senate. If the VP is absent for a certain amount of time, could we declare the PPT as the President of the Senate. Not necessarily declaring him inactive altogether, but just inactive as President of the Senate.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on February 19, 2007, 01:24:33 PM
The Vice-President is the President of the Senate.
Yep.

If the VP is absent for a certain amount of time, could we declare the PPT as the President of the Senate.
I don't know. According to the Constitution (Art 1, s1) in the absence of the VP, the PPT becomes President of the Senate. Absence is undefined in the document.

Not necessarily declaring him inactive altogether, but just inactive as President of the Senate.
I don't know if this is doable or not.
Why would you want to declare him inactive as one, but not the other anyway?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Gabu on February 19, 2007, 01:31:00 PM
I don't know. According to the Constitution (Art 1, s1) in the absence of the VP, the PPT becomes President of the Senate. Absence is undefined in the document.

Although, right now, the PPT, when elected, is pretty much the de facto president of the Senate right now, and it's the VP who acts in the PPT's absence, rather than the other way around.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on February 19, 2007, 01:59:19 PM
I don't know. According to the Constitution (Art 1, s1) in the absence of the VP, the PPT becomes President of the Senate. Absence is undefined in the document.

Although, right now, the PPT, when elected, is pretty much the de facto president of the Senate right now, and it's the VP who acts in the PPT's absence, rather than the other way around.

True, just about the only independent function of the VP as President of the Senate retained is tie-breaking.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on February 19, 2007, 02:31:39 PM
BTW, I think it would be safe to begin assuming that two Senators (Clay and Gully Foyle) are on extended absence, bringing the quorum to eight.

The situation is quite odd, I've never seen before where Senators effectively ignore the Senate but continue to particpate in forum generally (including voting in the election).

I've introduced a resolution to create a procedure whereby absences such as this lead to reduction in the quorum after 14 days.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on February 20, 2007, 03:38:03 PM

Okay, if the Senate unanimously passes this as it has done in the past, I think I just might prepare a pop quiz on what it actually does, because I'm almost 100% sure that no one is going to read any of this. :P

Sen. Ernest's last immigration reform bill failed 3-6.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on March 05, 2007, 12:53:38 PM
I would urge the Vice President to take up his duties as President of the Senate under Articles 8 (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Current_Senate_Rules%2C_Regulations%2C_and_Procedures#Article_8:_Rules_on_PPT_Elections) & 9 (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Current_Senate_Rules%2C_Regulations%2C_and_Procedures#Article_9:_Transitionary_Arrangements) of the OSPR. If no such action is taken by Wednesday, I'll invoke Article 2, section 3 of the OSPR (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Current_Senate_Rules%2C_Regulations%2C_and_Procedures#Section_3:_Absence_or_Vacancy_of_both_the_President_of_the_Senate_and_the_President_Pro-Tempore).

I would also encourage the President to put forward his cabinet nominees with particular regard to the need for a SoFA to undertake a census per the terms of F.L. 4-4 (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Miscellany_Act).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Brandon H on March 08, 2007, 10:26:02 AM
With the close of debate and voting on the Third Constitution, I request that my Amendment creating a House of Representatives be moved into the slot that is reserved for legislation related to Forum Affairs.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on March 25, 2007, 08:54:30 AM
Has anyone been in contact with Porce?

He hasn't posted in the Senate since the 22nd, but did post a couple of things in the general forum yesterday. Does anyone know what's up?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on March 26, 2007, 08:52:59 AM
Has anyone been in contact with Porce?

He hasn't posted in the Senate since the 22nd, but did post a couple of things in the general forum yesterday. Does anyone know what's up?

Porce's absence is now such that I consider that Article 2, section 2, clause 1 (c) (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Current_Senate_Rules%2C_Regulations%2C_and_Procedures#Section_2:_Powers_of_the_President_of_the_Senate) may apply.

This states:
The President of the Senate, in addition to his powers so stated in the Constitution, shall retain the powers and prerogatives as the Presiding Officer of the Senate under the following circumstances:
(c) In any case where the PPT has failed to uphold the provisions of this Procedural Resolution when it is in his power to do so individually.


There are a number of threads wherein the legislative process needs to be moved forward.

I would therefore ask the current President of the Senate, Vice President Yates, to take over the chairing of Senate business.



I would also encourage hearing the opinions of Senators as to at what point Article 2, section 3, clause 1 (iii) (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Current_Senate_Rules%2C_Regulations%2C_and_Procedures#Section_3:_Absence_or_Vacancy_of_both_the_President_of_the_Senate_and_the_President_Pro-Tempore) would begin to apply.

It states:
If, both of these office holders [PPT & President of the Senate] have been inactive for five or more days or have declared absences,
then the Dean of the Senate shall be the Presiding Officer of the Senate, possessing all of the powers and prerogatives of the PPT.


On the 22nd, a bill (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=54093.0#msg1154387) was presented for the VP to decide upon. No action has been taken by him since that time.

The 22nd was also the day when the PPT last acted.

I would thus read the above section of the OSPR to apply from tomorrow (the 27th). If the PPT or President of the Senate do not resume their duties and if my Senate colleagues do not object, I, as Dean of the Senate, will seek to move business along.

Given the nature of these matters, I would encourage my fellow Senators to make their views on these matters known here.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on March 27, 2007, 11:54:21 AM
I would ask the PPT to open the forum affairs legislative debate spot for the
OSPR Amendment (Absence of PPT) Resolution (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.msg1129773#msg1129773).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on April 04, 2007, 11:00:59 AM
On the understanding that there are currently 3 pieces of legislation on the Senate floor, I would ask the PPT to fully utilise the slots available under Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 of the OSPR (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Current_Senate_Rules%2C_Regulations%2C_and_Procedures#Section_2:_Rules_on_Introducing_Legislation_to_the_Senate_Floor) and bring the next available three pieces of legislation onto the floor for consideration.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on April 12, 2007, 03:02:13 PM
When will my bill come out?  Will it be in the next senate?  Can I get it to be tabled until then as I do not believe I have the votes to pass it now.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on April 12, 2007, 04:03:27 PM
Nobody can give you an accurate answer to that questioin in terms of what date your bill will appear. By my count it's currently 11th in the list and could also be overtaken by subsequent legislation re: forum affairs; constitutional amendments; or emergency matters. (Though it's also possible that one or two of a particular Senator's bills could be quickly removed due to frivolity.)

It certainly won't be in this one (unless the PPT and VP decide for some reason that it's of such importance as to warrant consideration immediately).

Can I get it to be tabled until then as I do not believe I have the votes to pass it now.
I've never seen such a procedure used before here. Not that it matters as this Senate won't deal with it anyway.

As to the make up of the Senate, I'm not sure whether it would be worth postponing (even if that were possible). The Senators from District 1 and District 5 are almost certain to be returned.

It seems to me that in District 4, Brandon H has a significant advantage over Lewis (particularly in the Southern states which dominate the district) and should get re-elected.

District 3 isn't easy to call (PBrunsel v Wildcard) but both being of the centre-right would represent a shift from Lewis's position on the left.

District 2 also not an easy call. There's a core conservative vote of 4/5, but a solid latent leftist vote which may or may not turnout and even then may not be enthused by your opponent. A reasonable effort by someone to attract that vote would probably pay dividends.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on April 12, 2007, 04:09:10 PM
I have decided to remove the Anti-Emo Bill and the Prohibition of My Chemical Romance Bill from the Senate queue for being frivolous and direct violations of the constitutional protection of free speech.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: TomC on April 13, 2007, 12:26:28 AM
I have decided to remove the Anti-Emo Bill and the Prohibition of My Chemical Romance Bill from the Senate queue for being frivolous and direct violations of the constitutional protection of free speech.

Thanks- good move.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on April 13, 2007, 12:12:01 PM
I have decided to remove the Anti-Emo Bill and the Prohibition of My Chemical Romance Bill from the Senate queue for being frivolous and direct violations of the constitutional protection of free speech.

Thanks- good move.
^^^^^
Agreed. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on April 13, 2007, 01:19:41 PM
The Death with Dignity Bill is also frivolous to reintroduce until the next senate considering a bill saying almost the same exact thing was just defeated


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on April 13, 2007, 03:12:59 PM
The Death with Dignity Bill is also frivolous to reintroduce until the next senate considering a bill saying almost the same exact thing was just defeated

The Right to Die Bill would have legalized euthanasia; the Death with Dignity Bill would legalize physician assisted suicide.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on April 16, 2007, 04:38:53 PM
Attn Senators, Don't post comments in the Legislation Introduction Thread.

I'm removing the Cabinet Member Election Bill for being unconstitutional.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on April 16, 2007, 04:51:03 PM
Attn Senators, Don't post comments in the Legislation Introduction Thread.

I'm removing the Cabinet Member Election Bill for being unconstitutional.

I'm just not good with that stuff, is there a way this idea can be implemented constitutionally?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: minionofmidas on April 17, 2007, 04:48:55 AM
Attn Senators, Don't post comments in the Legislation Introduction Thread.

I'm removing the Cabinet Member Election Bill for being unconstitutional.

I'm just not good with that stuff, is there a way this idea can be implemented constitutionally?
Yes, by introducing it as a Constitutional Amendment.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on April 17, 2007, 01:22:46 PM
Would it be possible at a later time to strip illegals of their citizenship?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on April 17, 2007, 05:42:25 PM
Would it be possible at a later time to strip illegals of their citizenship?

Why would you want to do that?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Democrat on April 22, 2007, 01:36:34 PM
Can someone introduce a bill switching Atlasia to the metric system?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on April 22, 2007, 01:39:28 PM
Can someone introduce a bill switching Atlasia to the metric system?

No


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on April 22, 2007, 04:13:27 PM
These bills should be moved along quicker.  For example, Opebo Day, something we are almost all against has clogged us up for 12 days.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: minionofmidas on April 23, 2007, 04:10:08 AM
These bills should be moved along quicker.  For example, Opebo Day, something we are almost all against has clogged us up for 12 days.
If it wasn't for the silly tabling motion, it would have been defeated by now.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on April 23, 2007, 10:43:12 AM
These bills should be moved along quicker.  For example, Opebo Day, something we are almost all against has clogged us up for 12 days.
If it wasn't for the silly tabling motion, it would have been defeated by now.
^^^^


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on May 06, 2007, 04:24:35 AM
Enforcement of Half Plus Seven Rule Bill

1. No marriages after the effect of this bill shall be recognized in which one party to marriage's age is less than half the age of the other party plus seven years.
2. All current marriages covered by the law will remain valid, but upon divorce or death of one of the parties, the parties will be subject to the law as anyone else.

I don't see why this is necessary?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on May 06, 2007, 07:18:08 AM
Enforcement of Half Plus Seven Rule Bill

1. No marriages after the effect of this bill shall be recognized in which one party to marriage's age is less than half the age of the other party plus seven years.
2. All current marriages covered by the law will remain valid, but upon divorce or death of one of the parties, the parties will be subject to the law as anyone else.

I don't see why this is necessary?

It borderlines on frivolous but I ask that when it comes up it be brought to an immediate vote to put shut down.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on May 06, 2007, 08:30:33 AM
Enforcement of Half Plus Seven Rule Bill

1. No marriages after the effect of this bill shall be recognized in which one party to marriage's age is less than half the age of the other party plus seven years.
2. All current marriages covered by the law will remain valid, but upon divorce or death of one of the parties, the parties will be subject to the law as anyone else.

I don't see why this is necessary?

It borderlines on frivolous but I ask that when it comes up it be brought to an immediate vote to put shut down.

It infringes on the right of consenting adults.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Colin on May 06, 2007, 11:57:31 AM
Enforcement of Half Plus Seven Rule Bill

1. No marriages after the effect of this bill shall be recognized in which one party to marriage's age is less than half the age of the other party plus seven years.
2. All current marriages covered by the law will remain valid, but upon divorce or death of one of the parties, the parties will be subject to the law as anyone else.

I don't see why this is necessary?

It borderlines on frivolous but I ask that when it comes up it be brought to an immediate vote to put shut down.

It infringes on the right of consenting adults.

Well of course it does.

I would like the PPT to strike this as frivolous as it is in no way within the stated powers of the Senate nor is it a serious or respectful bill for the Senate to vote and debate on.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bono on May 06, 2007, 03:37:52 PM
Enforcement of Half Plus Seven Rule Bill

1. No marriages after the effect of this bill shall be recognized in which one party to marriage's age is less than half the age of the other party plus seven years.
2. All current marriages covered by the law will remain valid, but upon divorce or death of one of the parties, the parties will be subject to the law as anyone else.

I don't see why this is necessary?

It borderlines on frivolous but I ask that when it comes up it be brought to an immediate vote to put shut down.
It's as frivolous as your machine gun bill.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 06, 2007, 06:08:27 PM
I would like the PPT to strike this as frivolous as it is in no way within the stated powers of the Senate nor is it a serious or respectful bill for the Senate to vote and debate on.

Actually, this bill falls squarely within the powers of the Atlasian Senate.

Quote from: Article I Section 5 Clause 5
To establish uniform rules of Naturalization and Alienation, Marriage and Divorce, and Adoption and Emancipation of Minors throughout the Republic of Atlasia.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on May 06, 2007, 06:10:04 PM
The Half Plus Seven Rule Bill is indeed an infriction on the rights of consenting adults, and should be stricken from the board.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Colin on May 06, 2007, 07:00:32 PM
I would like the PPT to strike this as frivolous as it is in no way within the stated powers of the Senate nor is it a serious or respectful bill for the Senate to vote and debate on.

Actually, this bill falls squarely within the powers of the Atlasian Senate.

Quote from: Article I Section 5 Clause 5
To establish uniform rules of Naturalization and Alienation, Marriage and Divorce, and Adoption and Emancipation of Minors throughout the Republic of Atlasia.

I stand corrected, this is, oddly, constitutional since the Constitutional Convention added that portion in their to stop regions from having different marriage policies. I still stand by my statement that this bill is entirely frivolous.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: minionofmidas on May 07, 2007, 03:38:41 AM
The Half Plus Seven Rule Bill is indeed an infriction on the rights of consenting adults, and should be stricken from the board.
No, it should be voted down speedily.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on June 03, 2007, 01:18:40 PM
I have to say the "Legalization of Prostitution Bill" will most likely pass now as I have changed my mind to be in favor of it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Colin on June 03, 2007, 03:18:28 PM
Friendly Amendments Senate Procedural Resolution
1. Insert new clause 2 into Article 4, Section 3 of the OSPR with following text:

During this debate time the main sponsor of the legislation may motion to accept the proposed Amendment as a Friendly Amendment. The PPT shall then allow 24 hours for any other Senator to object to accepting the Amendment as a Friendly Amendment. If no other Senator objects then the Amendment shall be ajudged to have been unanimously passed by the Senate and will be automatically incorporated into the Bill. If a Senator objects to accepting the Amendment in this fashion then it shall be voted upon as specified in the rest of this Section.

2. Subsequent clauses in Section are re-numbered to retain consistency.

I suggest this already and most thought it was a bad idea

I brough this forward at the request of a constituent. Personally I find it a sound and reasonble amendment to the OSPR that would cut down on voting for minor changes within bills.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on June 03, 2007, 03:20:08 PM
Friendly Amendments Senate Procedural Resolution
1. Insert new clause 2 into Article 4, Section 3 of the OSPR with following text:

During this debate time the main sponsor of the legislation may motion to accept the proposed Amendment as a Friendly Amendment. The PPT shall then allow 24 hours for any other Senator to object to accepting the Amendment as a Friendly Amendment. If no other Senator objects then the Amendment shall be ajudged to have been unanimously passed by the Senate and will be automatically incorporated into the Bill. If a Senator objects to accepting the Amendment in this fashion then it shall be voted upon as specified in the rest of this Section.

2. Subsequent clauses in Section are re-numbered to retain consistency.

I suggest this already and most thought it was a bad idea

I brough this forward at the request of a constituent. Personally I find it a sound and reasonble amendment to the OSPR that would cut down on voting for minor changes within bills.

I know, I agree I'm simply saying it was met with lukewarm response.  And I think I am going to stop introducing legislation for constituents because it hasn't gone well so far.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on June 09, 2007, 11:21:14 AM
Oh yeah, my bills are criticized but the next two bills are one that failed already and an unconstitutional one


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on June 09, 2007, 11:31:16 AM
Oh yeah, my bills are criticized but the next two bills are one that failed already and an unconstitutional one

*sigh*

The Half Plus Seven Enforcement crap isn't unconstitutional... just unnecessary and retarded.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MAS117 on June 12, 2007, 04:12:40 PM
Not this crap again with the islands becoming states. VOTE THIS DOWN!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on June 12, 2007, 05:50:21 PM

Repeal of November-December Act

Section 1:
1.) The November-December Act is hereby repealed


The November-December Act was a bit of needed expediency to legally delay an election by a week that was in danger of being derailed by the lack of a districting plan.  It only applies to November 31, 2006 and the calendar will be normal for 2007 and succeeding years.   Basically it created a polite legal fiction that enable the government to continue functioning with causing a full blown constitutional crisis.  It should be kept, if no other reason than to beat the Governors about the head with the next time they fail to get a redistricting plan adopted in a timely fashion.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on June 12, 2007, 05:53:53 PM

Repeal of November-December Act

Section 1:
1.) The November-December Act is hereby repealed


The November-December Act was a bit of needed expediency to legally delay an election by a week that was in danger of being derailed by the lack of a districting plan.  It only applies to November 31, 2006 and the calendar will be normal for 2007 and succeeding years.   Basically it created a polite legal fiction that enable the government to continue functioning with causing a full blown constitutional crisis.  It should be kept, if no other reason than to beat the Governors about the head with the next time they fail to get a redistricting plan adopted in a timely fashion.

My apoligizes, consider the bill withdrawn


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on June 12, 2007, 05:58:34 PM
Not this crap again with the islands becoming states. VOTE THIS DOWN!

Nobody really cares what you think MAS. This is a lot more reasonable then recognizing Sealand as a country. Now that was absolute crap. ::)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Brandon H on June 12, 2007, 06:55:00 PM
I'm going to introduce a few bills, feel free to comment on them senators:

DWTL,
I would recommend posting your proposed bills in your office thread and asking for feedback before introducing them.

I think the Alcohol bill is something that should be handled at the regional level.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on June 12, 2007, 06:57:21 PM
I'm going to introduce a few bills, feel free to comment on them senators:

DWTL,
I would recommend posting your proposed bills in your office thread and asking for feedback before introducing them.

I think the Alcohol bill is something that should be handled at the regional level.

Good suggestion Brandon and I will do that in future.  The alcohol is an issue that should be handled at the regional level, but I feel it is also important to deal with it at the national level as well.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MAS117 on June 13, 2007, 12:40:42 AM
Not this crap again with the islands becoming states. VOTE THIS DOWN!

Nobody really cares what you think MAS. This is a lot more reasonable then recognizing Sealand as a country. Now that was absolute crap. ::)
Haha, LONG LIVE SEALAND! I introduced that as a joke I I never even asked it to be really it to be really considered. This crap on the other hand is getting really considered. The Northern Mariana Islands shouldnt be a state!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on June 13, 2007, 07:13:44 AM
Not this crap again with the islands becoming states. VOTE THIS DOWN!

Nobody really cares what you think MAS. This is a lot more reasonable then recognizing Sealand as a country. Now that was absolute crap. ::)
Haha, LONG LIVE SEALAND! I introduced that as a joke I I never even asked it to be really it to be really considered. This crap on the other hand is getting really considered. The Northern Mariana Islands shouldnt be a state!

You were pretty serious about it at the time so I doubt it was a joke. All the islands together should be, there's no good reason for them not to be.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on June 13, 2007, 07:15:29 AM
All the islands together should be, there's no good reason for them not to be.

It's impractical from a forum affairs point of view.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on June 13, 2007, 07:17:51 AM
All the islands together should be, there's no good reason for them not to be.

It's impractical from a forum affairs point of view.

Keeping track of people who are there really doesn't matter, it's not like it would be different than any other state. And as for redistricting you don't really need to have it in a map (though you could if you wanted to make it), you could just say what district the state is in and put it under the map in plain text.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on June 16, 2007, 07:27:23 AM
I cannot wait to vote for Porce's Palestine Bill, finally someone sees things right


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Hash on June 19, 2007, 08:47:00 AM
I am strongly disapprove of the Senate passing, and Afleitch approving of the Prostitution Legalization Bill.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on June 19, 2007, 09:05:49 AM
I am strongly disapprove of the Senate passing, and Afleitch approving of the Prostitution Legalization Bill.

Wasn't that simply allowing the government some means of control over what was already prevalent in the black neighborhoods of DC?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on June 19, 2007, 03:44:14 PM
I am strongly disapprove of the Senate passing, and Afleitch approving of the Prostitution Legalization Bill.


That is my opinion.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Hash on June 20, 2007, 01:06:31 AM
I am strongly disapprove of the Senate passing, and Afleitch approving of the Prostitution Legalization Bill.


That is my opinion.


I just lost the little respect I had for "libertarians"


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Emsworth on June 20, 2007, 10:50:09 AM
David Yates Death Act

1. For Atlasia purposes, the former VP, David Yates, has passed away from brain cancer
Perhaps you should also establish a Ministry of Truth.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on June 20, 2007, 10:51:24 AM
David Yates Death Act

1. For Atlasia purposes, the former VP, David Yates, has passed away from brain cancer
Perhaps you should also establish a Ministry of Truth.

I didn't actually introduce this yet


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on June 20, 2007, 03:44:14 PM
I wonder if the school funding bill is aimed at the Southeast


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Hash on June 21, 2007, 12:25:24 AM
David Yates Death Act

1. For Atlasia purposes, the former VP, David Yates, has passed away from brain cancer
Perhaps you should also establish a Ministry of Truth.

You need to pass a law saying that a person, that is also a liar and disgusting person, is dead?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bono on June 22, 2007, 11:06:09 AM
I wonder if the school funding bill is aimed at the Southeast

I wonder if the sky is blue...


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on June 22, 2007, 11:07:07 AM
I wonder if the school funding bill is aimed at the Southeast

I wonder if the sky is blue...

Right now it is, but I heard some clouds might roll in later this afternoon.  Hope your enjoying your sunny day! :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bacon King on June 24, 2007, 11:37:55 AM

Is it too difficult to spell-check legislation before proposing it?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on June 24, 2007, 08:15:50 PM

Yes :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on June 25, 2007, 07:54:40 PM
I am glad to see Senator Jas is proposing some things, but I wish he had proposed these earlier, when they could have been voted on in the last Senate.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Brandon H on June 25, 2007, 08:49:20 PM
The Introduction to Atlasia Act could be implemented without a bill passing the Senate, though in the form of a bill, the thing is more concrete and less flexible though than if the executive were to act on his own.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on June 25, 2007, 09:02:16 PM
The Introduction to Atlasia Act could be implemented without a bill passing the Senate, though in the form of a bill, the thing is more concrete and less flexible though than if the executive were to act on his own.

This is true, but legislatively mandating such a thread will hopefully ensure that it will continue beyond the lifetime of any particular executive in a standardised but hopefully up-to-date manner.

The Bill does also allow for flexibility for the SoFA to mention such matters relevant to law or the state of the forum as he may consider expedient. Also, the Senate shall of course be free to amend the statement as it sees fit by altering the passage, adding some additional material, or allowing for more defined fleixibility for SoFAs to work within.

Finally, it also provides a small incentive for parties to be somewhat organised. Major parties will have the benefit of advertisement to newbies, increasing their awareness and possibly leading to increased memberships.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on June 25, 2007, 09:21:47 PM
FWIW, here are my opening thoughts on the proposed legislation:

1st Bill - Will support in present form
2nd Bill - Undecided (e.g. I really see no reason for clause b and the rest I am unsure about)
3rd Bill - Will oppose in any form
4th Bill - Will oppose in present form, but I could certainly support with some modifications
5th Bill - Undecided (very undecided actually)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on June 25, 2007, 09:32:44 PM
FWIW, here are my opening thoughts on the proposed legislation:

1st Bill - Will support in present form
:)

2nd Bill - Undecided (e.g. I really see no reason for clause b and the rest I am unsure about)

(a), (b) and (c) I figured were the 3 most logical options which should be open to the sponsor: motion to accept the redraft completely; reject the redraft completely; or allow the Senate to consider the bill in it's redrafted form. I don't really understand why (b) in particular would be unworthy. Please explain further so that I can understand your position more fully with a view to a possible pre-emptive amendment before it hits the floor.

3rd Bill - Will oppose in any form

4th Bill - Will oppose in present form, but I could certainly support with some modifications

What modifications would you suggest and why?

5th Bill - Undecided (very undecided actually)

Would you care to elucidate?

I don't mean to effectively open debate on these matters now, however when they do reach the Senate floor, I would hope that their progress be as smooth as possible. I respect your work on forum affairs matters and so I would be particularly keen to hear your grievances/concerns.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on June 25, 2007, 10:19:40 PM
2nd Bill - (a), (b) and (c) I figured were the 3 most logical options which should be open to the sponsor: motion to accept the redraft completely; reject the redraft completely; or allow the Senate to consider the bill in it's redrafted form. I don't really understand why (b) in particular would be unworthy. Please explain further so that I can understand your position more fully with a view to a possible pre-emptive amendment before it hits the floor.

Here is what I have in mind:

1. If the President vetoes and proposes a "redraft", the sponsor may choose to 1) file an "approve the redraft" motion or 2) withdraw the legislation.

2. If the sponsor wishes to file an "approve the redraft" motion and the motion is approved, then the redrafted bill will be returned to the Prez.

3. If the Senate rejects the "approve the redraft" motion, the sponsor may file a second motion:  Whether to 1) send the original legislation back to the Prez or 2) resume debate on the original legislation, not the "redraft".  (which can be proposed as an amendment, if someone cares to).  If the sponsor at this time wishes to withdraw the legislation, he may.

It would need to be reworded, but this could essentially be amended by adding a little language to the Constitution allowing the President to "redraft" any legislation presented to him, which would then be sent back to the Senate for approval or rejection.

The rest could be dealt with in Senate rules.  :)  I would have to work out the language.  And I know this is more pro-Senate than otherwise.

Quote
4th Bill - What modifications would you suggest and why?

The big deal would be requiring a Senate sponsor for any popularly approved legislation.  Similar to what I used to do in the old days.  No Senate sponsor, no dice.

Quote
5th Bill - Would you care to elucidate?

I just really don't know whether the Prez should have to reappoint SC justices or not.  I can see positives and negatives.  A real undecided, frankly.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sensei on June 25, 2007, 10:54:54 PM
I agree to an extent with Senator Spade's problem with the 5th bill. I think Justices should be elected officials, honestly. But that isn't feasible, since it may give us inept officials with little constitutional acumen, so I think the bill should limit the amount of terms a justice can serve.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on June 26, 2007, 05:53:35 PM
2nd Bill - (a), (b) and (c) I figured were the 3 most logical options which should be open to the sponsor: motion to accept the redraft completely; reject the redraft completely; or allow the Senate to consider the bill in it's redrafted form. I don't really understand why (b) in particular would be unworthy. Please explain further so that I can understand your position more fully with a view to a possible pre-emptive amendment before it hits the floor.

Here is what I have in mind:

1. If the President vetoes and proposes a "redraft", the sponsor may choose to 1) file an "approve the redraft" motion or 2) withdraw the legislation.

2. If the sponsor wishes to file an "approve the redraft" motion and the motion is approved, then the redrafted bill will be returned to the Prez.

3. If the Senate rejects the "approve the redraft" motion, the sponsor may file a second motion:  Whether to 1) send the original legislation back to the Prez or 2) resume debate on the original legislation, not the "redraft".  (which can be proposed as an amendment, if someone cares to).  If the sponsor at this time wishes to withdraw the legislation, he may.

It would need to be reworded, but this could essentially be amended by adding a little language to the Constitution allowing the President to "redraft" any legislation presented to him, which would then be sent back to the Senate for approval or rejection.

The rest could be dealt with in Senate rules.  :)  I would have to work out the language.  And I know this is more pro-Senate than otherwise.

I don't really understand why the sponsor should be limited in his choices in this way. Why not allow him the options to motion approval, disapproval or continue debate immediately?

Quote
4th Bill - What modifications would you suggest and why?

The big deal would be requiring a Senate sponsor for any popularly approved legislation.  Similar to what I used to do in the old days.  No Senate sponsor, no dice.

Why the hard line? (This coming from someone who feels that sponsorship isn't even necessarily a necessary or good idea generally.)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Gabu on June 26, 2007, 07:14:46 PM
Just a thought about this one:

People’s Referendum Amendment

...

When these requirements are met and verified by the Secretary of Forum Affairs, the Secretary shall organise a special referendum on the legislation on the next weekend falling no less than 4 days from the date on which he verified that the above requirements were met.

Isn't it possible for this to be literally impossible?  If the requirements are met on a Saturday, there is no next weekend falling no less the 4 days later.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on June 26, 2007, 07:41:21 PM
Just a thought about this one:

People’s Referendum Amendment

...

When these requirements are met and verified by the Secretary of Forum Affairs, the Secretary shall organise a special referendum on the legislation on the next weekend falling no less than 4 days from the date on which he verified that the above requirements were met.

Isn't it possible for this to be literally impossible?  If the requirements are met on a Saturday, there is no next weekend falling no less the 4 days later.

Ah, I've amended it now. I believe the changing of 'no' to 'not' rectifies that, but correct me if I'm wrong.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on June 26, 2007, 08:39:44 PM
2nd Bill - I don't really understand why the sponsor should be limited in his choices in this way. Why not allow him the options to motion approval, disapproval or continue debate immediately?

Because this way gives the Senate body much more power over the bill than the sponsor - if you don't like sponsors, that's the way to go.  However, it does assure that the sponsor has one important power - withdrawing the legislation whenever he wants (not during votes obviously), which acts as a balance towards weird Presidential rewrites that may have Senate support, but not sponsor support. 

In my OSPR rewrite, I intend to work out this section, b/c sponsors should really have two powers - withdrawing his sponsored legislation and adding sponsors and they should impact each other.  No more.

Moreover, it harmonizes a Presidential veto procedurally (the sponsor has to file a motion to override or withdraw the legislation there too).  And it actually simplifies the whole process and eliminates loopholes.  For example, if the sponsor were to file a motion to reject (b) under your proposal and the rest of the Senate wanted to approve the bill, we would be forced to go back to debate again and approve again with amendments.  Or if the Senate wanted to remove the bill back into debate and the sponsor filed a motion to approve the "redraft", the Senate would have no power to return to debate.

In my creation, the Senate either votes to accept the Prez's redraft or not.  Then if the Senate chooses not to, it can choose to either send the Prez the original bill or return to the debate floor.  The sponsor can withdraw the legislation if he wants to before a decision has been.

Another issue that I hadn't thought of before is whether the President should have multiple redrafts of legislation.  Just FYI.

And there is no assurance in my mind that I would support my proposal.  I'm just merely presenting an alternative that I might support for your perusal.  Clear?  :D

Quote
4th Bill - Why the hard line? (This coming from someone who feels that sponsorship isn't even necessarily a necessary or good idea generally.)

Three reasons:  1) Because of the power of withdrawal, which I believe any and all sponsors acting together should have; 2) Practically, we should all reserve rights to act as stewards of legislation and have the chance to get public acclaim for working with the Senate on popular-created legislation;  :P 3) Just because legislation receives 15% of voters does not mean that it is worthy of a spot in the Senate debate.  People are elected Senators for a reason - to have privilege over the laws that are created and the laws that are passed.  Even though DWTL's stuff is crap, it deserves preference b/c he was duly elected.

In other words, the door should be open to the people, but Senators should be allowed to close it whenever we think it is in our best interests.  Might be a little anti-democratic, but I don't believe in pure democracies.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on June 27, 2007, 12:00:45 PM
2nd Bill - I don't really understand why the sponsor should be limited in his choices in this way. Why not allow him the options to motion approval, disapproval or continue debate immediately?

Because this way gives the Senate body much more power over the bill than the sponsor - if you don't like sponsors, that's the way to go.  However, it does assure that the sponsor has one important power - withdrawing the legislation whenever he wants (not during votes obviously), which acts as a balance towards weird Presidential rewrites that may have Senate support, but not sponsor support. 

In my OSPR rewrite, I intend to work out this section, b/c sponsors should really have two powers - withdrawing his sponsored legislation and adding sponsors and they should impact each other.  No more.

Moreover, it harmonizes a Presidential veto procedurally (the sponsor has to file a motion to override or withdraw the legislation there too).  And it actually simplifies the whole process and eliminates loopholes.  For example, if the sponsor were to file a motion to reject (b) under your proposal and the rest of the Senate wanted to approve the bill, we would be forced to go back to debate again and approve again with amendments.  Or if the Senate wanted to remove the bill back into debate and the sponsor filed a motion to approve the "redraft", the Senate would have no power to return to debate.

In my creation, the Senate either votes to accept the Prez's redraft or not.  Then if the Senate chooses not to, it can choose to either send the Prez the original bill or return to the debate floor.  The sponsor can withdraw the legislation if he wants to before a decision has been.

Another issue that I hadn't thought of before is whether the President should have multiple redrafts of legislation.  Just FYI.

And there is no assurance in my mind that I would support my proposal.  I'm just merely presenting an alternative that I might support for your perusal.  Clear?  :D

I've made some changes to the proposal.
The first limits the President to one redraft per bill.
The second explicitly provides the sponsor with the option for withdrawal.
The third changes the resumed deabte option to that on the bill presented to the President originally.

I'm actually not sure that you'll approve at all, but then again you said you wouldn't necessarily approve a complete re-write to your suggestion anyway - so I'll stand by my position for another while :P (I still feel that your options are too limiting on the sponsor).
Either way, please do offer your thoughts.

You do raise a fair point in the example you raised, where the Senate would have no power to resume debate in those circumstances, but then the same applies where the sponsor withdraws the bill completely. I'll have to consider this further.

Quote
4th Bill - Why the hard line? (This coming from someone who feels that sponsorship isn't even necessarily a necessary or good idea generally.)

Three reasons:  1) Because of the power of withdrawal, which I believe any and all sponsors acting together should have; 2) Practically, we should all reserve rights to act as stewards of legislation and have the chance to get public acclaim for working with the Senate on popular-created legislation;  :P 3) Just because legislation receives 15% of voters does not mean that it is worthy of a spot in the Senate debate.  People are elected Senators for a reason - to have privilege over the laws that are created and the laws that are passed.  Even though DWTL's stuff is crap, it deserves preference b/c he was duly elected.

In other words, the door should be open to the people, but Senators should be allowed to close it whenever we think it is in our best interests.  Might be a little anti-democratic, but I don't believe in pure democracies.

Not unreasonable points. You suggested though that certain modifications could alleviate your concerns. Care to elaborate?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on June 27, 2007, 12:21:44 PM
Any thoughts on the Steroids Bill?  I think it is written clearly and fits within the boundaries of the constitution.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Gabu on June 27, 2007, 01:02:57 PM
Just a thought about this one:

People’s Referendum Amendment

...

When these requirements are met and verified by the Secretary of Forum Affairs, the Secretary shall organise a special referendum on the legislation on the next weekend falling no less than 4 days from the date on which he verified that the above requirements were met.

Isn't it possible for this to be literally impossible?  If the requirements are met on a Saturday, there is no next weekend falling no less the 4 days later.

Ah, I've amended it now. I believe the changing of 'no' to 'not' rectifies that, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Oh wait, yes, I was reading it wrong... I thought it was saying that it has to happen within four days, but I now see that it's saying that it has to happen at least four days later.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on June 27, 2007, 01:05:18 PM
Jas - To be frank, the only bill that I know right now I would wholeheartedly support is the 1st bill.  The only bill I will oppose regardless is the 3rd bill.

My quandary about the 5th bill has already been made.  On the 2nd bill, I am plainly unsure whether or not I support that increase in executive power.  On the 4th bill, I am plainly unsure whether or not I support that increase in citizen power over the Senate.

Different wording may not change my final opinion, but where I have issues, I am merely trying to lay out what they are, so that you (and the Senate) may take them under consideration.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on June 27, 2007, 01:07:52 PM
Any thoughts on the Steroids Bill?  I think it is written clearly and fits within the boundaries of the constitution.

The 2nd section is clearly unconstitutional - private entities and all.  Even though your ideas almost sound like suggestions, rather than orders.  There is no commerce clause play in this constitution, and the taxing and spending power doesn't reach it either.

The rest of the bill I might support (or I might not), but it needs to be worded better.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on June 27, 2007, 01:10:10 PM
Any thoughts on the Steroids Bill?  I think it is written clearly and fits within the boundaries of the constitution.

The 2nd section is clearly unconstitutional - private entities and all.  Even though your ideas almost sound like suggestions, rather than orders.  There is no commerce clause play in this constitution, and the taxing and spending power doesn't reach it either.

The rest of the bill I might support (or I might not), but it needs to be worded better.

I interpreted that you could regulate private buisness for the good of public health.  That's why I thought it was constitutional.  I wanted the private employers in there to try and go after professional sports.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on June 27, 2007, 03:39:52 PM
Any thoughts on the Steroids Bill?  I think it is written clearly and fits within the boundaries of the constitution.

Can't say I care for it at all in its current form.

Section 1 just doesn't make much sense.  Government employees by and large are not in position where the use of performance enhancing drugs would affect their work performance or their job security so all this would do wound penalize people for using steroids.  I'm not a fan at all of the idea that the way to stop drug abuse is to penalize people who use drugs so that they have additional reasons to conceal their use and since they are already considered criminals, have less reason to not engage in other criminal behaviors.

Section 2 would, if anything, serve to limit the ability of private employers to use tests for steroids since it would limit them to only 2 tests a year.  If you're running a professional sport, anything less than monthly testing for steroids is a joke.

Section 3 only makes sense in conjunction with sections 1 or 2.

Section 4 creates a special class of drug law just for anabolic steroids.  If you want to increase the penalties for anabolic steroids, have them bumped up from Schedule III to Schedule II instead.  If you want to bump up penalties for selling drugs to minors make some modifications to section 859 of title 21 (currently penalties are doubled for selling to a minor on a first offense and trebled on a second or later offense). Maximum penalty now for selling steroids to a minor is now 10 years (5 years for being schedule III, doubled fro selling to someone under age 21).  Bumping steroids up to schedule II would make the maximum 20 years (40 years if sold to a minor).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on June 27, 2007, 09:56:05 PM
People’s Referendum Amendment

Whensoever legislation is signed into law by the President, .... containing the Act as signed by the President

What if legislation becomes law thanks to presidential inaction, or is vetoed and overridden?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bacon King on June 28, 2007, 11:14:52 AM
I propose another amendment adding a new section stating:

1. Schools in the Southeast shall be exempt from this statue

rofl.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on June 28, 2007, 05:56:05 PM
People’s Referendum Amendment

Whensoever legislation is signed into law by the President, .... containing the Act as signed by the President

What if legislation becomes law thanks to presidential inaction, or is vetoed and overridden?

Fair point, I overlooked that. I'll amend the wording to try and accomodate these scenarios.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on June 28, 2007, 09:03:58 PM
Not only is BRTD's new legislation too many ideas clumped in one, but I don't know if having a bill whose title is filtered by our servers is a good idea


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on June 29, 2007, 05:30:47 PM
By my count it looks like only 6 (Yates Act, Dean Act, US Act, Friendly Amendments, Copyrights, and Acceptance of Science) bills are out on the floor right now.  Shouldn't we have 7?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on June 29, 2007, 05:35:07 PM
By my count it looks like only 6 (Yates Act, Dean Act, US Act, Friendly Amendments, Copyrights, and Acceptance of Science) bills are out on the floor right now.  Shouldn't we have 7?

No


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 05, 2007, 03:41:48 PM
I ask for my Repeal of Puerto Rico Statehood Act to be treated as emergency legislation to stop it from being including in the redistricting


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Brandon H on July 05, 2007, 06:12:23 PM
I ask for my Repeal of Puerto Rico Statehood Act to be treated as emergency legislation to stop it from being including in the redistricting

Are any Senators strongly in favor or opposed to treating this as emergency legislation?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on July 05, 2007, 07:13:43 PM
I ask for my Repeal of Puerto Rico Statehood Act to be treated as emergency legislation to stop it from being including in the redistricting

Are any Senators strongly in favor or opposed to treating this as emergency legislation?

It can't be done, there is no power that says the Senate can remove states from the Union. Before Puerto Rico became a state we had to pass an amendment to the constitution that said the Senate could add states, you'd have to do the same to remove a state (a stupid power, means that any state could be removed).

DWTL just wants it because he thinks he knows what's best, ignore him.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on July 05, 2007, 09:42:27 PM
I ask for my Repeal of Puerto Rico Statehood Act to be treated as emergency legislation to stop it from being including in the redistricting

Are any Senators strongly in favor or opposed to treating this as emergency legislation?

I don't see how this is emergency legislation.  I don't even know whether the Senate has to the power to undo a state's admittance to Atlasia, frankly.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on July 05, 2007, 11:01:03 PM
It could be considered as forum affairs legislation whic has it own queue.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on July 06, 2007, 10:12:22 AM
It could be considered as forum affairs legislation whic has it own queue.

Even if you tried to put it in there as forum affairs legislation (I don't really see how it is) you still need to pass an amendment before you can remove a state from the Union (which is a stupid thing to do).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 06, 2007, 10:16:22 AM
It could be considered as forum affairs legislation whic has it own queue.

Even if you tried to put it in there as forum affairs legislation (I don't really see how it is) you still need to pass an amendment before you can remove a state from the Union (which is a stupid thing to do).

The amendment is in the queue and I ask the new PPT upon taking office to put this into the Constitutional Amendments slot, then the removal of Puerto Rico bill after this amendment passes.  I know you may take this personally as the person who wanted Puerto Rico, but you shouldn't, it isn't personal it is simply the current (not former) senators seem to think should be done (or at least a few of us)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on July 06, 2007, 10:20:09 AM
It could be considered as forum affairs legislation whic has it own queue.

Even if you tried to put it in there as forum affairs legislation (I don't really see how it is) you still need to pass an amendment before you can remove a state from the Union (which is a stupid thing to do).

The amendment is in the queue and I ask the new PPT upon taking office to put this into the Constitutional Amendments slot, then the removal of Puerto Rico bill after this amendment passes.  I know you may take this personally as the person who wanted Puerto Rico, but you shouldn't, it isn't personal it is simply the current (not former) senators seem to think should be done (or at least a few of us)

How can you not take it personal when there is absolutly no reason to remove it? If you can't have it in a map put text beneath the map saying "Puerto Rico is in District #" and redistricting isn't a problem since of the way the original legislation is made up. There is no reason for it to happen except you wanting to remove it for no reason.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 06, 2007, 10:22:01 AM
It could be considered as forum affairs legislation whic has it own queue.

Even if you tried to put it in there as forum affairs legislation (I don't really see how it is) you still need to pass an amendment before you can remove a state from the Union (which is a stupid thing to do).

The amendment is in the queue and I ask the new PPT upon taking office to put this into the Constitutional Amendments slot, then the removal of Puerto Rico bill after this amendment passes.  I know you may take this personally as the person who wanted Puerto Rico, but you shouldn't, it isn't personal it is simply the current (not former) senators seem to think should be done (or at least a few of us)

How can you not take it personal when there is absolutly no reason to remove it? If you can't have it in a map put text beneath the map saying "Puerto Rico is in District #" and redistricting isn't a problem since of the way the original legislation is made up. There is no reason for it to happen except you wanting to remove it for no reason.

I want to remove it because I think Puerto Rico should not be a state.  This is a subject perfectly reasonable people can disagree on.  You seem to think I want to eliminate Puerto Rico as a state because you made it a state.  As someone who's vote I valued in the last election (remember that your vote put me in office so I am grateful), that is not the case.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on July 06, 2007, 10:23:05 AM
It could be considered as forum affairs legislation whic has it own queue.

Even if you tried to put it in there as forum affairs legislation (I don't really see how it is) you still need to pass an amendment before you can remove a state from the Union (which is a stupid thing to do).

The amendment is in the queue and I ask the new PPT upon taking office to put this into the Constitutional Amendments slot, then the removal of Puerto Rico bill after this amendment passes.  I know you may take this personally as the person who wanted Puerto Rico, but you shouldn't, it isn't personal it is simply the current (not former) senators seem to think should be done (or at least a few of us)

How can you not take it personal when there is absolutly no reason to remove it? If you can't have it in a map put text beneath the map saying "Puerto Rico is in District #" and redistricting isn't a problem since of the way the original legislation is made up. There is no reason for it to happen except you wanting to remove it for no reason.

I want to remove it because I think Puerto Rico should not be a state.  This is a subject perfectly reasonable people can disagree on.  You seem to think I want to eliminate Puerto Rico as a state because you made it a state.  As someone who's vote I valued in the last election (remember that your vote put me in office so I am grateful), that is not the case.

It's the same as saying I don't think New Jersey should be a state. That's not a reason to remove it from statehood because you don't want it there.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 06, 2007, 10:25:12 AM
It could be considered as forum affairs legislation whic has it own queue.

Even if you tried to put it in there as forum affairs legislation (I don't really see how it is) you still need to pass an amendment before you can remove a state from the Union (which is a stupid thing to do).

The amendment is in the queue and I ask the new PPT upon taking office to put this into the Constitutional Amendments slot, then the removal of Puerto Rico bill after this amendment passes.  I know you may take this personally as the person who wanted Puerto Rico, but you shouldn't, it isn't personal it is simply the current (not former) senators seem to think should be done (or at least a few of us)

How can you not take it personal when there is absolutly no reason to remove it? If you can't have it in a map put text beneath the map saying "Puerto Rico is in District #" and redistricting isn't a problem since of the way the original legislation is made up. There is no reason for it to happen except you wanting to remove it for no reason.

I want to remove it because I think Puerto Rico should not be a state.  This is a subject perfectly reasonable people can disagree on.  You seem to think I want to eliminate Puerto Rico as a state because you made it a state.  As someone who's vote I valued in the last election (remember that your vote put me in office so I am grateful), that is not the case.

It's the same as saying I don't think New Jersey should be a state. That's not a reason to remove it from statehood because you don't want it there.

Not only is New Jersey contiguous to the United States, it also was an original 13 colony, not a state added on a whim.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on July 06, 2007, 10:26:40 AM
It could be considered as forum affairs legislation whic has it own queue.

Even if you tried to put it in there as forum affairs legislation (I don't really see how it is) you still need to pass an amendment before you can remove a state from the Union (which is a stupid thing to do).

The amendment is in the queue and I ask the new PPT upon taking office to put this into the Constitutional Amendments slot, then the removal of Puerto Rico bill after this amendment passes.  I know you may take this personally as the person who wanted Puerto Rico, but you shouldn't, it isn't personal it is simply the current (not former) senators seem to think should be done (or at least a few of us)

How can you not take it personal when there is absolutly no reason to remove it? If you can't have it in a map put text beneath the map saying "Puerto Rico is in District #" and redistricting isn't a problem since of the way the original legislation is made up. There is no reason for it to happen except you wanting to remove it for no reason.

I want to remove it because I think Puerto Rico should not be a state.  This is a subject perfectly reasonable people can disagree on.  You seem to think I want to eliminate Puerto Rico as a state because you made it a state.  As someone who's vote I valued in the last election (remember that your vote put me in office so I am grateful), that is not the case.

It's the same as saying I don't think New Jersey should be a state. That's not a reason to remove it from statehood because you don't want it there.

Not only is New Jersey contiguous to the United States, it also was an original 13 colony, not a state added on a whim.

Still the same thing as you are saying. You don't think Puerto Rico should be a state so you think it should be gone. I don't think New Jersey should be a state so I think it should be gone.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 06, 2007, 10:27:31 AM
It could be considered as forum affairs legislation whic has it own queue.

Even if you tried to put it in there as forum affairs legislation (I don't really see how it is) you still need to pass an amendment before you can remove a state from the Union (which is a stupid thing to do).

The amendment is in the queue and I ask the new PPT upon taking office to put this into the Constitutional Amendments slot, then the removal of Puerto Rico bill after this amendment passes.  I know you may take this personally as the person who wanted Puerto Rico, but you shouldn't, it isn't personal it is simply the current (not former) senators seem to think should be done (or at least a few of us)

How can you not take it personal when there is absolutly no reason to remove it? If you can't have it in a map put text beneath the map saying "Puerto Rico is in District #" and redistricting isn't a problem since of the way the original legislation is made up. There is no reason for it to happen except you wanting to remove it for no reason.

I want to remove it because I think Puerto Rico should not be a state.  This is a subject perfectly reasonable people can disagree on.  You seem to think I want to eliminate Puerto Rico as a state because you made it a state.  As someone who's vote I valued in the last election (remember that your vote put me in office so I am grateful), that is not the case.

It's the same as saying I don't think New Jersey should be a state. That's not a reason to remove it from statehood because you don't want it there.

Not only is New Jersey contiguous to the United States, it also was an original 13 colony, not a state added on a whim.

Still the same thing as you are saying. You don't think Puerto Rico should be a state so you think it should be gone. I don't think New Jersey should be a state so I think it should be gone.

However, under the amendment I introduced removing New Jersey as a state would not be an option.  Also, it makes no sense that Puerto Rico would have voted for statehood after turning it down multiple times.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on July 06, 2007, 10:29:53 AM
It could be considered as forum affairs legislation whic has it own queue.

Even if you tried to put it in there as forum affairs legislation (I don't really see how it is) you still need to pass an amendment before you can remove a state from the Union (which is a stupid thing to do).

The amendment is in the queue and I ask the new PPT upon taking office to put this into the Constitutional Amendments slot, then the removal of Puerto Rico bill after this amendment passes.  I know you may take this personally as the person who wanted Puerto Rico, but you shouldn't, it isn't personal it is simply the current (not former) senators seem to think should be done (or at least a few of us)

How can you not take it personal when there is absolutly no reason to remove it? If you can't have it in a map put text beneath the map saying "Puerto Rico is in District #" and redistricting isn't a problem since of the way the original legislation is made up. There is no reason for it to happen except you wanting to remove it for no reason.

I want to remove it because I think Puerto Rico should not be a state.  This is a subject perfectly reasonable people can disagree on.  You seem to think I want to eliminate Puerto Rico as a state because you made it a state.  As someone who's vote I valued in the last election (remember that your vote put me in office so I am grateful), that is not the case.

It's the same as saying I don't think New Jersey should be a state. That's not a reason to remove it from statehood because you don't want it there.

Not only is New Jersey contiguous to the United States, it also was an original 13 colony, not a state added on a whim.

Still the same thing as you are saying. You don't think Puerto Rico should be a state so you think it should be gone. I don't think New Jersey should be a state so I think it should be gone.

However, under the amendment I introduced removing New Jersey as a state would not be an option.  Also, it makes no sense that Puerto Rico would have voted for statehood after turning it down multiple times.

Puerto Rico has voted down statehood barely each time, and I do mean barely. If they would have been given the option of statehood and independence they would have chosen statehood. The only reason they didn't want to become a state is because of paying certain taxes so they can have the benefits of being American citizens without most of the cost. And I am talking about IRL here.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 06, 2007, 10:32:51 AM
Puerto Rico has voted down statehood barely each time, and I do mean barely. If they would have been given the option of statehood and independence they would have chosen statehood. The only reason they didn't want to become a state is because of paying certain taxes so they can have the benefits of being American citizens without most of the cost. And I am talking about IRL here.

Well then, I guess we'll have to see how my bill pans out.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on July 06, 2007, 12:15:00 PM
Constitutional Amendment to Remove States

1.) The government of Atlasia reserves the power to remove states who have entered the union after December 31, 2003.
2.) The government of Atlasia also reserves the power to combine states following a simple majority vote of the citizens of that state

This has ambiguities - "government of Atlasia" is an amorphous concept as presented in the text - as you know our government is made up of three branches - were you planning to vest the power in one particular branch, or can the President simply kick Puerto Rico out by Executive Order?

Previous Amendments have included language such as "The Senate shall have power..." to clearly delegate such powers to the Senate. My only other quibble is that the Second Constitution always capitalised State, and for consistency I would like that retained.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Democrat on July 09, 2007, 09:19:39 AM
Could the VP and PPT (is the new one elected yet?) possibly move the Commission bill I introduced to the top of the list. I think it's very important that is debated because our relationship with the United States is essential.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 09, 2007, 01:28:50 PM
Could the VP and PPT (is the new one elected yet?) possibly move the Commission bill I introduced to the top of the list. I think it's very important that is debated because our relationship with the United States is essential.

I plan to introduce it as an amendment to the current bill


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on July 12, 2007, 09:30:54 AM
I have long been of the opinion that the budget is an unwarranted addition to Atlasian politics. Last November, I introduced a constitutional amendment to end the budgetary process which was eventually defeated by a minority of the people. Since then, no movement on passing a budget has been attempted. Though during the Presidential race certain candidates indicated their various wishes regarding the budget, nobody has shown any initiative to change anything.

A few days ago, the Senate voted to once again chose to effectively ignore the budget issue. The Budget thread has been open for some time now and no contributions, ideas or comments of any kind have been entered.

The Budget is a redundant process and I reccomend that it once again be put to the people that it is better removed rather than carry on a pretence that is is of relevance. I therefore ask any Senator who agrees with my position, to introduce the following amendment to the Senate for consideration.

End the Budget Amendment

That Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution be removed.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Colin on July 12, 2007, 09:50:27 AM
I would like to say that the views of Jas reflect the views of the entire administration and such an amendment would have the full and complete backing of the executive.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 12, 2007, 07:22:59 PM
My views on the Budget are, I think, quite clear to all these days.

And I'd like to say "sorry" again...


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Emsworth on July 13, 2007, 06:21:16 PM
I believe that we have at least one piece of obsolete legislation on the books: the Diplomatic Mission Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Diplomatic_Mission_Act). To my knowledge, no President has taken any interest whatsoever in complying with its provisions, and no citizen has taken any interest whatsoever in making sure that it is enforced. Accordingly, I would request any Senator to introduce a bill to repeal this law.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on July 13, 2007, 08:38:02 PM
Just because no President has entered negotiations with other micronations since the DMA was passed doesn't mean that none will.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on July 15, 2007, 12:19:10 PM
End of the Budget Amendment

1.) Aritcle I, Section 8 of the Constitution is hereby repealed

Hopefully this can quickly pass the Senate and the pass the regions. The last time there was an amendment vote for it too many people were ignorant about how the budget works and voted against removing it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on July 15, 2007, 07:20:45 PM
Amendment to Allow the Senate to Set a Minimum Wage

The Senate shall have power to set a minimum wage, as it deems necessary. It shall be variable in that one shall be set for the Republic of Atlasia (the Five Regions) and others shall be set for the Insular Territories, at an appropriate level deemed by the Senate. The Regions shall also have power to set a minimum wage, within their jurisdictions, but this shall only have effect where this wage is greater than that which has been set by the Senate.

Same thing I said for the other amendment applies for this as well.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on July 15, 2007, 10:19:15 PM
The [Yates Cancer Research Bill] has garnered enough votes to fail

At last, the long national nightmare is finally over.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on July 27, 2007, 06:41:54 AM
Why in the name of Dave would we want to celebrate the Mexican Flag?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on July 27, 2007, 07:01:19 AM
Why in the name of Dave would we want to celebrate the Mexican Flag?

To show solidarity with the Mexican invasion of undocumented workers.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on July 27, 2007, 10:56:36 AM
Why in the name of Dave would we want to celebrate the Mexican Flag?
To show solidarity with the Mexican invasion of undocumented workers.
You are a HP.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 27, 2007, 01:25:58 PM
I ask Sam Spade to deem Ebowed's Holiday Bill frivolous


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: King on July 27, 2007, 04:38:32 PM
I ask Sam Spade to deem Ebowed's Holiday Bill frivolous

Why? Because you don't like it?

It's no more frivolous than to give nonexistent state governments the power to impose flag burning penalties.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 27, 2007, 04:42:42 PM
I ask Sam Spade to deem Ebowed's Holiday Bill frivolous

Why? Because you don't like it?

It's no more frivolous than to give nonexistent state governments the power to impose flag burning penalties.

Yeah it should probably be regions, but that's not really an issue.  This bill screams that it is a joke, there is absolutley no chance it will even be taken seriously and is a waste of time.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on July 27, 2007, 09:44:31 PM
This bill screams that it is a joke, there is absolutley no chance it will even be taken seriously and is a waste of time.

It absolutely is not a joke.  I support creating each of those holidays.  If you don't like one of them, you can motion to amend the bill when it reaches the floor.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on July 30, 2007, 05:44:16 PM
Hybrid Car Tax Break

Section 1:
a.) This bill is aimed to stimulate the purchases of hybrid and alternative fuel source cars and their use
b.) To qualify the car cannot run solely on petroleum gasoline, but may be a hybrid running on petroleum gasoline and another fuel source
c.) To qualify you must also continue to own the car, selling or donating your car will invalidate you to further tax breaks

Section 2:
The following tax breaks will be issued for purchasing a hybrid car:
1st Fiscal Year (referred to as FY) of ownership: 50% of price paid for the car
2nd FY of ownership: 25% of price paid for the car
3rd FY of ownership: 20% of price paid for the car
4th FY of ownership: 15% of price paid for the car
5th FY of ownership: 10% of price paid for the car
6+ FY of ownership: 8% of price paid for the car

Section 3:
This law shall apply to federal income taxes only

Section 2 is confusing.  Does it mean that if I buy a hybrid car and own it for 6 years I get back 128% of the purchase price in tax breaks?

This is terrible bill. Not only are the tax breaks excessive, it represents an attempt by the government to micromanage which technological solutions will be employed to reduce petroleum use.  Worse, all this will do is place a large number of flex fuel vehicles on the road that will be filled up with petroleum based fuels so long as they are cheaper than other alternatives.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on July 30, 2007, 07:01:07 PM
As far as the Education Funding Clarification Bill, the tex of which is here:
Educational Funding Clarification Bill

No federal money shall go towards any regional school voucher system which funds the tuitions for schools which meet any of the following criteria:
a.) Teaches one religious faith to the exclusion of all others
b.) Prohibits students from joining on the basis of race, nationality, religion, or sexual orientation
c.) Allows the use of corporal punishment by school staff or administration.

(Sponsor: Ebowed)

I think it would be ideal if the entirety of the bill was scrapped with the exception of the bolded part. For one, I see no reason federal funds should be allocated to any voucher program. This bill in its current text would implicate the federal funds should go to voucher schools if they meet those requirements. Also, by refusing to allocate funds to those voucher schools while allocating funds to voucher schools that meet the requirements, that is essentially a subsidy of voucher schools that meet those requirements. The first requirement seems a bit frivolous, as I don't see, for example, why any non-Catholic would want to join a Catholic school. Why should the teaching of the Catholic religion be excluded in a private, all-Catholic school?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on July 31, 2007, 02:59:18 AM
Why should the teaching of the Catholic religion be excluded in a private, all-Catholic school?

Because the government is paying for it, and that's a violation of the separation of church and state.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: King on July 31, 2007, 12:11:14 PM
Why should the teaching of the Catholic religion be excluded in a private, all-Catholic school?

Because the government is paying for it, and that's a violation of the separation of church and state.

No it isn't.  The separation of church and state is meant so the government doesn't force a religion on it's people.  The government offering a student a voucher to go to any school they want and that student choosing a religious school isn't forcing anything.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Brandon H on August 03, 2007, 12:15:14 AM

I think Alcohol Reform Act Reform Act would have been a better name. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on August 03, 2007, 09:16:57 AM
So much Ebowed loving freedom, he has proposed a bill to ban snowmobiles in parks.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on August 06, 2007, 03:59:55 AM
I have withdrawn the Creation of Federal Holidays Bill.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on August 07, 2007, 10:59:02 AM
Presidential Term Limits Constitutional Amendment

That Article II, Section 3, Clause 3 of the Constitution shall be removed and subsequent clauses shall be renumbered accordingly.

Given that Ebowed is the only president that has served two terms, it would seem as though this is merely an attempt for him to run for the office again.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on August 07, 2007, 05:42:30 PM
Presidential Term Limits Constitutional Amendment

That Article II, Section 3, Clause 3 of the Constitution shall be removed and subsequent clauses shall be renumbered accordingly.

Given that Ebowed is the only president that has served two terms, it would seem as though this is merely an attempt for him to run for the office again.

I'm fairly sure the clause doesn't prevent Ebowed from running for the Presidency again. The clause prevents being elected more than twice consecutively.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on August 07, 2007, 10:31:02 PM
Presidential Term Limits Constitutional Amendment

That Article II, Section 3, Clause 3 of the Constitution shall be removed and subsequent clauses shall be renumbered accordingly.

Given that Ebowed is the only president that has served two terms, it would seem as though this is merely an attempt for him to run for the office again.

I'm fairly sure the clause doesn't prevent Ebowed from running for the Presidency again. The clause prevents being elected more than twice consecutively.

If that's the case, then Ebowed's amendment is completely pointless.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on August 07, 2007, 10:39:46 PM
Presidential Term Limits Constitutional Amendment

That Article II, Section 3, Clause 3 of the Constitution shall be removed and subsequent clauses shall be renumbered accordingly.

Given that Ebowed is the only president that has served two terms, it would seem as though this is merely an attempt for him to run for the office again.

I'm fairly sure the clause doesn't prevent Ebowed from running for the Presidency again. The clause prevents being elected more than twice consecutively.

If that's the case, then Ebowed's amendment is completely pointless.

No it's not.  A President should be able to run for a third consecutive term.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on August 08, 2007, 12:56:48 AM
Presidential Term Limits Constitutional Amendment

That Article II, Section 3, Clause 3 of the Constitution shall be removed and subsequent clauses shall be renumbered accordingly.

Given that Ebowed is the only president that has served two terms, it would seem as though this is merely an attempt for him to run for the office again.

I'm fairly sure the clause doesn't prevent Ebowed from running for the Presidency again. The clause prevents being elected more than twice consecutively.

If that's the case, then Ebowed's amendment is completely pointless.

No it's not.  A President should be able to run for a third consecutive term.

I'm not arguming with the principle. I just think it's frivolous because presidents forthe most part only serve one term.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on August 08, 2007, 03:04:24 AM
It's neither frivolous nor for personal gain (and I don't appreciate the latter being suggested).  I simply don't think it's fair that Senators have no term limits, but the President does.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on August 08, 2007, 04:36:17 PM
Fairness to the Children Act

1. F.L. 14-16 is hereby repealed

The fourteenth Senate passed only nine acts.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: King on August 08, 2007, 06:44:45 PM
Fairness to the Children Act

1. F.L. 14-16 is hereby repealed

The fourteenth Senate passed only nine acts.

Shhh...too much logic over here!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on August 09, 2007, 07:46:18 AM
Fairness to the Children Act

1. F.L. 14-16 is hereby repealed

The fourteenth Senate passed only nine acts.

Shhh...too much logic over here!
It was 13-14, I must have done something strange to find 14-16.

However, I must express how displeased I am that Ebowed has crowded up about 1-2 months worth of legislation that will probably be withdraw once hitting the floor


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 09, 2007, 03:03:13 PM
Agreed.  When I was last in the Senate, I staggered the introduction of the bills I wished to propose so as to avoid monopolizing the time of the Senate.  Looks like it may be time to amend the OPSR so as to limit the number of slots that bills sponsored by a single Senator can occupy.  Since I am not at present a Senator I present the following for any interested Senator to introduce.



OPSR Courtesy Resolution

1. Article 3 Section 2 Clause 1 of the OPSR is amended by inserting before the period, ", subject to such limitations on available debate slots contained in this section".

2. Article 3 Section 2 of the OPSR is amended by adding the following as Clause 7:
"7. Notwithstanding Clause 1 of this Section, unless no other bills are available for debate, a Senator may not be the sponsor of more than two pieces of legislation that are on the floor at any one time."



The first clause is to recognize the fact that because of the different types of slots, the Senate already does not follow the strict letter of Article 3 Section 2 Clause 1 by debating legislation in the strict order of introduction.

The second clause prevents a Senator from clogging the calendar with his bills to the exclusion of all others.  If we had more Senators introducing legislation I could see changing that limit from two down to one.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on August 09, 2007, 04:27:15 PM
However, I must express how displeased I am that Ebowed has crowded up about 1-2 months worth of legislation that will probably be withdraw once hitting the floor

I already withdrew the nonserious ones (like the holiday thing).  Everything else is serious proposals, and if you have problems with them, you can make some suggestions now or propose amendments later.

FWIW, I don't support Ernest's OSPR amendment.  If only 2 Senators are introducing legislation, why would we stop them from being debated in a reasonable fashion?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 09, 2007, 05:36:51 PM
FWIW, I don't support Ernest's OSPR amendment.  If only 2 Senators are introducing legislation, why would we stop them from being debated in a reasonable fashion?

If that is the case, then my proposal would have no effect as written, since if there are no other bills to be debated than bills in excess of the per Senator limit are in order if teh alternative is an empty slot.  It would mean that if there was a queue of 50 or so bills proposed by only 2 Senators than if another Senator happened to propose a bill for a change, it would go to the front of the queue.  Frankly, the long queue that is presently in place acts as a deterrent to Senators who might wish to submit occasional bills from doing so because of the length of time between proposal and debate.  The proposal will provide an encouragement for occasional authors to write bills (or at least to sponsor them) since they can count on timely debate.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on August 09, 2007, 06:03:08 PM
That, to me, discriminates against active Senators.  If you want the Senate to consider new legislation faster, support increasing the amount of legislation that can be on the floor-- I've introduced an amendment to the OSPR to do just that.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 09, 2007, 06:11:35 PM
I prefer rules changes that would encourage quality over quantity.  However if you feel you;d be hanpered by the two slot limit, there's always the obvious tactic of getting another Senator to sponsor some of your bills.  That's another plus for this proposal in my view as it gives the Senate an incentive to organize instead of continuing to go  in ten separate disjointed paths.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on August 10, 2007, 09:20:55 PM
Fairness to the Children Act

1. F.L. 14-16 is hereby repealed

The fourteenth Senate passed only nine acts.

Shhh...too much logic over here!
It was 13-14, I must have done something strange to find 14-16.

OMG, you want to repeal the gay adoption bill?  What the hell is wrong with you?

If you want a real 'fairness to the children' act, make the adoption process completely free (as it is in the Pacific region).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 11, 2007, 05:34:21 AM
Quote from: 24 DuPont Chevrolet
Fairness to the Children Act

1. F.L. 13-14 is hereby repealed

OMG, you want to repeal the gay adoption bill?  What the hell is wrong with you?

If you want a real 'fairness to the children' act, make the adoption process completely free (as it is in the Pacific region).

Perhaps he's offended by the circumlocutions it goes through, so much so that it has to include a section outlining that it doesn't mean pedophilia or hebephilia when it refers to sexual orientation.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 11, 2007, 05:37:23 AM
Affirmative Action Reform Bill of 2007

1. F.L. 8-14 is repealed.

Why are you in favor of discrimination?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on August 11, 2007, 05:22:13 PM
Affirmative Action Reform Bill of 2007

1. F.L. 8-14 is repealed.

Why are you in favor of discrimination?

You voted against a Regional bill saying exactly what the federal version does in the Southeast.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 11, 2007, 05:41:57 PM
There are certain limited situations in which I would favor such distinctions to be made, such as in the gender of phys ed teachers.  As new law, a total ban on such measures is overbroad, but as existing law it serves as an important statement of principle which should be struck only in particular cases where there is a job-related reason for making such a distinction.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on August 15, 2007, 12:57:23 PM
I think we need to address the issue of jury selection and juries, but I am asking someone else to help draft a bill


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on August 15, 2007, 01:14:12 PM
I think we need to address the issue of jury selection and juries, but I am asking someone else to help draft a bill

You an like the Jury Selection Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Jury_Selection_Act)?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 15, 2007, 02:40:58 PM
2nd Immigration Reform Bill of 2007

1. The Illegal Immigrant Act (F.L. 18-8) is hereby repealed.

2. Illegal aliens who have been convicted of a state or federal offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment less than 12 months in duration within the last 5 years of their application shall be denied citizenship in all instances, even if their application is presently pending under the auspices of F.L. 18-8.  This shall not apply to persons imprisoned for actions which have since become decriminalized.

3. Illegal aliens who have been convicted of a state or federal offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment less than 12 months in duration not within the last 5 years of their application whose application is presently pending under the auspices of F.L. 18-8 shall be allowed to become citizens, if meeting the separate requirements of all other relevant legislation.

4. Illegal or legal aliens who have become citizens because of changes in the law effectuated by F.L. 18-8 shall not have their citizenship revoked.

Is it too much to ask that you wait until the start of a new Senate before you reintroduce a bill defeated by the current Senate?  (I realize it's unlikely to come up before this Senate, given the length of the queue, but...)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on August 15, 2007, 04:40:39 PM
I would be happy to do that, Ernest, if Porce will likewise withdraw the HIV/AIDS bill and his renaming of the Acceptance of Science bill


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on August 15, 2007, 06:26:48 PM
I would be happy to do that, Ernest, if Porce will likewise withdraw the HIV/AIDS bill and his renaming of the Acceptance of Science bill

They are different than the versions defeated by the Senate.  I have, erm, improved the bills to appeal to moderates more.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on August 15, 2007, 06:55:59 PM
I would be happy to do that, Ernest, if Porce will likewise withdraw the HIV/AIDS bill and his renaming of the Acceptance of Science bill

They are different than the versions defeated by the Senate.  I have, erm, improved the bills to appeal to moderates more.

Ok, then I will do likewise.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 19, 2007, 10:49:52 AM
It would seem that this "immediately re-introduce my dead pet-bill once it's been killed" thing has become quite a trend.

Yay.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: King on August 19, 2007, 02:01:13 PM
DWTL isn't going to quit until he can get a hit!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on August 20, 2007, 01:23:26 PM
I actually find myself in agreement with DWTL over something here: The Judicial Term Limits Amendment needs to be amended such that the terms of the existing Justices would come up for reappointment in staggered, four-month intervals.

(As stated previously, I am supportive of this bill in general.)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on August 20, 2007, 01:58:31 PM
I actually find myself in agreement with DWTL over something here: The Judicial Term Limits Amendment needs to be amended such that the terms of the existing Justices would come up for reappointment in staggered, four-month intervals.

(As stated previously, I am supportive of this bill in general.)

You should feel free to contribute this to the actual thread on the amendment (and indeed to any of the matters currently before the Senate).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Brandon H on August 20, 2007, 07:07:00 PM
I actually find myself in agreement with DWTL over something here: The Judicial Term Limits Amendment needs to be amended such that the terms of the existing Justices would come up for reappointment in staggered, four-month intervals.

(As stated previously, I am supportive of this bill in general.)

You should feel free to contribute this to the actual thread on the amendment (and indeed to any of the matters currently before the Senate).

I was thinking about that, but if a Justice resigns in the middle of the year, everything gets screwed up.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on August 22, 2007, 04:47:52 AM
Bill to Raise the Retirement Age and Discouragement of Smoking Bill have both been withdrawn.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Verily on August 22, 2007, 11:01:38 PM
I actually find myself in agreement with DWTL over something here: The Judicial Term Limits Amendment needs to be amended such that the terms of the existing Justices would come up for reappointment in staggered, four-month intervals.

(As stated previously, I am supportive of this bill in general.)

You should feel free to contribute this to the actual thread on the amendment (and indeed to any of the matters currently before the Senate).

I was thinking about that, but if a Justice resigns in the middle of the year, everything gets screwed up.

You could have the new justice be appointed to finish the term of the old justice, rather like special elections to the Senate now.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on August 22, 2007, 11:04:05 PM
I was thinking about that, but if a Justice resigns in the middle of the year, everything gets screwed up.

You could have the new justice be appointed to finish the term of the old justice, rather like special elections to the Senate now.

Indeed.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on August 25, 2007, 06:45:30 PM
In order to streamline our legislative queue, I'm going to be combining a lot of bills into comprehensive reform proposals (i.e. all of the environmental bills will be put into one).  I am hoping this will be slightly more welcoming to any new Senators we might be getting with the conclusion of the election.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 25, 2007, 09:00:40 PM
I might do something similar with some of the bills I've introduced.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on August 26, 2007, 11:00:39 AM
Universal Health Care Bill of 2007

1. The federal government hereby establishes a single-payer universal health care program for use in the District of Columbia and all federal territories.
2. This program will be open towards any resident or citizen of the District of Columbia or any Atlasian federal territories regardless of previous health conditions, disability, citizenship status, criminal record, or economic status.  No person will be required to pay for access to health care.
3. All medical services, including preventative treatment and dental care, will be covered under this system.
4. All subsidies towards health maintenence organizations ('HMOs') are abolished.

A definition of what "universal health care" actually means should be provided in section 1, at least in my opinion.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Frodo on August 26, 2007, 06:03:39 PM
Universal Health Care Bill of 2007

1. The federal government hereby establishes a single-payer universal health care program for use in the District of Columbia and all federal territories.
2. This program will be open towards any resident or citizen of the District of Columbia or any Atlasian federal territories regardless of previous health conditions, disability, citizenship status, criminal record, or economic status.  No person will be required to pay for access to health care.
3. All medical services, including preventative treatment and dental care, will be covered under this system.
4. All subsidies towards health maintenence organizations ('HMOs') are abolished.

A definition of what "universal health care" actually means should be provided in section 1, at least in my opinion.

Isn't Section 1 explicit enough?  Isn't it self-explanatory?  Everyone here knows what 'single-payer' health care is.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Jake on August 26, 2007, 06:11:49 PM
I think he's more referring to what exactly is encompassed by "universal health care". Will medical facilities be taken over by the government and no one be charged for use, will the government be billed for medical expenses, will it cover luxuries like braces, Viagra, and plastic surgery, etc.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on August 26, 2007, 06:26:51 PM
I think he's more referring to what exactly is encompassed by "universal health care". Will medical facilities be taken over by the government and no one be charged for use, will the government be billed for medical expenses, will it cover luxuries like braces, Viagra, and plastic surgery, etc.

Yes. That, and explaining that universal health care would mean that your medical services would be payed for by the government.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Verily on August 26, 2007, 08:30:52 PM
I think he's more referring to what exactly is encompassed by "universal health care". Will medical facilities be taken over by the government and no one be charged for use, will the government be billed for medical expenses, will it cover luxuries like braces, Viagra, and plastic surgery, etc.

Yes. That, and explaining that universal health care would mean that your medical services would be payed for by the government.

This last seems like pedantry on the wording. If the specifics of what "universal health care" means are included, why do we need to literally define the term? Nothing else is specifically defined; need we define "Atlasia" as well?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on August 26, 2007, 08:49:14 PM
Indeed, it looks like it needs to be fleshed out a little bit more, since I would interpret "all medical services" to include things as plastic surgery.  (Though personally, I don't mind the inclusion of Viagra in a national health plan, if we have one.  I'm hard pressed to think of prescription drugs to not include.)

All medical serviced deem necessary to the health (and maintenance thereof) of the patient, perhaps?

I'd suggest you take a look at John Conyer's HR 676 (http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm) and crib some notes.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on August 27, 2007, 10:05:25 AM
I should like to state for the record the following:

Today I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Chief Justice and Justice Opebo in their opposition to the Judicial Term Limits Amendment. As a former Justice of the Court, a former Attorney-General and one of the architects of the Second Constitution I find the notion that jurists should be subject to an examination which will undoubtedly be politicial to be abhorrent.

I will fight this amendment, and indeed any of the proposed other versions which include anything which does not recognise the judicial term as a lifetime appointment.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 27, 2007, 10:45:59 AM
Hear, hear


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 29, 2007, 05:26:06 PM
Speaking purely for my own sake and not in my capacity as SoEA:

Carbon Tax Residential Relief Act

§1. Findings
   (c) The Carbon Tax, while a strong, powerful mechanism for lowering Atlasian carbon dioxide emissions, is a regressive tax that could potentially cripple lower-income taxpayers while having virtually no effect on the richest of taxpayers;
   (d) The Carbon Tax is an incentive only to those with the means to change their fuel consumption habits.  Those whose incomes place them in the lower-to-middle income tax brackets have little ability to switch to a more fuel efficient manner of home heating, install solar panels, purchase better insulating windows, and pursue similar fuel-saving ideas;
   (e) Similarly, it is a finding that those least able to pay for electricity bills and home heating fuel are also the least likely to waste fossil fuels out of an inability to afford such waste.

I reject utterly the assumption that the poor have insufficient income as to be able to make any choices concerning their energy usage.  I'll grant that their discretion is limited and they have less ability to respond to sudden changes in pricing.  That is one reason why the carbon tax is slowly phased in over 10 years.

Quote
CHAPTER 1 - ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION RESIDENTIAL CREDIT
CHAPTER 2 - HEATING FUEL CONSUMPTION RESIDENTIAL CREDIT

These two chapters effectively remove any incentive the Carbon Tax provides to reduce CO2 emissions to a large segment of the Atlasian populace.  It would be far better to deal with the concerns of the gentleman from Massachusetts to increase the EITC, increase the personal exemption and/or reduce the rate of tax in the lower tax brackets to ameliorate the effects upon the less well off that Mr. Moderate complains of.  Not only would such alternatives preserve the intended effect of the carbon tax to spur individual efforts to reduce CO2 emissions as a common incentive for all Atlasians, they would not require the added bureaucratic burden that the proposed tax rebate forms would impose.  Do we really need to add an additional line to Form 1040, plus create two additional tax forms to be filed by a large number of Atlasians?



In summation, while I share to some degree the concerns of Mr. Moderate, there are better ways of dealing with them, which I have mentioned above.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on August 29, 2007, 06:28:36 PM
I could be persuaded to take a second look at the income requirements, but I feel the bill is a strong one.  Let's keep things in perspective here: in 2005, residential energy consumption accounted for only 21% of CO2 emissions. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html)  This leaves the carbon tax unchanged as it effects a minimum of 79% of emission sources.  In reality, since the tax credit only off sets part of the energy consumption of part of the residential sector, you could see the carbon tax unchanged in perhaps 85%–90% of emissions.

In addition, it should be noted that the credit only covers the "average" emission of carbon dioxide for a family.  (Actually, it covers slightly less than average.)  If a family is making the decision to run the air conditioner at 68 degrees, set the oil heat at 78, and heat a swimming pool with electric elements, you better bet that they're going to go over the 35-dollar-multiple exemption and have to pay for excess usage.  This helps put pressure on the abuses, gives incentive to curb carbon emission growth, and creates incentive for developers of new housing to design more ecologically friendly structures—already quite the growth industry here in "liberal Massachusetts."

The bureaucratic burden here is minimal: I think I can speak for most taxpayers that one or two extra lines on the 1040 are not a big deal—especially if those two lines are saving you $70–$700 per year.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 30, 2007, 02:13:56 AM
What about the discrimination in your proposal against those who heat their homes with electric power?  At least down in the Sun Belt, using an electric heat pump for both heating and cooling is fairly standard as you save the cost of installing a separate heating system.  As for the bureaucratic burden, one reason out tax code is so complex is because of a whole bunch of "one little extra item won't hurt" ideas.  Since your concerns can be dealt with without adding yet another "one little extra item", it would be better to do so without doing so.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on August 30, 2007, 09:35:05 AM
What about the discrimination in your proposal against those who heat their homes with electric power?  At least down in the Sun Belt, using an electric heat pump for both heating and cooling is fairly standard as you save the cost of installing a separate heating system.  As for the bureaucratic burden, one reason out tax code is so complex is because of a whole bunch of "one little extra item won't hurt" ideas.  Since your concerns can be dealt with without adding yet another "one little extra item", it would be better to do so without doing so.

Well, part of the problem with the other methods—lowering the lowest tax tier and boosting the EITC—isn't a guaranteed fix for the problem.  Participation in the EITC is only around 80%, and a number of people whom this tax would hurt aren't even making enough money to pay considerable amounts of income tax as it is.  (Those I'm most concerned about here have effective tax rates at or below the 10% level.)  It's also a very discriminatory credit: those with children get benefits nearly 10x higher than those who don't, and have significantly higher income limits.

In response to your concerns about electrical heating, I could insert a friendly amendment creating a two-tier electricity deduction.  Electric companies already have a separate tiered rate for those consumers who have electric heat (at least I know they do in the Northeast, as unpopular as that is an option), so creating a, say, $35 (non-heat)/$70 (heat inclusive) rebate could be an easily implemented solution.  The Carbon Tax statements can clearly designate what benefit taxpayers can claim to eliminate confusion.  [And, of course, those claiming the heat-inclusive electricity credit would be unable to double dip into the heating fuel exemption.]

I know it's inelegant to start adding lines to the tax code, but honestly, it's in response to a bill that...added lines to the tax code.  I still feel, that of the options thus introduced to combat the problem, my bill is the best way to effectively target relief to the people the Carbon Tax catastrophically affects.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 30, 2007, 01:33:01 PM
Well, part of the problem with the other methods—lowering the lowest tax tier and boosting the EITC—isn't a guaranteed fix for the problem.  Participation in the EITC is only around 80%,

Do you expect this credit to have any better rate of participation?

Quote
I know it's inelegant to start adding lines to the tax code, but honestly, it's in response to a bill that...added lines to the tax code.

But it avoided adding anything to the individual tax code.

I also thought of another problem.  How do roommates go about splitting the tax rebate you're offering?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on August 30, 2007, 10:56:40 PM
Small Business Relief Act of 2007
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act) (Pub. L. No. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745) is repealed.

Right to be Reproduced Act
Reproductive Rights Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Reproductive_Rights_Act) (F.L. 18-1) is repealed.

Unproven Research Funding Elimination Act
Embryonic Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Embryonic_Stem_Cell_Research_Enhancement_Act) (F.L. 18-7) is repealed

Illegal is Still Illegal Act
Illegal Immigrant Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Illegal_Immigrant_Act) (F.L. 18-8) is replealed.

Irrelevant in Atlasia But Needs To Be Eliminated Act
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act) (McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81) is repealed.


Can't really say I oppose any of these bills. I hope they pass.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 31, 2007, 08:36:35 PM
Would the "Illegal is Still Illegal Act" also revoke the citizenship of anyone who has applied for citizenship in the time since going so became legal on May 19? Because the Senate has no rights to revoke citizenship.

I don't think so, as that would be a violation of ex post facto law.

Then I question what, in fact, the Illegal is Still Illegal Act is meant to do -- punish those who were not sufficiently rapid in submitting paperwork or those who the federal government dallied in issuing citizenship to?

I presume the intention is to reduce the flood of people who have been coming here since the bill passed, now that we effectively have no immigration limits.  In my capacity as CEO Emeritus of RegionCorp, I hope this bill does not pass.  RegionCorp has been able to reduce its labor costs considerably since this bill happened.  Now if we could only get rid of those pesky minimum wage laws that the Regions have.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 31, 2007, 08:55:09 PM
Any way of moving the Jury Reform bill up the glut?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on August 31, 2007, 10:51:16 PM
Any way of moving the Jury Reform bill up the glut?

Hmmm...  I hadn't noticed how gluttinous the docket had become.  I'll see what I can do.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on September 01, 2007, 04:32:57 AM
Hi,

The Energy Policy Reform Bill has become the Enviromental Policy Bill of 2007.  The bill can be accessed here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.msg1255246#msg1255246).  As a result, the following bills have been withdrawn:
* Snowmobiles in Public Parks Bill (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.msg1256220#msg1256220[/url)
* Water Purity Bill (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.msg1260921#msg1260921)
* Light Bulbs Bill (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.msg1271531#msg1271531)

The Tax Reduction for College Tuitions Bill has become the Education Reform Bill of 2007.  It can be accessed here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.msg1255250#msg1255250).  As a result the following bills have been withdrawn:
* School Vouchers Bill (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.msg1259243#msg1259243)

The Removal of Discrimination in Blood Donation Bill has become the Equal Rights Bill of 2007.  It can be accessed here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.msg1256912#msg1256912).  As a result the following bills have been withdrawn:
* Racial Profiling Bill (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.msg1260905#msg1260905)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on September 01, 2007, 07:42:06 AM
Thanks Ebowed for the heads-up. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on September 01, 2007, 01:01:38 PM
Well, part of the problem with the other methods—lowering the lowest tax tier and boosting the EITC—isn't a guaranteed fix for the problem.  Participation in the EITC is only around 80%,

Do you expect this credit to have any better rate of participation?

I would imagine so, though I certainly can't guarantee it.  The EITC requires a more complicated calculation, where this new rebate would be a simple carry-over line item.

I know it's inelegant to start adding lines to the tax code, but honestly, it's in response to a bill that...added lines to the tax code.

But it avoided adding anything to the individual tax code.

I also thought of another problem.  How do roommates go about splitting the tax rebate you're offering?

The roommate thing is simple.  The rebate goes to the person listed on the electric bill.  Roommates can arrange to split the credit the same way they split the electric bill.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on September 01, 2007, 07:45:46 PM
I also thought of another problem.  How do roommates go about splitting the tax rebate you're offering?

The roommate thing is simple.  The rebate goes to the person listed on the electric bill.  Roommates can arrange to split the credit the same way they split the electric bill.

And what of those who live in an apartment which have utilities provided?  For a good bit of my time in college, I lived in an apartment building that had centrally provided radiant heat and no individual metering of utilities.  (I imagine it was too expensive equipment wise to retrofit the building for individual metering.)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on September 01, 2007, 10:22:33 PM
I also thought of another problem.  How do roommates go about splitting the tax rebate you're offering?

The roommate thing is simple.  The rebate goes to the person listed on the electric bill.  Roommates can arrange to split the credit the same way they split the electric bill.

And what of those who live in an apartment which have utilities provided?  For a good bit of my time in college, I lived in an apartment building that had centrally provided radiant heat and no individual metering of utilities.  (I imagine it was too expensive equipment wise to retrofit the building for individual metering.)

Ah, interesting point, and one that leaves me conflicted about where to proceed to.

We could require utilities to provide cost-averaged carbon tax estimates, since I would expect a bump up in utilities would be passed on directly to the consumer.  It's where I'm leaning right now.  (I'm pretty sure I don't want the cash going to the management company.)

Or, I could just say that management companies will have to eat the carbon tax and try to deal.  Unfortunately, shared utilities is a darned good way to optimize waste of resources, so maybe sticker shock would do the environment a lot of good in that case.  Let me sleep on that one.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The Dowager Mod on September 08, 2007, 11:21:21 PM
Seeing some of the patently ridiculous legislation in the queu yet no jury reform bill makes me wonder.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on September 08, 2007, 11:35:14 PM
Seeing some of the patently ridiculous legislation in the queu yet no jury reform bill makes me wonder.

You mean you don't support Stem Cell Reserach (sic)?  Monster!

I'm wondering whether or not the PPT should have new, expanded power to better manage the queue—perhaps a new slot open to legislation at the PPT's discretion?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on September 09, 2007, 07:01:03 AM
Seeing some of the patently ridiculous legislation in the queu yet no jury reform bill makes me wonder.

Senator Al has re-introduced his Jury Reform Bill. It is now back inthe legislative queue.

I'm wondering whether or not the PPT should have new, expanded power to better manage the queue—perhaps a new slot open to legislation at the PPT's discretion?

Art. 7 of the OSPR (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Current_Senate_Rules%2C_Regulations%2C_and_Procedures#Article_7:_Rules_on_the_Overriding_of_Sections_of_this_Procedural_Resolution) allows the PPT and President of the Senate, when working in unison, to work around the normal Senate procedures with the particular aim of moving up particularly important pieces of legislation.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: opebo on September 16, 2007, 02:43:54 PM
Just curious, is that nonsense about interfering with the Court finally dead?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bullmoose88 on September 16, 2007, 02:54:13 PM
Just curious, is that nonsense about interfering with the Court finally dead?

Even further politicizing the court is never dead.

But it is off the table for the near future.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: opebo on September 16, 2007, 02:57:15 PM
Just curious, is that nonsense about interfering with the Court finally dead?

Even further politicizing the court is never dead.

But it is off the table for the near future.

Thanks brother Justice.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bullmoose88 on September 16, 2007, 05:49:45 PM
Just curious, is that nonsense about interfering with the Court finally dead?

Even further politicizing the court is never dead.

But it is off the table for the near future.

Thanks brother Justice.

Brother justice...how quaint.  I thought the RL court stopped using that language.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: opebo on September 19, 2007, 01:44:17 PM
Just curious, is that nonsense about interfering with the Court finally dead?

Even further politicizing the court is never dead.

But it is off the table for the near future.

Thanks brother Justice.

Brother justice...how quaint.  I thought the RL court stopped using that language.

Whatever the Ralph Lauren court may do, brother justice, you will always be a brother to me.  Brother.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on September 23, 2007, 04:26:12 PM
Science in the Classrooms Bill & Education Reform Bill of 2007 are withdrawn.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on September 23, 2007, 04:31:32 PM
Science in the Classrooms Bill & Education Reform Bill of 2007 are withdrawn.

Noted, thanks :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MAS117 on September 24, 2007, 03:37:13 PM
The Northeast region has been a vocal and strong advocate for Stem Cell Research. This legislation was passed back in 2005:

Northeastern Stem Cell Act of 2005

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Northeastern Region of the Republic of Atlasia,

§ I. Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any regulation or guidance), the Governor shall conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo).

§ II. Ethical Requirements- Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Governor if the cells meet each of the following:

(a) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.

(b) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.

(c) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on September 27, 2007, 11:03:33 PM
Press Complaints Commission Bill

Section 1 - In order to safeguard the integrity of our free press and the freedom of the individual, there shall be established a Press Complaints Commission empowered with the authority to investigate charges brought to it on the basis of the following grievances: slander without due basis, fabrication of a story or editorial involving a named individual, insults against a named person, statements regarding an individual deemed to be considered by said individual as a statement of untruth.

Section 2a - The Press Complaints Commission shall consist of two individuals appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate except where identified as exempt by Section 2b.

Section 2b - No member of the Press Complaints Commission shall be an owner, proprietor or editor of any national media outlet.

Section 3 - The Commission shall have the authority to adjudicate on any matter brought before it by aggrieved persons. All parties involved shall be granted the right of representation during the period of adjudication.

Section4 - The Commission shall have the authority to impose a fine of between $100 and $100,000 if it finds in favour of the complaint brought before it by the aggrieved.

-----------------

May require modification.

I would like to complain about Section 4 of the bill. The National Weekly Atlasian only has a few thousand dollars on hand, so this section may have unintended consequences.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: afleitch on September 28, 2007, 07:58:50 AM
The fine itself is broad. If it was judged the NWA could only pay $100 if it breached any of the guidlines above then that is all that may be recommended. The fine is not designed to cripple the media.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on September 28, 2007, 09:04:07 PM
The fine itself is broad. If it was judged the NWA could only pay $100 if it breached any of the guidlines above then that is all that may be recommended. The fine is not designed to cripple the media.

Okay, then that is understandable. You might want to add a section to the bill explaining that when this gets brought up.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bacon King on September 29, 2007, 08:02:34 AM
A couple of questions I have about Por- er, Ebowed's newest bill.

3. The use of phosphates containing radium 226, which contains radioactive elements, which are attributed to 90% of smoking-related lung cancer deaths, as a fertilizer for tobacco crops is criminalized.

This is ambiguously worded. Are phosphates with radium 226 responsible for 90% of lung cancer deaths, or are radioactive elements in general?

Also, for debate's sake, can this statement be sourced?

Quote
4. Companies found in violation of Section 3 will be liable for a minimum $1 million fine per crop containing illegal fertilizer.

What do you mean by crop? A specific area of field?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on September 29, 2007, 07:53:14 PM
Well, first I'd like to note that the bill is intended to be pro-tobacco (in consistency with my position on drugs in general), but there is a difference between being pro-tobacco and pro-Big Tobacco.

My source was the following page: http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_health2.shtml

The site has a pro-cannabis bias, which I don't entirely agree with, but the section on radioactive material in corporate tobacco is relevant to the bill.

As to Section 4, I cannot clarify since I don't know anything about tobacco farming.  The bill will need to be fleshed out a little.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Colin on October 01, 2007, 04:58:16 PM
I would like to thank Lewis for re-introducing the End to Districts Amendment. The last thing I would have wanted to do was prod an unwilling Senator into introducing it again. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Verily on October 01, 2007, 05:02:17 PM
I'm a little concerned that no effort was made to make it more acceptable to the Regions. Yes, I'd love to see it passed, but reintroducing it in essentially the same form won't make it more likely that the Regions will approve.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Colin on October 01, 2007, 05:06:25 PM
I'm a little concerned that no effort was made to make it more acceptable to the Regions. Yes, I'd love to see it passed, but reintroducing it in essentially the same form won't make it more likely that the Regions will approve.

I can't see how one could make it any more acceptable to the regions. Unless we increase the size of the Senate, which is impossible, either the regional Senators or the district Senators will have to go. Overall it is actually because of regional rights issues that the district Senators were chosen as those to get rid of, since they represent completely non-regional entities and their only link with the districts is through redistricting. If you have any suggestions I am completely open to them.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Verily on October 01, 2007, 05:40:28 PM
I'm a little concerned that no effort was made to make it more acceptable to the Regions. Yes, I'd love to see it passed, but reintroducing it in essentially the same form won't make it more likely that the Regions will approve.

I can't see how one could make it any more acceptable to the regions. Unless we increase the size of the Senate, which is impossible, either the regional Senators or the district Senators will have to go. Overall it is actually because of regional rights issues that the district Senators were chosen as those to get rid of, since they represent completely non-regional entities and their only link with the districts is through redistricting. If you have any suggestions I am completely open to them.

I'm not sure removing the Regional Senators instead of the District Senators would be considered as much of an affront by the Regions. After all, many who voted against the Amendment appear to have done so because of concerns about the level of democracy offered by an STV system. The Regional Senators, representing Regions of widely varying population, are in that sense much less democratic than the District Senators.

Moreover, as the Regional Senators are primarily concerned with federal affairs, none of us has the time to devote to Regional activity--and nor do we have any more constitutional powers than the average citizens of the Regions. However small the power to redistrict is, it is more power vested in the Regions than the Regional Senators have in relation to their Regions specifically.

I don't know, maybe removing the Regional Senators would meet with greater opposition. It's at least worth hearing what those opposed have to say, as I doubt every single Nay voter opposes the theory of STV over FPTP.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Jake on October 01, 2007, 07:59:48 PM
I'm thinking most people are from the "It's a US simulation game, I don't want to change it" camp. They're not going to accept PR-STV no matter what, despite the fact that it's a better system for us to use and that it'll make things easier. The anti-Region argument just doesn't make sense. It removes one single regional power, and one that if done correctly shouldn't have any bearing at all on how regions function.

Just bring it up again, pass it, and try to see if those few SE voters will not show up.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on October 02, 2007, 04:40:55 AM
I'm not sure removing the Regional Senators instead of the District Senators would be considered as much of an affront by the Regions. After all, many who voted against the Amendment appear to have done so because of concerns about the level of democracy offered by an STV system. The Regional Senators, representing Regions of widely varying population, are in that sense much less democratic than the District Senators.

Moreover, as the Regional Senators are primarily concerned with federal affairs, none of us has the time to devote to Regional activity--and nor do we have any more constitutional powers than the average citizens of the Regions. However small the power to redistrict is, it is more power vested in the Regions than the Regional Senators have in relation to their Regions specifically.

I don't know, maybe removing the Regional Senators would meet with greater opposition. It's at least worth hearing what those opposed have to say, as I doubt every single Nay voter opposes the theory of STV over FPTP.

For my own 2 cents, the region failed in the Pacific because of 1 very influential voter (in this regard I'd note that 2 Pacificans changed their votes from Aye to Nay during polling).

Changing the amendment from Regional to District Senators may actually work but it would actually mean taking away from Regional Rights, as opposed to taking away from Governor's busy-work which has recently been lauded as a "regional right".


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Verily on October 02, 2007, 07:57:28 AM
I'm not sure removing the Regional Senators instead of the District Senators would be considered as much of an affront by the Regions. After all, many who voted against the Amendment appear to have done so because of concerns about the level of democracy offered by an STV system. The Regional Senators, representing Regions of widely varying population, are in that sense much less democratic than the District Senators.

Moreover, as the Regional Senators are primarily concerned with federal affairs, none of us has the time to devote to Regional activity--and nor do we have any more constitutional powers than the average citizens of the Regions. However small the power to redistrict is, it is more power vested in the Regions than the Regional Senators have in relation to their Regions specifically.

I don't know, maybe removing the Regional Senators would meet with greater opposition. It's at least worth hearing what those opposed have to say, as I doubt every single Nay voter opposes the theory of STV over FPTP.

For my own 2 cents, the region failed in the Pacific because of 1 very influential voter (in this regard I'd note that 2 Pacificans changed their votes from Aye to Nay during polling).

Changing the amendment from Regional to District Senators may actually work but it would actually mean taking away from Regional Rights, as opposed to taking away from Governor's busy-work which has recently been lauded as a "regional right".

Oh, I'm not talking about the Pacific Hive Mind, I'm talking about the voters who actually had a reason for voting Nay.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on October 02, 2007, 08:08:34 AM
Oh, I'm not talking about the Pacific Hive Mind

It's not like the Pacific Region is the only one to have unanimous votes.

See: Northeast Progressive Primary, Mideast Ballot Verification Amendment, etc, etc


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on October 02, 2007, 08:22:47 AM
I'm not sure removing the Regional Senators instead of the District Senators would be considered as much of an affront by the Regions. After all, many who voted against the Amendment appear to have done so because of concerns about the level of democracy offered by an STV system. The Regional Senators, representing Regions of widely varying population, are in that sense much less democratic than the District Senators.

Moreover, as the Regional Senators are primarily concerned with federal affairs, none of us has the time to devote to Regional activity--and nor do we have any more constitutional powers than the average citizens of the Regions. However small the power to redistrict is, it is more power vested in the Regions than the Regional Senators have in relation to their Regions specifically.

I don't know, maybe removing the Regional Senators would meet with greater opposition. It's at least worth hearing what those opposed have to say, as I doubt every single Nay voter opposes the theory of STV over FPTP.

For my own 2 cents, the region failed in the Pacific because of 1 very influential voter (in this regard I'd note that 2 Pacificans changed their votes from Aye to Nay during polling).

Changing the amendment from Regional to District Senators may actually work but it would actually mean taking away from Regional Rights, as opposed to taking away from Governor's busy-work which has recently been lauded as a "regional right".

Oh, I'm not talking about the Pacific Hive Mind, I'm talking about the voters who actually had a reason for voting Nay.

Well, in analysing the Nay voters I think one needs to consider the Pacific and Rest of Atlasia separately.

Nay voters outside the Pacific:
PolNut; Inks; Masterjedi; Tik; SPC; BRTD; Sam Spade; DWPerry; TCash; Dave Hawk; RonPaul08

Of those, Inks and SPC were the most vocal in their opposition based on their declared belief that it was an attack on regional rights. (I say declared belief because I'm not certain they themselves believe their own official argument here.) Of the Nay voters above, I think DWPerry and RonPaul08 would be most suceptable to a campaign by Inks/SPC.
Masterjedi is usually an anti-reform vote generally.
PolNut believes PR to be unsuitable for Atlasia.
Sam and Dave Hawk have declared themselves in agreement with the viewpoint of Keystone Phil and despite my attempts at rebuttal, that seems to be a fundamental point of disagreement.
I have no explanations for Tik; BRTD; and most crucially (given that winning his vote would have won the day) TCash.


Pacific Nay voters:
TexasGurl; Jesus; Everett; Rob; BrandonW; Alcon; CultureKing

I believe that Jesus (either actively or passively) was very influential in this region. I think had he voted in favour, the amendment would have passed at least 5-3 here. It is in this region that switching to abolish regional senators may prove more supportive as Jesus may be more inclined to approve whence re-districting is not threatened.

FTR, I don't subscribe to the view that the Pacific has a hive mind mentality. The region is more politically homogenous than most others but it has a number of members more than willing to take a stand alone.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Verily on October 02, 2007, 11:37:05 AM
I suppose "Hive Mind" is a bit ungracious, but arbitrary voting based on someone else's vote is clearly not a sign of a healthy political atmosphere.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on October 02, 2007, 02:15:33 PM
TCash and Ron Paul08 are former governors, lest we forget.  They may view the redistricting power as quite important.  DWPerry has a tendency to be nay-oriented and the support of Inks and SPC quite frankly will exert more influence than yours, with all due respect.  :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Jake on October 02, 2007, 05:13:51 PM
I suppose "Hive Mind" is a bit ungracious, but arbitrary voting based on someone else's vote is clearly not a sign of a healthy political atmosphere.

"Hive Mind" is exactly correct however.

And I've always wondered whether Alcon is simply Jesus's attempt to return to the forum's good graces.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bgwah on October 02, 2007, 06:15:23 PM
I suppose "Hive Mind" is a bit ungracious, but arbitrary voting based on someone else's vote is clearly not a sign of a healthy political atmosphere.

You're confusing the Northeast Region with the Pacific Region.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The Dowager Mod on October 02, 2007, 06:17:56 PM
I voted first so who did i copy?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Verily on October 02, 2007, 06:32:02 PM

No specific individuals were mentioned.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on October 02, 2007, 11:29:44 PM
And I've always wondered whether Alcon is simply Jesus's attempt to return to the forum's good graces.

Jake speaks truth to power.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bgwah on October 03, 2007, 09:21:28 AM
And I've always wondered whether Alcon is simply Jesus's attempt to return to the forum's good graces.

Jake speaks truth to power.

You won't tell Dave, will you...? :(


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on October 03, 2007, 11:24:15 AM
And I've always wondered whether Alcon is simply Jesus's attempt to return to the forum's good graces.

Jake speaks truth to power.

You won't tell Dave, will you...? :(

Dave and I don't exactly have a "personal relationship", if you know what I mean.  :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on October 03, 2007, 11:31:03 AM
For the record, I did designate Jesus as my successor as Supreme Overlord of the FEC when I decided to move on from the position.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bgwah on October 03, 2007, 12:08:08 PM
And I've always wondered whether Alcon is simply Jesus's attempt to return to the forum's good graces.

Jake speaks truth to power.

You won't tell Dave, will you...? :(

Dave and I don't exactly have a "personal relationship", if you know what I mean.  :P

So you're just phuck buddies? ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on October 03, 2007, 03:02:39 PM
And I've always wondered whether Alcon is simply Jesus's attempt to return to the forum's good graces.

Jake speaks truth to power.

You won't tell Dave, will you...? :(

Dave and I don't exactly have a "personal relationship", if you know what I mean.  :P

So you're just phuck buddies? ;)

Not any less than you and Alcon are.  ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on November 19, 2007, 04:56:30 PM
Just a suggestion/comment to Senator SoS:

How do you plan to fund NPR?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on November 19, 2007, 04:57:01 PM

Presumably through the National Endowment for the Humanities, which already receives federal funding.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on November 19, 2007, 05:07:50 PM

Presumably through the National Endowment for the Humanities, which already receives federal funding.
Would be the funding be sufficent?  If we are endowing money toward something why aren't we already using it up already?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Speed of Sound on November 19, 2007, 05:18:37 PM
In response to DWTL:

Expect every bill I make that has anything to do with money at all to completely disregard numbers, as a message to the uselessness money issues have become of the lack of action on revising/removing the budget. It is to remind us that under this system, trillions of dollars can be shifted without any effect on the game at all.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: afleitch on November 19, 2007, 05:22:51 PM
In response to DWTL:

Expect every bill I make that has anything to do with money at all to completely disregard numbers, as a message to the uselessness money issues have become of the lack of action on revising/removing the budget. It is to remind us that under this system, trillions of dollars can be shifted without any effect on the game at all.

^^^^^^^

A point I was making at the time and that I agree with


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 19, 2007, 05:28:21 PM
In response to DWTL:

Expect every bill I make that has anything to do with money at all to completely disregard numbers, as a message to the uselessness money issues have become of the lack of action on revising/removing the budget. It is to remind us that under this system, trillions of dollars can be shifted without any effect on the game at all.

And even without a budget, expect me to vote against every single bill that deals with monetary issues without a price tag.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on November 19, 2007, 06:37:07 PM
In response to DWTL:

Expect every bill I make that has anything to do with money at all to completely disregard numbers, as a message to the uselessness money issues have become of the lack of action on revising/removing the budget. It is to remind us that under this system, trillions of dollars can be shifted without any effect on the game at all.
Don't take it as a criticism, however, I expect this may become a problem on the senate.  As we saw with the Legalization of LSD Bill (and others of course) determining where money comes from and where it goes creates a problem


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Speed of Sound on November 19, 2007, 07:57:57 PM
If the senate wont make itself take on this issue, Im going to continue to push this. The senate must be responsible and wrangle this embarrassment, and I will fight for it until I am drug out of office.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Verily on November 19, 2007, 10:01:44 PM
If the senate wont make itself take on this issue, Im going to continue to push this. The senate must be responsible and wrangle this embarrassment, and I will fight for it until I am drug out of office.

The proper term would be "dragged" :P

And I've come around to agreeing with you. I think we can debate whether a bill is a frivolous cost without actually ascribing a price tag to everything. It just takes judiciousness on the part of the Senators.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Speed of Sound on November 19, 2007, 10:04:49 PM
If the senate wont make itself take on this issue, Im going to continue to push this. The senate must be responsible and wrangle this embarrassment, and I will fight for it until I am drug out of office.

The proper term would be "dragged" :P

And I've come around to agreeing with you. I think we can debate whether a bill is a frivolous cost without actually ascribing a price tag to everything. It just takes judiciousness on the part of the Senators.
Well, I suppose that is a fair deal, and :P Grammar Nazi. :D

I am not opposed to having prices add later, but Im not gonna get piky, since there arent numbers to get picky with since we have no idea where our budget or currency are.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on November 20, 2007, 10:05:22 AM
For the event that redistricting drags on and on, could a Senator please put this on the legislation introduction thread as a potential stop-gap measure.

Second November-December Act
7 December, 2007 is hereby renamed 31 November, 2007.

In effect this means that the first Friday in December is the 14th instead of the 7th, thus delaying elections until the 21st. I cite the precedent of last years November-December Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=49913.0).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on November 25, 2007, 11:26:29 AM
I would like to thank all senators who voted against crippling the economy and small businesses with another minimum wage increase, however, I am holding out hope the president will veto this bill.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on November 25, 2007, 03:16:08 PM
I would like to thank all senators who voted against crippling the economy and small businesses with another minimum wage increase

Can we please stop feeding this myth that minimum wages cripple the economy?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on November 25, 2007, 08:52:03 PM
I would like to thank all senators who voted against crippling the economy and small businesses with another minimum wage increase

Can we please stop feeding this myth that minimum wages cripple the economy?
Tell that to people who are layed-off because the employer can't afford two employees at the rate they are receiving now and must fire someone.  The problem with the minimum wage is it effects all workers, even those high school and college students just looking for a few extra bucks.  The drive up in the minimum wage also increases the demand for illegal immigration which I would suspect is the hidden motive for this bill I presume.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Verily on November 25, 2007, 09:01:15 PM
I would like to thank all senators who voted against crippling the economy and small businesses with another minimum wage increase

Can we please stop feeding this myth that minimum wages cripple the economy?
Tell that to people who are layed-off because the employer can't afford two employees at the rate they are receiving now and must fire someone.  The problem with the minimum wage is it effects all workers, even those high school and college students just looking for a few extra bucks.  The drive up in the minimum wage also increases the demand for illegal immigration which I would suspect is the hidden motive for this bill I presume.

Given that it only increases the minimum wage in DC and the territories, neither of which is well-known for being a hub of illegal immigration, your claim must be assumed to be entirely spurious even were Ebowed inclined to be so malign.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on November 26, 2007, 08:44:41 PM
Touche Speedy on bringing that up ;)

I shouldn't have mentioned it, but hopefully the senate can have a fun conservation on that if things change


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Speed of Sound on November 26, 2007, 08:49:16 PM
Touche Speedy on bringing that up ;)

I shouldn't have mentioned it, but hopefully the senate can have a fun conservation on that if things change
Bringing what up? This bill has no connection to bills of past. ;)

I hope so too. I have made some changes that I felt were necessary. See if you can pick them out.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Verily on November 26, 2007, 08:55:23 PM
By the way, Speedy, since the Governors were faster than feared in passing a districts map, we don't need the Second November-December Act; it could be withdrawn.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on November 29, 2007, 12:53:56 PM
I ask that the Atlasia-Peru bill be removed based on this past bill: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/South_American_Free_Trade_Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/South_American_Free_Trade_Act) which already has given Atlasia and Peru free trade with each other.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on November 29, 2007, 04:21:27 PM
I kindly request that Sen. Ebowed withdrew some of his less important bills so that other senators bill have a chance to come up


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Verily on November 29, 2007, 04:57:20 PM
I ask that the Atlasia-Peru bill be removed based on this past bill: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/South_American_Free_Trade_Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/South_American_Free_Trade_Act) which already has given Atlasia and Peru free trade with each other.

Thanks for pointing that out.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on November 29, 2007, 11:57:06 PM
I ask that the Atlasia-Peru bill be removed based on this past bill: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/South_American_Free_Trade_Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/South_American_Free_Trade_Act) which already has given Atlasia and Peru free trade with each other.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Well you still need to withdraw it. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Verily on November 29, 2007, 11:57:57 PM
I ask that the Atlasia-Peru bill be removed based on this past bill: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/South_American_Free_Trade_Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/South_American_Free_Trade_Act) which already has given Atlasia and Peru free trade with each other.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Well you still need to withdraw it. :P

I did already.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 04, 2007, 10:18:24 PM
I cannot say I am particuarly in favor of Sen. Ebowed's comprehensive drug reform.  It is too non-specific and does not say how we will regulate the sale of these drugs.  I hope it gets fixed up to the point where it is something to work with.  I am glad, however, that I have brought ending the War on Drugs to the forefront again


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on December 04, 2007, 10:19:59 PM
I cannot say I am particuarly in favor of Sen. Ebowed's comprehensive drug reform.  It is too non-specific and does not say how we will regulate the sale of these drugs.  I hope it gets fixed up to the point where it is something to work with.  I am glad, however, that I have brought ending the War on Drugs to the forefront again

It's not finished, I just got bored of writing it.  I know there will have to be many more sections like regulation, taxation, and restrictions and so on.  I just posted that so I could finish it later.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 04, 2007, 10:21:14 PM
I cannot say I am particuarly in favor of Sen. Ebowed's comprehensive drug reform.  It is too non-specific and does not say how we will regulate the sale of these drugs.  I hope it gets fixed up to the point where it is something to work with.  I am glad, however, that I have brought ending the War on Drugs to the forefront again

It's not finished, I just got bored of writing it.  I know there will have to be many more sections like regulation, taxation, and restrictions and so on.  I just posted that so I could finish it later.
Aren't you concerned though that the senate may cut out a long list of the drugs you mentioned?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on December 04, 2007, 10:24:46 PM
I cannot say I am particuarly in favor of Sen. Ebowed's comprehensive drug reform.  It is too non-specific and does not say how we will regulate the sale of these drugs.  I hope it gets fixed up to the point where it is something to work with.  I am glad, however, that I have brought ending the War on Drugs to the forefront again

It's not finished, I just got bored of writing it.  I know there will have to be many more sections like regulation, taxation, and restrictions and so on.  I just posted that so I could finish it later.
Aren't you concerned though that the senate may cut out a long list of the drugs you mentioned?

I'd be curious to see what exactly the Senators know about each of the drugs mentioned.

BTW that list doesn't legalize everything which is currently illegal ('scheduled') in the US/Atlasian law.  But it covers the stuff that people shouldn't be in trouble for.

Even if they cut out some of the drugs in the list, I hope we can agree to end the practice of incarcerating someone whose sole violation is drug use.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 04, 2007, 10:25:41 PM
I cannot say I am particuarly in favor of Sen. Ebowed's comprehensive drug reform.  It is too non-specific and does not say how we will regulate the sale of these drugs.  I hope it gets fixed up to the point where it is something to work with.  I am glad, however, that I have brought ending the War on Drugs to the forefront again

It's not finished, I just got bored of writing it.  I know there will have to be many more sections like regulation, taxation, and restrictions and so on.  I just posted that so I could finish it later.
Aren't you concerned though that the senate may cut out a long list of the drugs you mentioned?

I'd be curious to see what exactly the Senators know about each of the drugs mentioned.

BTW that list doesn't legalize everything which is currently illegal ('scheduled') in the US/Atlasian law.  But it covers the stuff that people shouldn't be in trouble for.

Even if they cut out some of the drugs in the list, I hope we can agree to end the practice of incarcerating someone whose sole violation is drug use.
How bout a bill that did nothing but end incarcerations for people found with drugs? 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on December 04, 2007, 10:26:54 PM
How bout a bill that did nothing but end incarcerations for people found with drugs? 

Because we can seriously cut dangerous crime, and fatalities from drug overdoses, if we legalize hard drugs and I hope to convince the Senate of that.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 04, 2007, 10:28:24 PM
How bout a bill that did nothing but end incarcerations for people found with drugs? 

Because we can seriously cut dangerous crime, and fatalities from drug overdoses, if we legalize hard drugs and I hope to convince the Senate of that.
Well, the Decriminalization of LSD Bill is up very soon, that should be the first real test.  I ask that you support it in principle even if you think amendments should be made


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 06, 2007, 06:03:45 PM
It appears the Decriminalization of LSD Bill is next on tap and Sam has withdrawn the Immigration Bill.  Let the fireworks begin and I plan to be very active on debate as I am the sponsor of the bill (wow what a backlog!)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 14, 2007, 06:30:48 PM
I missed the debate the first time around and I am still unclear as to what the End to District Amendments does (more specifically what "proportional representation" means in this case)  Could someone give a brief explanation of how senators would be elected?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 14, 2007, 06:43:19 PM
As far as I know, STV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Transferable_Vote).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on December 14, 2007, 07:07:12 PM
I missed the debate the first time around and I am still unclear as to what the End to District Amendments does (more specifically what "proportional representation" means in this case)  Could someone give a brief explanation of how senators would be elected?

The form of proportional representation which would be implemented would be STV.

The below quote (taken from this thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=59250.0) which may be of use) contains a number of useful links.

Those unfamiliar with STV may find benefit from the following links:

Wikipedia
  • Single Transferable Vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Transferable_Vote)
  • History and Use of STV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_use_of_the_Single_Transferable_Vote)
  • Counting STV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_Single_Transferable_Votes)

I'd also recommend the British Columbia Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform (http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public) site. This contains a number of helpful guides, such as BC-STV Counting (http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources/deliberation/BC-STV-counting.pdf).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on March 10, 2008, 12:48:02 PM
I will be opposing the SoFA amendment as well.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Colin on March 23, 2008, 10:48:33 AM
The Death with Dignity Act is probably unconstitutional unless someone can find me a constitutional power of the Senate that allows for that to be regulated by this body. Unless we are now just assuming that all laws like that are only to apply to DC and the federal territories.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: CultureKing on March 23, 2008, 05:05:47 PM
The Death with Dignity Act is probably unconstitutional unless someone can find me a constitutional power of the Senate that allows for that to be regulated by this body. Unless we are now just assuming that all laws like that are only to apply to DC and the federal territories.

hmmm... I will admit that I definately do not know all the ins and outs of the constitution as well as some others around here, but I'll try to make a connection (please feel free to say if my logic is flawed):

Article VI, clause 2 states:
No agency of government shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I see disalowing phsician assisted suicide as an infringment on a person's liberty and as such Article 1, Section 5, Clause 30 gives the senate the right to make laws to carry out the rights guarenteed to the people.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Colin on March 23, 2008, 05:44:20 PM
The Death with Dignity Act is probably unconstitutional unless someone can find me a constitutional power of the Senate that allows for that to be regulated by this body. Unless we are now just assuming that all laws like that are only to apply to DC and the federal territories.

hmmm... I will admit that I definately do not know all the ins and outs of the constitution as well as some others around here, but I'll try to make a connection (please feel free to say if my logic is flawed):

Article VI, clause 2 states:
No agency of government shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I see disalowing phsician assisted suicide as an infringment on a person's liberty and as such Article 1, Section 5, Clause 30 gives the senate the right to make laws to carry out the rights guarenteed to the people.

You're looking at the wrong section. What the Senate can do is stated here (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_I_of_the_Second_Constitution#Section_5:_Powers_of_the_Senate). If its not stated in there its a regional matter, end of story. I wish the Senate could do more but those are the rules you have to work with.

Take the advice of a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, I may know what I'm talking about. ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: CultureKing on March 23, 2008, 05:56:35 PM
The Death with Dignity Act is probably unconstitutional unless someone can find me a constitutional power of the Senate that allows for that to be regulated by this body. Unless we are now just assuming that all laws like that are only to apply to DC and the federal territories.

hmmm... I will admit that I definately do not know all the ins and outs of the constitution as well as some others around here, but I'll try to make a connection (please feel free to say if my logic is flawed):

Article VI, clause 2 states:
No agency of government shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I see disalowing phsician assisted suicide as an infringment on a person's liberty and as such Article 1, Section 5, Clause 30 gives the senate the right to make laws to carry out the rights guarenteed to the people.

You're looking at the wrong section. What the Senate can do is stated here (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_I_of_the_Second_Constitution#Section_5:_Powers_of_the_Senate). If its not stated in there its a regional matter, end of story. I wish the Senate could do more but those are the rules you have to work with.

Take the advice of a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, I may know what I'm talking about. ;)

Yes, I see that but it does say in the powers of the senate:
"30. And to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers enumerated in this section, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the Republic of Atlasia, or in any department or officer thereof."


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Colin on March 23, 2008, 06:02:39 PM
The Death with Dignity Act is probably unconstitutional unless someone can find me a constitutional power of the Senate that allows for that to be regulated by this body. Unless we are now just assuming that all laws like that are only to apply to DC and the federal territories.

hmmm... I will admit that I definately do not know all the ins and outs of the constitution as well as some others around here, but I'll try to make a connection (please feel free to say if my logic is flawed):

Article VI, clause 2 states:
No agency of government shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I see disalowing phsician assisted suicide as an infringment on a person's liberty and as such Article 1, Section 5, Clause 30 gives the senate the right to make laws to carry out the rights guarenteed to the people.

You're looking at the wrong section. What the Senate can do is stated here (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_I_of_the_Second_Constitution#Section_5:_Powers_of_the_Senate). If its not stated in there its a regional matter, end of story. I wish the Senate could do more but those are the rules you have to work with.

Take the advice of a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, I may know what I'm talking about. ;)

Yes, I see that but it does say in the powers of the senate:
"30. And to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers enumerated in this section, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the Republic of Atlasia, or in any department or officer thereof."

Very weak case, incredibly weak. Issues such as euthanasia are regional issues, whether you want them to be or not. If this does get passed I'd bet Sam would probably take you to court. He likes doing that.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: CultureKing on March 23, 2008, 06:05:16 PM
The Death with Dignity Act is probably unconstitutional unless someone can find me a constitutional power of the Senate that allows for that to be regulated by this body. Unless we are now just assuming that all laws like that are only to apply to DC and the federal territories.

hmmm... I will admit that I definately do not know all the ins and outs of the constitution as well as some others around here, but I'll try to make a connection (please feel free to say if my logic is flawed):

Article VI, clause 2 states:
No agency of government shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I see disalowing phsician assisted suicide as an infringment on a person's liberty and as such Article 1, Section 5, Clause 30 gives the senate the right to make laws to carry out the rights guarenteed to the people.

You're looking at the wrong section. What the Senate can do is stated here (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_I_of_the_Second_Constitution#Section_5:_Powers_of_the_Senate). If its not stated in there its a regional matter, end of story. I wish the Senate could do more but those are the rules you have to work with.

Take the advice of a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, I may know what I'm talking about. ;)

Yes, I see that but it does say in the powers of the senate:
"30. And to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers enumerated in this section, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the Republic of Atlasia, or in any department or officer thereof."

Very weak case, incredibly weak. Issues such as euthanasia are regional issues, whether you want them to be or not. If this does get passed I'd bet Sam would probably take you to court. He likes doing that.

hmmm...


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on March 27, 2008, 11:31:10 AM
I just want to say that I am very supportive of Peter as a pick for Attorney General, and would like to encourage my representatives to vote in favor of his nomination.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on April 14, 2008, 12:12:08 PM
The sitting Secretary of Forum Affairs declines to endorse or oppose the bill introduced by Senator Trondheim requiring special elections for all Class B vacancies.

He will, however, note that the status quo is simpler.  :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on April 14, 2008, 12:15:07 PM
The sitting Secretary of Forum Affairs declines to endorse or oppose the bill introduced by Senator Trondheim requiring special elections for all Class B vacancies.

He will, however, note that the status quo is simpler.  :)

Let me clarify—I meant the status quo as in the original text of the PRA, assuming all was constitutional.  I still strongly support fixing the currently unconstitutional Sections 18 and 19 of the PRA.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: minionofmidas on April 14, 2008, 02:09:13 PM
The sitting Secretary of Forum Affairs declines to endorse or oppose the bill introduced by Senator Trondheim requiring special elections for all Class B vacancies.

He will, however, note that the status quo is simpler.  :)

Let me clarify—I meant the status quo as in the original text of the PRA, assuming all was constitutional.  I still strongly support fixing the currently unconstitutional Sections 18 and 19 of the PRA.
Thought so, since the statement doesn't make any sense otherwise. :D


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on April 16, 2008, 09:23:10 PM
Ukulele Musical Learning Standardization Act

Section 1: Each school district shall include in their musical curriculum the instruction of how to play a ukulele.
Section 2: Each school district may decide in which grade the ukulele instruction shall occur.
Section 3: School districts must provide a ukulele to each student for the duration of the unit.


This is vital legislation.

Is this constitutional?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on April 17, 2008, 11:53:00 AM
Someone propose this:

Legislation Tabling Bill

The following shall be added to Article 4 of the Official Senate Procedural Resolution:

Section 5: Rules on Motions to Table
1.   Any Senator can, during a period of debate, introduce a motion to table the legislation.
2.   The PPT shall open a vote on the motion to table. This vote shall last for a maximum of five (5) days during which time the Senators must vote. Voting may be declared final at any time if the motion to table has been approved or rejected.
3.   For the motion to table to pass, two thirds of the Senate must vote for the motion.
4.   Tabled legislation shall be taken off the Senate floor and moved to the back of a separate queue for tabled legislation.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on April 17, 2008, 01:39:09 PM
Ukulele Musical Learning Standardization Act

Section 1: Each school district shall include in their musical curriculum the instruction of how to play a ukulele.
Section 2: Each school district may decide in which grade the ukulele instruction shall occur.
Section 3: School districts must provide a ukulele to each student for the duration of the unit.


This is vital legislation.

Is this constitutional?

Stupid yes, but it is constitutional if it's a requirement for obtaining federal education funding.

Though, um...generally it's the PPT who strikes down the frivolous legislation, and not the one who proposes it.  :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on April 17, 2008, 01:51:52 PM
Ukulele Musical Learning Standardization Act

Section 1: Each school district shall include in their musical curriculum the instruction of how to play a ukulele.
Section 2: Each school district may decide in which grade the ukulele instruction shall occur.
Section 3: School districts must provide a ukulele to each student for the duration of the unit.


This is vital legislation.

Is this constitutional?

Stupid yes, but it is constitutional if it's a requirement for obtaining federal education funding.

Though, um...generally it's the PPT who strikes down the frivolous legislation, and not the one who proposes it.  :)

That's what I wa thinking as I looked through the OSPR. That rule should probably be...fixed. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Meeker on April 17, 2008, 04:27:51 PM
Hold up - there are actually very legitimate reasons for teaching kids how to learn the ukulele. I'll go into it when we get to the debate, but google it - you should find several articles. The UK recently adopted it as part of a national curriculum.

So in other words, it's not a joke bill.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sensei on April 17, 2008, 06:50:47 PM
If I am elected Senator, I will vote in favor of this ukulele bill. If only because I want to hear 8 year olds playing the complete works of Tiny Tim.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on April 17, 2008, 07:07:37 PM
It shouldn't be required. Encouraged, yes, but not required.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Speed of Sound on April 17, 2008, 08:44:32 PM
It shouldn't be required. Encouraged, yes, but not required.
We've got nothing better to encourage? Honestly? If you guys are gonna pass this crackpot thing, you may as well go for broke. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: minionofmidas on April 19, 2008, 12:53:11 PM
It shouldn't be required. Encouraged, yes, but not required.
It certainly should be required of anyone who applies for a license to breathe.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on April 27, 2008, 08:56:06 AM
With five days passing on the amendment to allow for gun control, I asked that the vote be closed with an official tally of 0 in favor, 1 opposed, and 1 abstention.  Otherwise, a court case will be forthcoming


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on April 27, 2008, 09:53:50 AM
With five days passing on the amendment to allow for gun control, I asked that the vote be closed with an official tally of 0 in favor, 1 opposed, and 1 abstention.  Otherwise, a court case will be forthcoming

Your case would be immediately rejected, final votes can last for 7 days.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on May 12, 2008, 05:53:50 PM
Just noticed something. This:

Legislation Tabling Bill

The following shall be added to Article 5 of the Official Senate Procedural Resolution:

Section 5: Rules on Motions to Table
1.   Any Senator can, during a period of debate, introduce a motion to table the legislation.
2.   The PPT shall open a vote on the motion to table. This vote shall last for a maximum of two (2) days during which time the Senators must vote. Voting may be declared final at any time if the motion to table has been approved or rejected.
3.   For the motion to table to pass, two thirds of the Senate must vote for the motion.
4.   Tabled legislation shall be taken off the Senate floor.

Is different from this:

Someone propose this:

Legislation Tabling Bill

The following shall be added to Article 4 of the Official Senate Procedural Resolution:

Section 5: Rules on Motions to Table
1.   Any Senator can, during a period of debate, introduce a motion to table the legislation.
2.   The PPT shall open a vote on the motion to table. This vote shall last for a maximum of five (5) days during which time the Senators must vote. Voting may be declared final at any time if the motion to table has been approved or rejected.
3.   For the motion to table to pass, two thirds of the Senate must vote for the motion.
4.   Tabled legislation shall be taken off the Senate floor and moved to the back of a separate queue for tabled legislation.

While that's not necessarily a bad thing, I thought it's worth bringing up, since this'll reach the floor soon.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: CultureKing on May 12, 2008, 10:22:00 PM
Just noticed something. This:

Legislation Tabling Bill

The following shall be added to Article 5 of the Official Senate Procedural Resolution:

Section 5: Rules on Motions to Table
1.   Any Senator can, during a period of debate, introduce a motion to table the legislation.
2.   The PPT shall open a vote on the motion to table. This vote shall last for a maximum of two (2) days during which time the Senators must vote. Voting may be declared final at any time if the motion to table has been approved or rejected.
3.   For the motion to table to pass, two thirds of the Senate must vote for the motion.
4.   Tabled legislation shall be taken off the Senate floor.

Is different from this:

Someone propose this:

Legislation Tabling Bill

The following shall be added to Article 4 of the Official Senate Procedural Resolution:

Section 5: Rules on Motions to Table
1.   Any Senator can, during a period of debate, introduce a motion to table the legislation.
2.   The PPT shall open a vote on the motion to table. This vote shall last for a maximum of five (5) days during which time the Senators must vote. Voting may be declared final at any time if the motion to table has been approved or rejected.
3.   For the motion to table to pass, two thirds of the Senate must vote for the motion.
4.   Tabled legislation shall be taken off the Senate floor and moved to the back of a separate queue for tabled legislation.

While that's not necessarily a bad thing, I thought it's worth bringing up, since this'll reach the floor soon.

I basically just lessened the number of days allowed for voting as I see tabling as a procedure that helps kill bills that have no chance anyways and changing it to two days makes the process simply go faster.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on May 12, 2008, 11:23:05 PM
Just noticed something. This:

Legislation Tabling Bill

The following shall be added to Article 5 of the Official Senate Procedural Resolution:

Section 5: Rules on Motions to Table
1.   Any Senator can, during a period of debate, introduce a motion to table the legislation.
2.   The PPT shall open a vote on the motion to table. This vote shall last for a maximum of two (2) days during which time the Senators must vote. Voting may be declared final at any time if the motion to table has been approved or rejected.
3.   For the motion to table to pass, two thirds of the Senate must vote for the motion.
4.   Tabled legislation shall be taken off the Senate floor.

Is different from this:

Someone propose this:

Legislation Tabling Bill

The following shall be added to Article 4 of the Official Senate Procedural Resolution:

Section 5: Rules on Motions to Table
1.   Any Senator can, during a period of debate, introduce a motion to table the legislation.
2.   The PPT shall open a vote on the motion to table. This vote shall last for a maximum of five (5) days during which time the Senators must vote. Voting may be declared final at any time if the motion to table has been approved or rejected.
3.   For the motion to table to pass, two thirds of the Senate must vote for the motion.
4.   Tabled legislation shall be taken off the Senate floor and moved to the back of a separate queue for tabled legislation.

While that's not necessarily a bad thing, I thought it's worth bringing up, since this'll reach the floor soon.

I basically just lessened the number of days allowed for voting as I see tabling as a procedure that helps kill bills that have no chance anyways and changing it to two days makes the process simply go faster.

That makes sense, but what about your other change? The point of tabling is to have it reach the Senate at some later date. If you want to kill it, get a vote for cloture.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on May 13, 2008, 12:56:23 PM
That makes sense, but what about your other change? The point of tabling is to have it reach the Senate at some later date. If you want to kill it, get a vote for cloture.

As used in Atlasia, the point of tabling a bill is generally to kill it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on May 13, 2008, 04:18:52 PM
That makes sense, but what about your other change? The point of tabling is to have it reach the Senate at some later date. If you want to kill it, get a vote for cloture.

As used in Atlasia, the point of tabling a bill is generally to kill it.

But that's not the correct use of tabling.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on May 13, 2008, 05:22:03 PM
That makes sense, but what about your other change? The point of tabling is to have it reach the Senate at some later date. If you want to kill it, get a vote for cloture.

As used in Atlasia, the point of tabling a bill is generally to kill it.

But that's not the correct use of tabling.

Take it up with real governing bodies, which do the same thing.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on May 13, 2008, 05:40:03 PM
That makes sense, but what about your other change? The point of tabling is to have it reach the Senate at some later date. If you want to kill it, get a vote for cloture.

As used in Atlasia, the point of tabling a bill is generally to kill it.

But that's not the correct use of tabling.

Take it up with real governing bodies, which do the same thing.

Well, this can be discussed when the bill's on the floor.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 18, 2008, 06:45:01 PM
Call it something other than tabling please.  To table has directly opposite meanings in American and British, and since quite a few people here have British rather than American as their first language it would be nice to avoid predictable confusion.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on June 17, 2008, 12:57:02 PM
Amendment to End the Budget Requirement

   1. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is hereby repealed.

United Nations Reform Act

Section 1: Findings
   1. The current structure of the United Nations is unfair and gives excessive power to the major Allies of World War II and to very small states.
   2. Reform of the system in use by the United Nations is necessary for it to fulfill its envisioned role.

Section 2: Requirements for a Fair United Nations
   1. The United Nations Security Council and General Assembly shall be abolished.
   2. A Parliamentary Assembly, either elected or appointed, shall replace the Security Council and General Assembly.
   3. Seats in the Parliamentary Assembly shall be apportioned by one of the following methods: Schwarzenberg's weighted voting, Provisional People's Assembly Method, one person, one vote, or the Penrose method.
   4. No nation shall have veto power over any decision reached by the Parliamentary Assembly.
   5. The Secretary-General shall be chosen by a vote of the Parliamentary Assembly.

Section 3: Implementation
   1. Atlasia shall not give any funds to the United Nations.
   2. The Atlasian representative must use his power of veto to block all UN business.
   3. Clauses 1 and 2 of this section shall be rendered null and void upon the issuance of an Executive Order countersigned by the Secretary of External affairs certifying that the organization of the United Nations is within the letter and spirit of this law.
   4. After the process described in Clause 3 of this section renders Clauses 1 and 2 of this section null and void, they may be reinstated upon the issuance of an Executive Order countersigned by the Secretary of External affairs certifying that the organization of the United Nations is no longer within the letter and spirit of this law.

Gasoline Consumer Protection Act

   1. All prices for gasoline displayed at gas stations must be rounded up to the nearest cent.
   2. If a station is found noncompliant, the company operating the station shall be fined 10% of the earnings at that station during the period of noncompliance.

Somebody introduce these and we can get the Senate up and running again. I'll have more soon.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on June 17, 2008, 01:40:43 PM
Amendment to End the Budget Requirement

   1. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is hereby repealed.


I was just going to suggest this myself. 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on June 17, 2008, 01:43:23 PM
Amendment to End the Budget Requirement

   1. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is hereby repealed.


I was just going to suggest this myself. 

Great minds think alike? :P

Well, Meeker's on right now. Get to it, Senator!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Meeker on June 17, 2008, 01:46:26 PM
I'm not so sure about the budget one yet... if we reinstitute the GM, couldn't we potentially solve the problem of not having a basis for the budget? Or were there bigger reasons why the budget turned out to be such a disaster? (It was before my time, so I'm not well versed on it)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on June 17, 2008, 01:56:07 PM
I'm not so sure about the budget one yet... if we reinstitute the GM, couldn't we potentially solve the problem of not having a basis for the budget? Or were there bigger reasons why the budget turned out to be such a disaster? (It was before my time, so I'm not well versed on it)
Stuff like constradictory wording making it unworkable. Just introduce the three of them so that we can discuss them in the Senate.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on June 17, 2008, 05:58:42 PM
Amendment to End the Budget Requirement

   1. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is hereby repealed.

United Nations Reform Act

Section 1: Findings
   1. The current structure of the United Nations is unfair and gives excessive power to the major Allies of World War II and to very small states.
   2. Reform of the system in use by the United Nations is necessary for it to fulfill its envisioned role.

Section 2: Requirements for a Fair United Nations
   1. The United Nations Security Council and General Assembly shall be abolished.
   2. A Parliamentary Assembly, either elected or appointed, shall replace the Security Council and General Assembly.
   3. Seats in the Parliamentary Assembly shall be apportioned by one of the following methods: Schwarzenberg's weighted voting, Provisional People's Assembly Method, one person, one vote, or the Penrose method.
   4. No nation shall have veto power over any decision reached by the Parliamentary Assembly.
   5. The Secretary-General shall be chosen by a vote of the Parliamentary Assembly.

Section 3: Implementation
   1. Atlasia shall not give any funds to the United Nations.
   2. The Atlasian representative must use his power of veto to block all UN business.
   3. Clauses 1 and 2 of this section shall be rendered null and void upon the issuance of an Executive Order countersigned by the Secretary of External affairs certifying that the organization of the United Nations is within the letter and spirit of this law.
   4. After the process described in Clause 3 of this section renders Clauses 1 and 2 of this section null and void, they may be reinstated upon the issuance of an Executive Order countersigned by the Secretary of External affairs certifying that the organization of the United Nations is no longer within the letter and spirit of this law.

Gasoline Consumer Protection Act

   1. All prices for gasoline displayed at gas stations must be rounded up to the nearest cent.
   2. If a station is found noncompliant, the company operating the station shall be fined 10% of the earnings at that station during the period of noncompliance.

Somebody introduce these and we can get the Senate up and running again. I'll have more soon.

Somebody introduce these 3!

Another amendment is in the process of taking shape in my head.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on June 18, 2008, 01:17:27 PM
United Nations Reform Act

Section 1: Findings
   1. The current structure of the United Nations is unfair and gives excessive power to the major Allies of World War II and to very small states.
   2. Reform of the system in use by the United Nations is necessary for it to fulfill its envisioned role.

Section 2: Requirements for a Fair United Nations
   1. The United Nations Security Council and General Assembly shall be abolished.
   2. A Parliamentary Assembly, either elected or appointed, shall replace the Security Council and General Assembly.
   3. Seats in the Parliamentary Assembly shall be apportioned by one of the following methods: Schwarzenberg's weighted voting, Provisional People's Assembly Method, one person, one vote, or the Penrose method.
   4. No nation shall have veto power over any decision reached by the Parliamentary Assembly.
   5. The Secretary-General shall be chosen by a vote of the Parliamentary Assembly.

Section 3: Implementation
   1. Atlasia shall not give any funds to the United Nations.
   2. The Atlasian representative must use his power of veto to block all UN business.
   3. Clauses 1 and 2 of this section shall be rendered null and void upon the issuance of an Executive Order countersigned by the Secretary of External affairs certifying that the organization of the United Nations is within the letter and spirit of this law.
   4. After the process described in Clause 3 of this section renders Clauses 1 and 2 of this section null and void, they may be reinstated upon the issuance of an Executive Order countersigned by the Secretary of External affairs certifying that the organization of the United Nations is no longer within the letter and spirit of this law.

Gasoline Consumer Protection Act

   1. All prices for gasoline displayed at gas stations must be rounded up to the nearest cent.
   2. If a station is found noncompliant, the company operating the station shall be fined 10% of the earnings at that station during the period of noncompliance.

These two are still waiting.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Torie on June 18, 2008, 09:14:15 PM
Quote
3. Seats in the Parliamentary Assembly shall be apportioned by one of the following methods: Schwarzenberg's weighted voting, Provisional People's Assembly Method, one person, one vote, or the Penrose method.

What does PPAM and Penrose mean?  I understand one person, one vote, which is quite insane (India and China would own the place). Something that comported more to economic power might make some sense.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on June 18, 2008, 10:56:22 PM
Quote
3. Seats in the Parliamentary Assembly shall be apportioned by one of the following methods: Schwarzenberg's weighted voting, Provisional People's Assembly Method, one person, one vote, or the Penrose method.

What does PPAM and Penrose mean?  I understand one person, one vote, which is quite insane (India and China would own the place). Something that comported more to economic power might make some sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Parliament#Apportionment_of_votes

Penrose is still based on population alone (though a bit differently), but PPAM also takes economics into account.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 03, 2008, 02:40:30 PM
I ask that the PPT disregards Mr. Gporter's bill that he introduced as his NOT A SENATOR


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 03, 2008, 02:41:23 PM
thank you, mr. moderate. I do not believe that I was doing anything wrong, only posting legislation.
YOU ARE NOT A SENATOR YOU CANNOT POST LEGISLATION!!!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sam Spade on July 03, 2008, 02:57:48 PM
Nasolation at its finest...

Health Care Bill:

1. Health care shall be given to all Atlasians if they or their parents do the ten hours of community service. This community service can consist of basically anything. Including, service in the troops and elsewhere. Health care is also given to the children by the hours of community service their parents do. If the parents do twenty or more hours of community service, they are guarenteed health care for both themselves and their children. If they do between ten and twenty hours of community service, then they earn health care for only themselves.

2. Back to the immigration topic with health care, if the immigrant's records are clear and if they follow the citizenship entry format as it is to be followed, then they will earn health care.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 03, 2008, 02:58:50 PM
Does anyone what charges can be brought against Gporter for taking the oath of office illegally and then trying to vote and introduce legislation?  I can't even find anything relevant other than the fact that he's not a senator.  I don't think there's ever been anyone dumb enough to that before


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on July 03, 2008, 03:55:05 PM
Does anyone what charges can be brought against Gporter for taking the oath of office illegally and then trying to vote and introduce legislation?  I can't even find anything relevant other than the fact that he's not a senator.  I don't think there's ever been anyone dumb enough to that before

None of it will reach the floor in the next 19 hours, so the point is basically moot.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 03, 2008, 03:56:44 PM
Does anyone what charges can be brought against Gporter for taking the oath of office illegally and then trying to vote and introduce legislation?  I can't even find anything relevant other than the fact that he's not a senator.  I don't think there's ever been anyone dumb enough to that before

None of it will reach the floor in the next 19 hours, so the point is basically moot.
True, but if he continues to be active in the next senate, that a problem most definetly arises.  And considering he is not a senator now, what would stop him then?  


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 03, 2008, 04:05:00 PM
I was appointed by the governor, AHDuke, that I was the appointed senator and he told me that I could take the oath of office at my convenience. I did so and it is not illegal.
Slight problem there.............AHDUKE IS NOT THE GODDAMN GOVERNOR WHAT THE HELL DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND!!!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Hash on July 03, 2008, 04:07:52 PM
I was appointed by the governor, AHDuke, that I was the appointed senator and he told me that I could take the oath of office at my convenience. I did so and it is not illegal.
Slight problem there.............AHDUKE IS NOT THE GODDAMN GOVERNOR WHAT THE HELL DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND!!!

Let me explain calmly. You see, gporter hasn't taken High-Level Reading in school, so he understands part of it but hasn't learned to grasp everything. He also can't analyze what certain things mean.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 03, 2008, 04:08:40 PM
I was appointed by the governor, AHDuke, that I was the appointed senator and he told me that I could take the oath of office at my convenience. I did so and it is not illegal.
Slight problem there.............AHDUKE IS NOT THE GODDAMN GOVERNOR WHAT THE HELL DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND!!!

Let me explain calmly. You see, gporter hasn't taken High-Level Reading in school, so he understands part of it but hasn't learned to grasp everything. He also can't analyze what certain things mean.
LOL, coup time yet?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Hash on July 03, 2008, 04:10:50 PM
I was appointed by the governor, AHDuke, that I was the appointed senator and he told me that I could take the oath of office at my convenience. I did so and it is not illegal.
Slight problem there.............AHDUKE IS NOT THE GODDAMN GOVERNOR WHAT THE HELL DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND!!!

Let me explain calmly. You see, gporter hasn't taken High-Level Reading in school, so he understands part of it but hasn't learned to grasp everything. He also can't analyze what certain things mean.
LOL, coup time yet?

Yes. I am now in the Southeast region.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 04, 2008, 04:52:24 AM
Please introduce:

United Nations Reform Act

Section 1: Findings
   1. The current structure of the United Nations is unfair and gives excessive power to the major Allies of World War II and to very small states.
   2. Reform of the system in use by the United Nations is necessary for it to fulfill its envisioned role.

Section 2: Requirements for a Fair United Nations
   1. The United Nations Security Council and General Assembly shall be abolished.
   2. A Parliamentary Assembly, either elected or appointed, shall replace the Security Council and General Assembly.
   3. Seats in the Parliamentary Assembly shall be apportioned by one of the following methods: Schwarzenberg's weighted voting, Provisional People's Assembly Method, one person, one vote, or the Penrose method.
   4. No nation shall have veto power over any decision reached by the Parliamentary Assembly.
   5. The Secretary-General shall be chosen by a vote of the Parliamentary Assembly.

Section 3: Implementation
   1. Atlasia shall not give any funds to the United Nations.
   2. The Atlasian representative must use his power of veto to block all UN business.
   3. Clauses 1 and 2 of this section shall be rendered null and void upon the issuance of an Executive Order countersigned by the Secretary of External affairs certifying that the organization of the United Nations is within the letter and spirit of this law.
   4. After the process described in Clause 3 of this section renders Clauses 1 and 2 of this section null and void, they may be reinstated upon the issuance of an Executive Order countersigned by the Secretary of External affairs certifying that the organization of the United Nations is no longer within the letter and spirit of this law.

Gasoline Consumer Protection Act

   1. All prices for gasoline displayed at gas stations must be rounded up to the nearest cent.
   2. If a station is found noncompliant, the company operating the station shall be fined 10% of the earnings at that station during the period of noncompliance.

These two are still waiting.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on July 06, 2008, 08:05:08 PM
That's not a bill we can pass since the Atlasian Senate doesn't have the power to change the UN just because we want to. So I'd ask DWTL to withdraw it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 06, 2008, 08:06:30 PM
That's not a bill we can pass since the Atlasian Senate doesn't have the power to change the UN just because we want to. So I'd ask DWTL to withdraw it.
Hold on, I'll read it first.  I have no idea if it is good or not, I just promised to introduce bills for people and did a copy/paste :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: minionofmidas on July 07, 2008, 09:10:25 AM
That's not a bill we can pass since the Atlasian Senate doesn't have the power to change the UN just because we want to. So I'd ask DWTL to withdraw it.
Hold on, I'll read it first.  I have no idea if it is good or not, I just promised to introduce bills for people and did a copy/paste :P
It would have helped if MasterJedi had read it to the end, too. Else he would have noticed that it doesn't *exactly* do what he claims it does. (I'm still not supporting it in its current form.)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on July 07, 2008, 11:01:14 AM
That's not a bill we can pass since the Atlasian Senate doesn't have the power to change the UN just because we want to. So I'd ask DWTL to withdraw it.
Hold on, I'll read it first.  I have no idea if it is good or not, I just promised to introduce bills for people and did a copy/paste :P
It would have helped if MasterJedi had read it to the end, too. Else he would have noticed that it doesn't *exactly* do what he claims it does. (I'm still not supporting it in its current form.)

Yes I read it to the end and all it is is blackmail. Now if Xahar just proposed to pull out of the UN and let our other organization, the GTO (you can read about this in the Statute on the wiki)a true freedom organization without the crap countries deal with world issues I wouldn't have said anything. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on July 07, 2008, 11:35:37 AM
Don't have the motivation to write out legislation for someone to copy & paste, but here are a few ideas that some of the more liberal Senators might be willing to take up:

1. Restoring the power to grant marriage licenses, which of course would be available to couples regardless of sexual orientation.  (I know I'm not the only person who is unhappy with the fact that the government essentially abolished the institution of marriage, which is not strictly religious.)
2. Remove the existing ban on gambling within D.C./federal territories.
3. Repeal the authorization of oil drilling in ANWR.
4. Repeal the ban on affirmative action in federal employment.
5. Mandate adequate public transportation systems in large cities
6. Remove the term limit on Presidents via constitutional amendment.
7. Restore the power to delegate foreign aid to the Senate (currently under the authority of the Secretary of External Affairs, a move done solely to slash foreign aid, which was in turn done to pass a budget)

Some of these will be unlikely to pass, but we need more debate around here, right?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 07, 2008, 02:54:09 PM
My bill was just an idea to debate. I wouldn't mind if it fails, as long as it reaches the floor.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 07, 2008, 02:55:09 PM
My bill was just an idea to debate. I wouldn't mind if it fails, as long as it reaches the floor.
Yea, but the fact is was unconstitutional makes debating it a waste of time.  Xahar, I know you love reseraching :)  Search BrandonH's failed bill to withdraw from the UN

Look around mid-2007, I was in the senate when it was being debated I believe


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 07, 2008, 02:56:39 PM
Re: legalizing heroin.  Wouldn't it be simpler to overhaul the Controlled Substances Act entirely?  While I personally agree that if we wish to save lives, reduce crime, and remove the main funding of international terrorist organizations, it is imperative that heroin is legalized, I can think of many far less harmful substances which remain illegal at the federal level (magic mushrooms, for example).
Ebowed, I agree that legalizing all drugs is important, but I thought a good place to start is by legalizing the most popular and most connected to crime drugs.  Sure, magic mushrooms must be legal, but there does not seem to be as much activity with them.  I would support repealing the Controlled Substances Act, but such a thing never would pass.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on July 07, 2008, 03:22:41 PM
Allow me to make this known: I will generally support the decriminalization of a number of drugs which consenting adults can handle with an informed decision making process.

I will veto attempts to legalize the cruelest, most dangerous street drugs: Crystal Meth, Heroin, and Crack.  These are not drugs that bring "enjoyment" to the typical user.  These are life destroying drugs that encourage crime, and should be made as scarsely available as possible.

For the remaining drugs that can perhaps be put in the category of "lesser evils"—cannabis, steroids, and ecstacy, for example—let us follow the example of the final version of DWTL's "Decriminalization of LSD Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Decriminalization_of_LSD_Act)."


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: minionofmidas on July 07, 2008, 03:38:10 PM
Cannabis is legal in Atlasia IIRC.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 07, 2008, 03:39:13 PM
That is true, or I would have had gone for that first.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 07, 2008, 03:40:31 PM
Perhaps the "Legalization of Heroin Bill" will be scaled down in the senate, but I was disappointed with the compromises made in the Decriminalization of LSD bill because the government got nothing in return.  That was not a huge deal with LSD, but the tax and potential money to be made off heroin is not something to pass up.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on July 07, 2008, 03:48:19 PM

So I figured, though I didn't catch it on a quick glance of the statute list.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on July 07, 2008, 03:49:05 PM
Perhaps the "Legalization of Heroin Bill" will be scaled down in the senate, but I was disappointed with the compromises made in the Decriminalization of LSD bill because the government got nothing in return.  That was not a huge deal with LSD, but the tax and potential money to be made off heroin is not something to pass up.

That's blood money.  No thanks.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 07, 2008, 03:51:04 PM

So I figured, though I didn't catch it on a quick glance of the statute list.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Marijuana_Legalization_and_Taxation_Act

More blood money for you :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 07, 2008, 06:04:16 PM
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Marijuana_Legalization_and_Taxation_Act

More blood money for you :)

Technically, no one has ever died from just taking marijuana.

I would argue that the amount of deaths from heroin would drastically, drastically decrease if it were legalized, but it's a difficult issue to change minds on.
Certainly the decreased gang violence would save lives beside anything else.  Although I think if the drug were legal and regulated it would be much safer.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 07, 2008, 09:00:43 PM
I've considered introducing a bill that would eliminate the Controled Substances Act of 1970, but that would be a logistical nightmare.  I think it is more effective to slowly legalize drugs a few (possibly only one) at a time.  Eventually though I would hope to legalize them all.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on July 21, 2008, 03:45:12 AM
Old idea I introduced, I forget what happened to it but it didn't pass:

Fairness to the Voter Amendment II

Section 1:
1. To change Article V, Section 2, Part IV of the constitution from reading ...tenth day before the election to ... fifth day before the election

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=57507.45


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 21, 2008, 06:21:06 AM
Old idea I introduced, I forget what happened to it but it didn't pass:

Fairness to the Voter Amendment II

Section 1:
1. To change Article V, Section 2, Part IV of the constitution from reading ...tenth day before the election to ... fifth day before the election

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=57507.45
That was the "Fairness to the Voter Amendment" which dealt with vote editing.  The original had to do with this issue as well, but the senate voted it was necessary for two seperate issues, and I don't believe I ever introduced this second one.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on August 08, 2008, 05:08:45 PM
Amendment to the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act

The following text is added to Section 3 of the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act:

5. Secession, defined as a territory or group of people declaring independence from the Atlasia.



The relevant section and act can be found here (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Consolidated_Criminal_Justice_Bill).

I've introduced this because, while I believe that secession can be prosecuted as treason under the current laws, the overall statue on these actions is vague and circumstantial. Clearing up these grey areas would probably help if Atlasia is faced with a situation like this again.

Colin, could you put this in Slot 7?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on August 08, 2008, 05:17:50 PM
Amendment to the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act

The following text is added to Section 3 of the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act:

5. Secession, defined as a territory or group of people declaring independence from the Atlasia.



The relevant section and act can be found here (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Consolidated_Criminal_Justice_Bill).

I've introduced this because, while I believe that secession can be prosecuted as treason under the current laws, the overall statue on these actions is vague and circumstantial. Clearing up these grey areas would probably help if Atlasia is faced with a situation like this again.

Colin, could you put this in Slot 7?
It would be funny to see this pass as the penalty would be not being able to vote in federal elections and hold federal office, something would be of little meaning to a seceded nation. 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on August 08, 2008, 05:19:17 PM
It might be worthwhile to add "or threatening" after "declaring".


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on August 08, 2008, 05:20:44 PM
It might be worthwhile to add "or threatening" after "declaring".
That would be funny, the amount of people to prosecute might skyrocket.  I sure hope Andy Jackson and Hashemite are the first people prosecuted


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on August 08, 2008, 05:22:21 PM
It might be worthwhile to add "or threatening" after "declaring".
That would be funny, the amount of people to prosecute might skyrocket.  I sure hope Andy Jackson and Hashemite are the first people prosecuted

Hashemite can't, since ex post facto laws are illegal. And Andy Jackson should be prosecuted. It is wrong to fight secession with secession.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Meeker on August 10, 2008, 11:15:29 AM
Amendment to Abolish the Southeast

1. The citizens of the Southeast region have consistently proven they are not capable of governing themselves
2. For the citizens' own protection, the Southeast regional government shall be abolished and the duties of governing the region shall be ceded to the various other regional governments
3. The cessions will go as follows:
  • The states of Texas and Louisiana will be hereafter governed by the Pacific regional government
  • The states of Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama will be hereafter governed by the Midwest regional government
  • The states of Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina will be hereafter governed by the Mideast regional government
  • The states of Georgia and Florida will be hereafter governed by the Northeast regional government


I'm about 5% serious


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on August 10, 2008, 11:17:16 AM
Amendment to Abolish the Southeast

1. The citizens of the Southeast region have consistently proven they are not capable of governing themselves
2. For the citizens' own protection, the Southeast regional government shall be abolished and the duties of governing the region shall be ceded to the various other regional governments
3. The cessions will go as follows:
  • The states of Texas and Louisiana will be hereafter governed by the Pacific regional government
  • The states of Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama will be hereafter governed by the Midwest regional government
  • The states of Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina will be hereafter governed by the Mideast regional government
  • The states of Georgia and Florida will be hereafter governed by the Northeast regional government


I'm about 5% serious
I hardly think we have proved incapable of governing ourselves, its wanting to overgovern ourselves that has people agnry.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on August 10, 2008, 03:46:51 PM
Amendment to Abolish the Southeast

1. The citizens of the Southeast region have consistently proven they are not capable of governing themselves
2. For the citizens' own protection, the Southeast regional government shall be abolished and the duties of governing the region shall be ceded to the various other regional governments
3. The cessions will go as follows:
  • The states of Texas and Louisiana will be hereafter governed by the Pacific regional government
  • The states of Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama will be hereafter governed by the Midwest regional government
  • The states of Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina will be hereafter governed by the Mideast regional government
  • The states of Georgia and Florida will be hereafter governed by the Northeast regional government


I'm about 5% serious
I hardly think we have proved incapable of governing ourselves, its wanting to overgovern ourselves that has people agnry.

     It would be funny if this passed because then I would be returned to the Pacific Region without actually having to move. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Hash on August 10, 2008, 04:35:00 PM
Amendment to Abolish the Southeast

1. The citizens of the Southeast region have consistently proven they are not capable of governing themselves
2. For the citizens' own protection, the Southeast regional government shall be abolished and the duties of governing the region shall be ceded to the various other regional governments
3. The cessions will go as follows:
  • The states of Texas and Louisiana will be hereafter governed by the Pacific regional government
  • The states of Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama will be hereafter governed by the Midwest regional government
  • The states of Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina will be hereafter governed by the Mideast regional government
  • The states of Georgia and Florida will be hereafter governed by the Northeast regional government


I'm about 5% serious


You forgot Puerto Rico. Bad.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on August 10, 2008, 04:46:17 PM
Amendment to Abolish the Southeast

1. The citizens of the Southeast region have consistently proven they are not capable of governing themselves
2. For the citizens' own protection, the Southeast regional government shall be abolished and the duties of governing the region shall be ceded to the various other regional governments
3. The cessions will go as follows:
  • The states of Texas and Louisiana will be hereafter governed by the Pacific regional government
  • The states of Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama will be hereafter governed by the Midwest regional government
  • The states of Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina will be hereafter governed by the Mideast regional government
  • The states of Georgia and Florida will be hereafter governed by the Northeast regional government


I'm about 5% serious


You forgot Puerto Rico. Bad.

     Another concern is a non-contiguous Northeast. I would say give Georgia, Florida, & Puerto Rico to the Mideast, who in turn would give D.C. & Maryland to the Northeast, along with Missouri to the Midwest. Or a plan along those lines.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Meeker on August 10, 2008, 04:59:39 PM
Amendment to Abolish the Southeast

1. The citizens of the Southeast region have consistently proven they are not capable of governing themselves
2. For the citizens' own protection, the Southeast regional government shall be abolished and the duties of governing the region shall be ceded to the various other regional governments
3. The cessions will go as follows:
  • The states of Texas and Louisiana will be hereafter governed by the Pacific regional government
  • The states of Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama will be hereafter governed by the Midwest regional government
  • The states of Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina will be hereafter governed by the Mideast regional government
  • The states of Georgia and Florida will be hereafter governed by the Northeast regional government


I'm about 5% serious


You forgot Puerto Rico. Bad.

My mistake. Puerto Rico shall be governed by the Northeast.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on August 10, 2008, 10:48:13 PM
Amendment to Abolish the Southeast

1. The citizens of the Southeast region have consistently proven they are not capable of governing themselves
2. For the citizens' own protection, the Southeast regional government shall be abolished and the duties of governing the region shall be ceded to the various other regional governments
3. The cessions will go as follows:
  • The states of Texas and Louisiana will be hereafter governed by the Pacific regional government
  • The states of Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama will be hereafter governed by the Midwest regional government
  • The states of Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina will be hereafter governed by the Mideast regional government
  • The states of Georgia and Florida will be hereafter governed by the Northeast regional government


I'm about 5% serious


You forgot Puerto Rico. Bad.

     Another concern is a non-contiguous Northeast. I would say give Georgia, Florida, & Puerto Rico to the Mideast, who in turn would give D.C. & Maryland to the Northeast, along with Missouri to the Midwest. Or a plan along those lines.

For the congruity, you could give a coastal territory of 1/12 foot from the South Carolina to Maryland and the Outer Banks.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on August 10, 2008, 11:06:33 PM
Amendment to Abolish the Southeast

1. The citizens of the Southeast region have consistently proven they are not capable of governing themselves
2. For the citizens' own protection, the Southeast regional government shall be abolished and the duties of governing the region shall be ceded to the various other regional governments
3. The cessions will go as follows:
  • The states of Texas and Louisiana will be hereafter governed by the Pacific regional government
  • The states of Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama will be hereafter governed by the Midwest regional government
  • The states of Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina will be hereafter governed by the Mideast regional government
  • The states of Georgia and Florida will be hereafter governed by the Northeast regional government


I'm about 5% serious


You forgot Puerto Rico. Bad.

     Another concern is a non-contiguous Northeast. I would say give Georgia, Florida, & Puerto Rico to the Mideast, who in turn would give D.C. & Maryland to the Northeast, along with Missouri to the Midwest. Or a plan along those lines.

For the congruity, you could give a coastal territory of 1/12 foot from the South Carolina to Maryland and the Outer Banks.

     That could work too. ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: minionofmidas on August 13, 2008, 07:19:24 AM
Amendment to Abolish the Southeast

1. The citizens of the Southeast region have consistently proven they are not capable of governing themselves
2. For the citizens' own protection, the Southeast regional government shall be abolished and the duties of governing the region shall be ceded to the various other regional governments
3. The cessions will go as follows:
  • The states of Texas and Louisiana will be hereafter governed by the Pacific regional government
  • The states of Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama will be hereafter governed by the Midwest regional government
  • The states of Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina will be hereafter governed by the Mideast regional government
  • The states of Georgia and Florida will be hereafter governed by the Northeast regional government


I'm about 5% serious


You forgot Puerto Rico. Bad.

     Another concern is a non-contiguous Northeast. I would say give Georgia, Florida, & Puerto Rico to the Mideast, who in turn would give D.C. & Maryland to the Northeast, along with Missouri to the Midwest. Or a plan along those lines.

For the congruity, you could give a coastal territory of 1/12 foot from the South Carolina to Maryland and the Outer Banks.
For the purposes of redistricting, back when we bothered with that tiresome good-for-nothing process, Puerto Rico was considered adjacent to Florida and Maine, so by that standard the NE is contiguous.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Meeker on August 13, 2008, 09:28:23 PM
Amendment to Abolish the Southeast

1. The citizens of the Southeast region have consistently proven they are not capable of governing themselves
2. For the citizens' own protection, the Southeast regional government shall be abolished and the duties of governing the region shall be ceded to the various other regional governments
3. The cessions will go as follows:
  • The states of Texas and Louisiana will be hereafter governed by the Pacific regional government
  • The states of Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama will be hereafter governed by the Midwest regional government
  • The states of Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina will be hereafter governed by the Mideast regional government
  • The states of Georgia and Florida will be hereafter governed by the Northeast regional government


I'm about 5% serious


You forgot Puerto Rico. Bad.

     Another concern is a non-contiguous Northeast. I would say give Georgia, Florida, & Puerto Rico to the Mideast, who in turn would give D.C. & Maryland to the Northeast, along with Missouri to the Midwest. Or a plan along those lines.

For the congruity, you could give a coastal territory of 1/12 foot from the South Carolina to Maryland and the Outer Banks.
For the purposes of redistricting, back when we bothered with that tiresome good-for-nothing process, Puerto Rico was considered adjacent to Florida and Maine, so by that standard the NE is contiguous.

Of course! My intention all along


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on August 16, 2008, 07:24:35 PM
Somebody propose this:

Actual Amendment to the National Energy Act

Clauses 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9 of the National Energy Act (F.L. 3-3) are hereby repealed.

That legislation is a nightmare. TexasGurl was very right.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on August 16, 2008, 07:29:10 PM
Somebody propose this:

Actual Amendment to the National Energy Act

Clauses 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9 of the National Energy Act (F.L. 3-3) are hereby repealed.

That legislation is a nightmare. TexasGurl was very right.

     Hey, if you're elected Senator, then you can propose it. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on August 16, 2008, 07:35:37 PM
Somebody propose this:

Actual Amendment to the National Energy Act

Clauses 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9 of the National Energy Act (F.L. 3-3) are hereby repealed.

That legislation is a nightmare. TexasGurl was very right.

     Hey, if you're elected Senator, then you can propose it. :)

It'd be nice if it was done quicker than that.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on September 06, 2008, 07:16:54 AM

Very happy to see this - it didn't occur to me that this problem arose until just the other day.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 06, 2008, 11:36:22 AM
Somebody propose this:

Actual Amendment to the National Energy Act

Clauses 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9 of the National Energy Act (F.L. 3-3) are hereby repealed.

That legislation is a nightmare. TexasGurl was very right.

     Hey, if you're elected Senator, then you can propose it. :)

It'd be nice if it was done quicker than that.

Somebody? That legislation was horrible.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: minionofmidas on September 06, 2008, 12:48:36 PM
Somebody propose this:

Actual Amendment to the National Energy Act

Clauses 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9 of the National Energy Act (F.L. 3-3) are hereby repealed.

That legislation is a nightmare. TexasGurl was very right.
I see the problems with Clause 2, and have no idea about the point of Clause 3, but what`s wrong with the others?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 06, 2008, 07:00:36 PM
Somebody propose this:

Actual Amendment to the National Energy Act

Clauses 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9 of the National Energy Act (F.L. 3-3) are hereby repealed.

That legislation is a nightmare. TexasGurl was very right.
I see the problems with Clause 2, and have no idea about the point of Clause 3, but what`s wrong with the others?

4 is counterproductive (SUVs are nothing like sedans in terms of fuel consumption), and 8 and 9 are very vague.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: minionofmidas on September 07, 2008, 03:29:53 AM
SUVs are nothing like sedans in terms of fuel consumption.
Well, that's the point.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 07, 2008, 12:00:05 PM

Huh? I'm confused.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: minionofmidas on September 09, 2008, 03:57:50 AM
Manufacturers pay a fine for selling cars that do not comply to CAFE standards. Holding SUVs up to the same standard as other cars (which, more or less as a rule, they're used as) increases their price. It should be pointed out that something similar though less sweeping was enacted by the US Congress in 2007 - reclassifying some smaller SUVs as ordinary passenger cars.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on September 09, 2008, 11:04:26 AM
I would like to request someone introduce my mass transit bill into the Senate as newly edited.



Amended Mass Transit Infrastructure Investment Act of 2008

Whereas the revenue expected from the FY 2009 component ($5 per metric tonne of a total $10 per metric tonne tax) of the domestic Carbon Tax is expected to be an estimated $30 billion, and;

Whereas the Atlasian Senate finds that this environmental-based impact fee is best spent through investment in new mass transit options and research into alternative energy,

Therefore be it resolved that:

1. Funding Allocation. Atlasia shall dedicate 50% of the FY2009 carbon tax component ($2.5 per metric tonne or $15 billion in total), as a one time grant towards the new construction, upgrade, and maintenance of mass transit options.

2. Funding Distribution. Said funds shall be apportioned across the regions according to logistics, population, need, cost effectiveness, and potential to reduce carbon emissions.  Funds shall be distributed in accordance with recommendations from the Department of Transportation.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 09, 2008, 03:20:27 PM
Manufacturers pay a fine for selling cars that do not comply to CAFE standards. Holding SUVs up to the same standard as other cars (which, more or less as a rule, they're used as) increases their price. It should be pointed out that something similar though less sweeping was enacted by the US Congress in 2007 - reclassifying some smaller SUVs as ordinary passenger cars.

OK. Strike 4, then.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bacon King on September 16, 2008, 12:23:00 PM
I'll introduce these.

Quote from: ޒަހަރު) زَهَـرْ)
Actual Amendment to the National Energy Act

Clauses 2, 3, 8, and 9 of the National Energy Act (F.L. 3-3) are hereby repealed.
Amended Mass Transit Infrastructure Investment Act of 2008

Whereas the revenue expected from the FY 2009 component ($5 per metric tonne of a total $10 per metric tonne tax) of the domestic Carbon Tax is expected to be an estimated $30 billion, and;

Whereas the Atlasian Senate finds that this environmental-based impact fee is best spent through investment in new mass transit options and research into alternative energy,

Therefore be it resolved that:

1. Funding Allocation. Atlasia shall dedicate 50% of the FY2009 carbon tax component ($2.5 per metric tonne or $15 billion in total), as a one time grant towards the new construction, upgrade, and maintenance of mass transit options.

2. Funding Distribution. Said funds shall be apportioned across the regions according to logistics, population, need, cost effectiveness, and potential to reduce carbon emissions.  Funds shall be distributed in accordance with recommendations from the Department of Transportation.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: minionofmidas on September 16, 2008, 12:29:54 PM
I'll introduce these.

Quote from: ޒަހަރު) زَهَـرْ)
Actual Amendment to the National Energy Act

Clauses 2, 3, 8, and 9 of the National Energy Act (F.L. 3-3) are hereby repealed.


Amended Mass Transit Infrastructure Investment Act of 2008

Whereas the revenue expected from the FY 2009 component ($5 per metric tonne of a total $10 per metric tonne tax) of the domestic Carbon Tax is expected to be an estimated $30 billion, and;

Whereas the Atlasian Senate finds that this environmental-based impact fee is best spent through investment in new mass transit options and research into alternative energy,

Therefore be it resolved that:

1. Funding Allocation. Atlasia shall dedicate 50% of the FY2009 carbon tax component ($2.5 per metric tonne or $15 billion in total), as a one time grant towards the new construction, upgrade, and maintenance of mass transit options.

2. Funding Distribution. Said funds shall be apportioned across the regions according to logistics, population, need, cost effectiveness, and potential to reduce carbon emissions.  Funds shall be distributed in accordance with recommendations from the Department of Transportation.

The latter Act was already introduced by Dwtl. (Wrong thread, too, but I'll be nice and count it.)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bacon King on September 16, 2008, 12:53:30 PM
I'll introduce these.

Quote from: ޒަހަރު) زَهَـرْ)
Actual Amendment to the National Energy Act

Clauses 2, 3, 8, and 9 of the National Energy Act (F.L. 3-3) are hereby repealed.


Amended Mass Transit Infrastructure Investment Act of 2008

Whereas the revenue expected from the FY 2009 component ($5 per metric tonne of a total $10 per metric tonne tax) of the domestic Carbon Tax is expected to be an estimated $30 billion, and;

Whereas the Atlasian Senate finds that this environmental-based impact fee is best spent through investment in new mass transit options and research into alternative energy,

Therefore be it resolved that:

1. Funding Allocation. Atlasia shall dedicate 50% of the FY2009 carbon tax component ($2.5 per metric tonne or $15 billion in total), as a one time grant towards the new construction, upgrade, and maintenance of mass transit options.

2. Funding Distribution. Said funds shall be apportioned across the regions according to logistics, population, need, cost effectiveness, and potential to reduce carbon emissions.  Funds shall be distributed in accordance with recommendations from the Department of Transportation.

The latter Act was already introduced by Dwtl. (Wrong thread, too, but I'll be nice and count it.)

doh! I haven't had meh coffee yet.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 19, 2008, 07:54:22 PM
My intention is that the Financial Services Regulation Bill is to be fairly open-ended. This is a debate that we ought to have.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 19, 2008, 08:28:47 PM
Context?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 20, 2008, 06:08:32 AM

Have you been watching the news recently?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 20, 2008, 12:16:45 PM

So I have (though less than usual). But what exactly is the legislation in question that you wish to repeal?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bacon King on October 07, 2008, 11:34:00 AM
My new bill:

Quote
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Bill

The Republic of Atlasia shall become a party to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Test_Ban_Treaty) as agreed in New York in 1996.

Got the idea from Jas's new stuff.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on October 08, 2008, 03:41:36 PM
quote author=Jas link=topic=39557.msg1754241#msg1754241 date=1223394855]
End Plastic Bag Pollution Bill

1. A levy of $0.20 shall be made on the sale of all plastic bags within the Republic of Atlasia to take effect 6 weeks after the ratification of this Act.

2. For the purposes of this legislation, 'plastic bag’ shall be defined in as a bag 'made wholly or in part of plastic'.

3. Any and all funds raised from this levy shall be directed towards an 'environmental fund'.

4. The expenditure of monies from the environmental fund shall be made on projects dedicated to improving the environment of Atlasia as may be approved by the President of Atlasia, or such persons as he may appoint to do same.
[/quote]

I like this bill, but I am wondering if anyone would open to creating a sort of "bag deposit" similar to the bottle deposit some states in order to encourage recycling


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Verily on October 08, 2008, 10:16:56 PM
End Plastic Bag Pollution Bill

1. A levy of $0.20 shall be made on the sale of all plastic bags within the Republic of Atlasia to take effect 6 weeks after the ratification of this Act.

2. For the purposes of this legislation, 'plastic bag’ shall be defined in as a bag 'made wholly or in part of plastic'.

3. Any and all funds raised from this levy shall be directed towards an 'environmental fund'.

4. The expenditure of monies from the environmental fund shall be made on projects dedicated to improving the environment of Atlasia as may be approved by the President of Atlasia, or such persons as he may appoint to do same.

I like this bill, but I am wondering if anyone would open to creating a sort of "bag deposit" similar to the bottle deposit some states in order to encourage recycling

Surely a staunch Regionalist such as yourself shouldn't want the federal government to be getting so involved in local affairs.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on October 09, 2008, 06:06:35 PM
End Plastic Bag Pollution Bill

1. A levy of $0.20 shall be made on the sale of all plastic bags within the Republic of Atlasia to take effect 6 weeks after the ratification of this Act.

2. For the purposes of this legislation, 'plastic bag’ shall be defined in as a bag 'made wholly or in part of plastic'.

3. Any and all funds raised from this levy shall be directed towards an 'environmental fund'.

4. The expenditure of monies from the environmental fund shall be made on projects dedicated to improving the environment of Atlasia as may be approved by the President of Atlasia, or such persons as he may appoint to do same.

I like this bill, but I am wondering if anyone would open to creating a sort of "bag deposit" similar to the bottle deposit some states in order to encourage recycling

Surely a staunch Regionalist such as yourself shouldn't want the federal government to be getting so involved in local affairs.
Ideally.  But this will most likely pass.  I do plan to introduce amendments to have this go toward infrastructure and to have the program be regionally run.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 17, 2008, 02:58:09 PM
I recently noticed that the wording of the act that bans affirmative action is, frankly, dangerous. Thus...


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 20, 2008, 04:02:52 PM
I think it would have been better if HW had just tried to repeal the most obviously obnoxious features of Taft-Hartley rather than the whole thing; I don't think that we're going to get a bill passed that includes the full legalisation of the closed shop.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 20, 2008, 04:04:48 PM
I think it would have been better if HW had just tried to repeal the most obviously obnoxious features of Taft-Hartley rather than the whole thing; I don't think that we're going to get a bill passed that includes the full legalisation of the closed shop.

Well, that can be fixed.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HappyWarrior on November 20, 2008, 04:08:19 PM
I think it would have been better if HW had just tried to repeal the most obviously obnoxious features of Taft-Hartley rather than the whole thing; I don't think that we're going to get a bill passed that includes the full legalisation of the closed shop.

If the full bill plans I plan to introduce seperate more amenable sections. 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on November 20, 2008, 04:24:47 PM
I think it would have been better if HW had just tried to repeal the most obviously obnoxious features of Taft-Hartley rather than the whole thing; I don't think that we're going to get a bill passed that includes the full legalisation of the closed shop.

     You have the right of it. Some parts of the Taft-Hartley Act I would be open to repealing or reforming, but I will absolutely vote nay on any bill that interferes with a state's ability to pass right-to-work laws & such.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on November 24, 2008, 07:11:10 AM
Motion to expel the only two senators who vote against your bills, Jas?  Come on that's kind of low.  Anyway I would be amazed if the senate voted to expel either one of us for doing something that was not illegal, it would really just show that if there is a big enough majority you can kick people out who don't agree with you.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 24, 2008, 03:05:25 PM
Motion to expel the only two senators who vote against your bills, Jas?  Come on that's kind of low.  Anyway I would be amazed if the senate voted to expel either one of us for doing something that was not illegal, it would really just show that if there is a big enough majority you can kick people out who don't agree with you.

It's got nothing to do with illegality. "Conduct unbecoming the Senate" ought to apply to more things than illegality.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on November 24, 2008, 07:43:16 PM
Motion to Expel Senator DWTL and Senator PiT

For conduct unbecoming an Atlasian Senator, I hereby motion that Senator DWTL and Senator PiT be immediately expelled from the Senate.



I would ask that this motion be brought to the Senate floor as soon as possible.

Expeling them from an act that had nothing to do with their role in the Senate?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on November 24, 2008, 07:45:26 PM
Motion to Expel Senator DWTL and Senator PiT

For conduct unbecoming an Atlasian Senator, I hereby motion that Senator DWTL and Senator PiT be immediately expelled from the Senate.



I would ask that this motion be brought to the Senate floor as soon as possible.

Expeling them from an act that had nothing to do with their role in the Senate?
Its Jas were talking about here


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 01, 2008, 09:40:01 PM
I don't see why tariffs are better than subsidy...


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on December 01, 2008, 09:44:18 PM
     They bring money into the Government (only a small amount though :P).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: CultureKing on December 04, 2008, 08:28:02 PM
Pssst!!! Senate! Pssst!

You should pass the governor bill thing. I like it. And of course I am not just saying this because it would make my position more powerful.
;)

/covers face with cloak and walks away.

-Governor CultureKing


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 08, 2008, 05:32:12 PM
Commeration of KoTBP Act

Section 1: Monument
a.) A monument shall be built at a location to be determined by a vote of the people of Nyman to honor the former governor of the Dirty South, Kingofthebenchpress.
b.) The cost of the project shall not exceed twenty millions ($20,000,000) dollars.

Section 2: Inscription
a.) The monument must contain the governor's famous phrase:

I love to have sex with hot women

fLast night i got myself a southern bell

2 IN DA PNIK ONE IN DA STINK BOYS

You arch-libertarians shouldn't be using public money for this.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 08, 2008, 07:00:04 PM
Commeration of KoTBP Act

Section 1: Monument
a.) A monument shall be built at a location to be determined by a vote of the people of Nyman to honor the former governor of the Dirty South, Kingofthebenchpress.
b.) The cost of the project shall not exceed twenty millions ($20,000,000) dollars.

Section 2: Inscription
a.) The monument must contain the governor's famous phrase:

I love to have sex with hot women

fLast night i got myself a southern bell

2 IN DA PNIK ONE IN DA STINK BOYS

You arch-libertarians shouldn't be using public money for this.
Some things are just too important :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on December 08, 2008, 09:27:01 PM
Commeration of KoTBP Act

Section 1: Monument
a.) A monument shall be built at a location to be determined by a vote of the people of Nyman to honor the former governor of the Dirty South, Kingofthebenchpress.
b.) The cost of the project shall not exceed twenty millions ($20,000,000) dollars.

Section 2: Inscription
a.) The monument must contain the governor's famous phrase:

I love to have sex with hot women

fLast night i got myself a southern bell

2 IN DA PNIK ONE IN DA STINK BOYS

You arch-libertarians shouldn't be using public money for this.
Some things are just too important :)

     Correct. If we opposed the use of public money for any purpose, we would be anarchists, not libertarians. As such, a statue to KotBP is the best possible use of our money. His phrase is probably the greatest to have graced our boards since PBrunsel's triumphant return two years ago.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 09, 2008, 12:52:11 AM
Commeration of KoTBP Act

Section 1: Monument
a.) A monument shall be built at a location to be determined by a vote of the people of Nyman to honor the former governor of the Dirty South, Kingofthebenchpress.
b.) The cost of the project shall not exceed twenty millions ($20,000,000) dollars.

Section 2: Inscription
a.) The monument must contain the governor's famous phrase:

I love to have sex with hot women

fLast night i got myself a southern bell

2 IN DA PNIK ONE IN DA STINK BOYS

You arch-libertarians shouldn't be using public money for this.
Some things are just too important :)

     Correct. If we opposed the use of public money for any purpose, we would be anarchists, not libertarians. As such, a statue to KotBP is the best possible use of our money. His phrase is probably the greatest to have graced our boards since PBrunsel's triumphant return two years ago.

Tell SPC. And go build it with donations. I might be willing to give a little.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on December 09, 2008, 12:58:52 AM
Commeration of KoTBP Act

Section 1: Monument
a.) A monument shall be built at a location to be determined by a vote of the people of Nyman to honor the former governor of the Dirty South, Kingofthebenchpress.
b.) The cost of the project shall not exceed twenty millions ($20,000,000) dollars.

Section 2: Inscription
a.) The monument must contain the governor's famous phrase:

I love to have sex with hot women

fLast night i got myself a southern bell

2 IN DA PNIK ONE IN DA STINK BOYS

You arch-libertarians shouldn't be using public money for this.
Some things are just too important :)

     Correct. If we opposed the use of public money for any purpose, we would be anarchists, not libertarians. As such, a statue to KotBP is the best possible use of our money. His phrase is probably the greatest to have graced our boards since PBrunsel's triumphant return two years ago.

Tell SPC. And go build it with donations. I might be willing to give a little.

   We're too busy raising money to rebuild the children's hospitals. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 09, 2008, 07:35:17 AM
I beg the PPT to strike down this frivolity.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: minionofmidas on December 09, 2008, 03:45:52 PM
I beg the PPT to strike down this frivolity.
I intend to let it go to the floor and offer an amendment that turns it into an amendment to the species act (or whatever the current version is called), actually - I want Dollar Bill on the dollar bill.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Meeker on December 16, 2008, 01:28:35 AM
Could someone introduce a bill that abolishes filing deadlines, or at least makes them much more reasonable? There's no reason for them to be so far out from the opening of polls.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 16, 2008, 01:29:32 AM
One week out is when absentee voting begins.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Meeker on December 16, 2008, 01:33:08 AM
So was Earl just late in putting up the absentee booth? Why were SPC and gporter denied ballot access?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 16, 2008, 01:39:20 AM
They filed less than a week before that. Or something.

I like the early deadlines; it forces people to tip their hand.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Meeker on December 16, 2008, 01:42:42 AM
My point is that the only reason we have filing deadlines in real life is because it takes a while to print up ballots, voters pamphlets, etc. There's no reason that we can't have the filing deadline right up until the opening of the absentee booth in this game though.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 16, 2008, 01:43:50 AM
Yes, but it adds a different dynamic; you can't test the waters too long, you either go or you don't.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Meeker on December 16, 2008, 01:44:49 AM
But that's stupid and I don't like it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 16, 2008, 01:46:21 AM
I do.

But it's not a big deal.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 16, 2008, 10:44:53 AM
Could someone introduce a bill that abolishes filing deadlines, or at least makes them much more reasonable? There's no reason for them to be so far out from the opening of polls.
I believe my last bill cut it down, but that might have just been registering deadlines.  I think I'll introduce a 48 hour limit


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: minionofmidas on December 16, 2008, 03:18:59 PM
Hey! When I invented that name I was referring to Keystone Phil! >:(

What happened with the filing deadline? Sorry I was offline for three days. The filing deadline is supposed to be a week before elections begin. The absentee booth is supposed to open as soon as practicable after the filing deadline but has often been ignored in the past.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on December 17, 2008, 10:09:28 PM
Is Xahar capable of being an objective prosecutor against Ben, given their history?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 17, 2008, 10:10:17 PM
Is Xahar capable of being an objective prosecutor against Ben, given their history?

He's objectively guilty, so I don't see why not.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 17, 2008, 10:10:35 PM
Is Xahar capable of being an objective prosecutor against Ben, given their history?

I doubt it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 17, 2008, 10:11:44 PM
Is Xahar capable of being an objective prosecutor against Ben, given their history?
Of course not, he's actually not capable of prosecuting anyone.  I wouldn't be surprised if Ben got off, its Peter against someone who thinks reading the Wiki makes you a powerhouse


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 17, 2008, 10:12:43 PM
Is Xahar capable of being an objective prosecutor against Ben, given their history?
Of course not, he's actually not capable of prosecuting anyone.  I wouldn't be surprised if Ben got off, its Peter against someone who thinks reading the Wiki makes you a powerhouse

You think he'll plead not guilty?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 17, 2008, 10:13:05 PM
Is Xahar capable of being an objective prosecutor against Ben, given their history?
Of course not, he's actually not capable of prosecuting anyone.  I wouldn't be surprised if Ben got off, its Peter against someone who thinks reading the Wiki makes you a powerhouse

You think he'll plead not guilty?
If you were the prosecutor and Peter was my lawyer, I sure as hell would


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 17, 2008, 10:15:46 PM
Is Xahar capable of being an objective prosecutor against Ben, given their history?
Of course not, he's actually not capable of prosecuting anyone.  I wouldn't be surprised if Ben got off, its Peter against someone who thinks reading the Wiki makes you a powerhouse

You think he'll plead not guilty?
If you were the prosecutor and Peter was my lawyer, I sure as hell would

Court cases don't necessarily have winners and losers, you know.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on December 17, 2008, 10:16:14 PM
Is Xahar capable of being an objective prosecutor against Ben, given their history?
Of course not, he's actually not capable of prosecuting anyone.  I wouldn't be surprised if Ben got off, its Peter against someone who thinks reading the Wiki makes you a powerhouse

You think he'll plead not guilty?

I don't know how things work here, but in the real world prosecutors step aside and do not prosecute people they are having a personal relationship with.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 17, 2008, 10:18:01 PM
We all have personal relationships with one another.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 17, 2008, 10:19:41 PM
We all have personal relationships with one another.
Yes, but I don't think anyone would let Mark Furman prosecute O.J.

Frankly, I think Ben should be convicted as I should have been convicted if BDD ever did vote.  But Xahar is not the person to do it


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on December 19, 2008, 07:17:40 PM
We all have personal relationships with one another.

I wouldn't say that you and I have a personal relationship.

But I would say that whatever your insanely negative history with Ben is is an ridiculous conflict of interest.  In fact, if you do dislike Ben as much as you do and want to see him punished, you'd probably want to step aside just because you remove that argument from Parker.




Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: CultureKing on December 20, 2008, 10:53:09 PM
Recent turn in events of the Gubernational Bill: Anger


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 21, 2008, 02:31:26 PM
Recent turn in events of the Gubernational Bill: Anger
That's my feeling exactly, but we have a chance this time of failing that amendment


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on December 22, 2008, 08:12:52 PM
Xahar's letter can be found here:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=90210.0

Thread is locked, I presume, to avoid the thread being filled with "omg you scumbag" type posts, for better or for worse.  Let's wait and let justice be served. 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 22, 2008, 08:38:31 PM
Xahar's letter can be found here:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=90210.0

Thread is locked, I presume, to avoid the thread being filled with "omg you scumbag" type posts, for better or for worse.  Let's wait and let justice be served. 
Humorous to say the least.  To say he meant no harm by hacking Ben's account is absurd.  That's like saying that stealing someone's credit card is okay


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 22, 2008, 09:13:58 PM
Xahar's letter can be found here:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=90210.0

Thread is locked, I presume, to avoid the thread being filled with "omg you scumbag" type posts, for better or for worse.  Let's wait and let justice be served. 
Humorous to say the least.  To say he meant no harm by hacking Ben's account is absurd.  That's like saying that stealing someone's credit card is okay

Did I post with it? Did I use it in some way that harmed him? No; I used it to recieve access to some hilarious fun.
You used it to access Ben's PMs and try and figure out what Ben was up to


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on December 22, 2008, 09:21:22 PM
I am amazed and horrified at how oblivious Xahar is right now. He accessed Bens account. I don't care if he didn't post with it. He used it to gain access to information not intended to be for him. Not everything on this forum is for him to know.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on December 22, 2008, 10:47:44 PM
Meh.  Arrogance runs in the conflict all over.  Obviously viewing personal PM's (if he did so) is wrong.  If you stole my identity and used it to monitor my personal life, that'd probably be more immoral than using my identity to buy a book off of Amazon.  Although it's an interesting debate to think about whether substantive theft or personal invasion is "worse."

Anyway, has Xahar chosen a public defense attorney yet?  Obviously Peter can't represent both Xahar and Ben.  Is it Jas?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on December 23, 2008, 07:51:44 AM
Anyway, has Xahar chosen a public defense attorney yet?  Obviously Peter can't represent both Xahar and Ben.  Is it Jas?

I have not been approached for the job; nor have I made an approach or expressed any interest for the role. I remain a Senator for some time yet and I have bills on the floor I'm still eager to progress.

And, ftr, if he wanted it, I see no reason why Peter couldn't do the job.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on December 23, 2008, 11:28:52 AM
Anyway, has Xahar chosen a public defense attorney yet?  Obviously Peter can't represent both Xahar and Ben.  Is it Jas?

I have not been approached for the job; nor have I made an approach or expressed any interest for the role. I remain a Senator for some time yet and I have bills on the floor I'm still eager to progress.

And, ftr, if he wanted it, I see no reason why Peter couldn't do the job.

Really?  Both?   Maybe.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 24, 2008, 10:48:59 AM
I wholeheartedly support the Special Prosecutor Bill


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HappyWarrior on December 24, 2008, 10:47:10 PM
I wholeheartedly support the Special Prosecutor Bill


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on December 28, 2008, 10:17:39 PM
A reminder to senators: if you don't appoint a new AG by 11:59, December 31st, the current case fails.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on December 28, 2008, 10:39:03 PM
     Ugh, we need to get on with this motion.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on December 29, 2008, 05:17:49 AM
Well, you guys have less than 70 hours to pass this.

I view this as a test of effectiveness.  Maybe others view this as a test of holiday spirit :)  I dunno what you have to do, but it's best y'all organize posthaste



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on December 29, 2008, 05:56:34 AM
     Indeed. If Franzl doesn't get confirmed in time, it will be the Senate's fault.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Meeker on December 29, 2008, 06:03:24 AM
After careful examination of the Constitution and OSPR, I do seem to have found a "nuclear option" if necessary. Hopefully Lewis will be along in the next few hours and everything will be fine and dandy by tomorrow evening though.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on December 29, 2008, 10:46:06 AM
A reminder to senators: if you don't appoint a new AG by 11:59, December 31st, the current case fails.

Incorrect, per the judgment of Spade J on 22 December (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=89989.msg1865172#msg1865172):
"Therefore, that is my first finding - the government has until January 1, 2009 at 11:59 PM to appoint/confirm/swear in a new Attorney General.  If this has not happened at that point or if it happens even one second after - the charges against benconstine will be dismissed."

Therefore we have 24 hours more than you have supposed.


Indeed. If Franzl doesn't get confirmed in time, it will be the Senate's fault.

Further, I'd suggest that if an AG is not in place it will certainly not be entirely the Senate's fault. It should be remembered that it took the President 4 days before a nomination was made (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=87976.msg1868516#msg1868516). 4 days during which it is unclear just whether the President showed any activity towards finding a nominee, besides monitoring public opinion (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=90211.0).


After careful examination of the Constitution and OSPR, I do seem to have found a "nuclear option" if necessary. Hopefully Lewis will be along in the next few hours and everything will be fine and dandy by tomorrow evening though.

I'd suggest you do have such authority...see here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=90347.msg1870714#msg1870714).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on December 29, 2008, 12:01:50 PM
The problem was that Franzl was out of town and wasn't responding to PMs, not that the big P was monitoring public opinion.

I'm off by 24 hours :(



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on December 29, 2008, 12:30:29 PM
The problem was that Franzl was out of town and wasn't responding to PMs, not that the big P was monitoring public opinion.

It's entirely possible that the President has been active and concealing it well. You're obviously better informed as to the machinations of the 'big P' than I. ;)

From this vantage though, the Franzl nomination seemed to be one were you led and the President followed.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on December 29, 2008, 12:32:18 PM

From this vantage though, the Franzl nomination seemed to be one were you led and the President followed.

I disagree, no other nominees presented themselves.  Stop trying to put down the big P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on December 29, 2008, 12:45:11 PM

From this vantage though, the Franzl nomination seemed to be one were you led and the President followed.

I disagree, no other nominees presented themselves.  Stop trying to put down the big P

It was a fairly unprecedented process. I'm not aware of it ever arising before that persons were expected to present themselves in public threads when seeking a cabinet position. Traditionally the President would privately seek out suitable candidates.

Now I'm not necessarily against a more public process, but it was clearly led by you and not the President and there hasn't been anything to date to suggest anything pro-active on the President's part.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 29, 2008, 02:55:16 PM
Resolution on the Ongoing Israel-Palestine Conflict

1. The Republic of Atlasia condemns Hamas for failing to end the irresponsible and unwarranted rocket attacks on Israel.

2. The Republic of Atlasia recognises Israel's right to defend itself, however condemns the recent military actions of the Israeli Government against Palestinians as disproportionate and as failing to take all necessary measures to prevent civilian casualties and fatalities.

3. The Republic of Atlasia calls for an immediate ceasefire and asks both sides to allow unrestricted access for humanitarian agencies to assist the victims of these attacks.


I like it, except for section 2.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on December 29, 2008, 02:57:56 PM
Resolution on the Ongoing Israel-Palestine Conflict

1. The Republic of Atlasia condemns Hamas for failing to end the irresponsible and unwarranted rocket attacks on Israel.

2. The Republic of Atlasia recognises Israel's right to defend itself, however condemns the recent military actions of the Israeli Government against Palestinians as disproportionate and as failing to take all necessary measures to prevent civilian casualties and fatalities.

3. The Republic of Atlasia calls for an immediate ceasefire and asks both sides to allow unrestricted access for humanitarian agencies to assist the victims of these attacks.

I intend to vote against this.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on December 29, 2008, 03:34:10 PM
Resolution on the Ongoing Israel-Palestine Conflict

1. The Republic of Atlasia condemns Hamas for failing to end the irresponsible and unwarranted rocket attacks on Israel.

2. The Republic of Atlasia recognises Israel's right to defend itself, however condemns the recent military actions of the Israeli Government against Palestinians as disproportionate and as failing to take all necessary measures to prevent civilian casualties and fatalities.

3. The Republic of Atlasia calls for an immediate ceasefire and asks both sides to allow unrestricted access for humanitarian agencies to assist the victims of these attacks.


I like it, except for section 2.

Shocking


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 29, 2008, 07:11:42 PM
I like it except for Section 2 :P

No but seriously I really don't want to pass something that looks nice on paper just for the hell of it, if we want some real answers let's make some real penalties.  (Free Palestine Bill, cough, cough)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on December 29, 2008, 07:19:56 PM
I like it except for Section 2 :P

No but seriously I really don't want to pass something that looks nice on paper just for the hell of it, if we want some real answers let's make some real penalties.  (Free Palestine Bill, cough, cough)

     I agree, though that's not what Senate resolutions are for, generally speaking.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 30, 2008, 12:36:16 AM

Thankfully that will never pass.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on December 30, 2008, 02:11:39 AM
Gold Standard Act

1. The value of currency in circulation shall be directly based on the value of the gold held by the Federal Reserve.

   a. Any currency printed after the passage of this act shall not become legal tender until the Federal Reserve shall have procured an equivalent amount of additional gold.

2. Any citizen of Atlasia may trade official currency to the federal reserve of the Republic of Atlasia for gold, and vice versa.

3. Gold shall have equal legal standing to official currency of the Republic of Atlasia.

Great bill. Hopefully we can get this passed. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: minionofmidas on December 30, 2008, 04:56:30 AM
Lol. It doesn't even mention how much gold a dollar is.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on December 30, 2008, 02:47:56 PM
     There, I fixed it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Meeker on December 30, 2008, 06:47:24 PM
This is ridiculous. I demand bimetallism.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on December 30, 2008, 06:58:05 PM
This is ridiculous. I demand bimetallism.

     Fine, provided that the other metal is aluminum. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Meeker on December 30, 2008, 07:01:12 PM
This is ridiculous. I demand bimetallism.

     Fine, provided that the other metal is aluminum. :P

Outrage. Action must be taken.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on December 30, 2008, 07:02:16 PM
This is ridiculous. I demand bimetallism.

Would parallel standards be an acceptable compromise?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Meeker on December 30, 2008, 07:13:49 PM
$30 per troy ounce of silver or else


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on December 30, 2008, 07:19:42 PM
Yeah, I'm not really against that either as long as our money has something backing it.  Compromise will most likely be necessary


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2008, 08:09:56 PM
Crazy fetishists.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: minionofmidas on December 31, 2008, 05:13:27 AM
I'm for the Uranium standard meself. ;D


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Meeker on January 01, 2009, 07:09:12 PM
Troll Banishment Act

With the unanimous agreement of the Atlasian Senate and the President, an Atlasian considered a "troll" may be banished from Atlasia. They are not allowed to vote or participate in Atlasia in any way, shape or form.



Please? Anyone?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on January 01, 2009, 08:38:41 PM
Troll Banishment Act

With the unanimous agreement of the Atlasian Senate and the President, an Atlasian considered a "troll" may be banished from Atlasia. They are not allowed to vote or participate in Atlasia in any way, shape or form.



Please? Anyone?

Excellent, although I think 3/4 may be a better standard.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lief 🗽 on January 01, 2009, 11:06:19 PM
They'd still post here though, unless Gustaf and MasterJedi agree to delete all their posts here (which I seriously doubt they'd be willing to do).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on January 01, 2009, 11:14:02 PM
They'd still post here though, unless Gustaf and MasterJedi agree to delete all their posts here (which I seriously doubt they'd be willing to do).

Trolls get off on their ability to influence others.  Removing that inside-the-system influence could only help.  Worst case scenario is no change.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lief 🗽 on January 01, 2009, 11:15:53 PM
Something is better than nothing, yes, but the problem with trolls in Atlasia isn't so much that they're swinging elections with their votes or screwing up the system by creating new parties. It's just that they're annoying and won't go away. I don't think that this bill would change that.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on January 01, 2009, 11:20:24 PM
Something is better than nothing, yes, but the problem with trolls in Atlasia isn't [partially] so much that they're swinging elections with their votes or screwing up the system by creating new parties [and trying to influence judicial processes].




Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on January 02, 2009, 12:18:36 AM
since we don't want some senators starting threads against everyone we don't like or unnecessary hatred injected into the forum (it's unnecessary if it doesn't accomplish anything), maybe some sort of secrecy could be implemented.  Like, discussing the person in question over PM's to see if unanimous support already exists, and if it doesn't, tabling the motion before it goes public.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on January 02, 2009, 12:33:27 AM
     I would support this. After all, it's a game. It should be enjoyable, not troll-infested.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on January 02, 2009, 12:56:05 AM
is anyone pretending that certain internet trolls ARE NOT currently getting off on being able to substantially influence the Fantasy Election system from through legal means?  Observe recent threads.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Meeker on January 02, 2009, 02:46:00 AM
It was intended as satire, but if people actually like the idea then by all means...


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on January 02, 2009, 02:55:47 AM
It was intended as satire, but if people actually like the idea then by all means...

I do like the idea, if it's modified for practicality.  Since Dave Leip has so outrageously exerted himself as impotent, it'd be nice for the Senate to actually have some auxillary power.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on January 02, 2009, 03:24:08 AM
     A compromise has been reached between the Goldbugs & the Silverites! :D


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 02, 2009, 06:28:04 AM
I am opposed to the bill in question. In real life the legislature does not imprison people after a quick vote. I'm not opposed to making trolling a criminal offense here, but this goes too far.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Meeker on January 02, 2009, 06:44:30 AM
In real life the legislature does not imprison people after a quick vote.

Unfortunate but true.

I would actually support legislation making trolling a criminal offense. Someone write that up.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 02, 2009, 12:11:28 PM
I can see that this Senate is going to be a bundle of laughs.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on January 02, 2009, 12:31:39 PM
Everyone be friendly and cordial to each other, please and thank you.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HappyWarrior on January 02, 2009, 01:12:29 PM

Its not cordial to make it so that no other senator can properly propose a bill the whole session.  It'll take us weeks to sort through all your drivel with the result being 20 or so failed bills.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on January 02, 2009, 01:13:50 PM

Its not cordial to make it so that no other senator can properly propose a bill the whole session.  It'll take us weeks to sort through all your drivel with the result being 20 or so failed bills.

If you have a piece legislation to propose, I'll ask that the PPT move it up ahead of my legislation. Same for anyone else that has a piece of legislation to propose. And I believe that every piece of legislation deserves to be given a fair chance, and one should not be so certain about the outcome of such legislation.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on January 02, 2009, 01:27:30 PM
Someone attach a rider to a bill:

All legislation introduced to this point by Chuck Hagel 08 is tabled.

Surely legislation that was destined to fail wouldn't require a provision like that to be tabled.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on January 02, 2009, 01:32:12 PM
Someone attach a rider to a bill:

All legislation introduced to this point by Chuck Hagel 08 is tabled.

Surely legislation that was destined to fail wouldn't require a provision like that to be tabled.

It'd speed up the process.

Should the process be sped up for any other legislation that a senator deems "destined to fail"? I've already said that I'll allow any of the other senators to cut in front of me for one piece of legislation, I think that my legislation deserves a vote as well.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on January 02, 2009, 02:04:25 PM
     You know, I was thinking, but wouldn't any attempt to actually use the TBA be a bill of attainder?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on January 02, 2009, 02:05:16 PM
     You know, I was thinking, but wouldn't any attempt to actually use the TBA be a bill of attainder?

Good point.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Hash on January 02, 2009, 02:06:50 PM
The Senate is now clogged up by ridiculous legislation. Great. Now the serious stuff will get put behind the silliness.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on January 02, 2009, 02:07:10 PM
     You know, I was thinking, but wouldn't any attempt to actually use the TBA be a bill of attainder?

Good point.

     That occurred to me when Al said that legislatures usually don't throw people in prison. The bill itself is perfectly fine, but actually putting it into action would be unconstitutional.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on January 02, 2009, 02:13:40 PM
It shouldn't be hard to also address non-"ridiculous" legislation.

I am opposed to the bill in question. In real life the legislature does not imprison people after a quick vote. I'm not opposed to making trolling a criminal offense here, but this goes too far.

Fair enough.  Unfortunately this isn't real life, however, and it's a lot harder to ignore the crazy bum out on the street.  Also not sure how to define trolling


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on January 02, 2009, 02:23:47 PM
Someone attach a rider to a bill:

All legislation introduced to this point by Chuck Hagel 08 is tabled.
Perhaps a more legitimate way of bypassing this crisis would be to amend the Senate's Rules so that a Senator may only have a maximum of 2 pieces of legislation under consideration at any time, with the rule only enforced at the PPTs discretion (this would therefore avoid a massive amount of juggling the rest of the time when a Senator might end up with 3 pieces of legislation on the floor without having "stacked" the queue in the manner we have just seen


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on January 02, 2009, 02:31:27 PM
Can't believe SPC actually introduced my joke act, I didn't realize he was serious ::)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on January 02, 2009, 02:45:32 PM
Someone attach a rider to a bill:

All legislation introduced to this point by Chuck Hagel 08 is tabled.
Perhaps a more legitimate way of bypassing this crisis would be to amend the Senate's Rules so that a Senator may only have a maximum of 2 pieces of legislation under consideration at any time, with the rule only enforced at the PPTs discretion (this would therefore avoid a massive amount of juggling the rest of the time when a Senator might end up with 3 pieces of legislation on the floor without having "stacked" the queue in the manner we have just seen

Done, and moved to #2 on the queue. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Can't believe SPC actually introduced my joke act, I didn't realize he was serious ::)

Maybe you shouldn't have tested the limits to which I would obey my campaign promises. ::)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on January 03, 2009, 02:24:32 PM
I wasn't here for your campaign, ah.

Well no more from me!

It looks like No troll banishment act will be needed (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=90713.msg1877392#new) and that Gustaf and MasterJedi need to be nominated for some kind of awards....


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on January 03, 2009, 02:48:14 PM
I wasn't here for your campaign, ah.

Well no more from me!

It looks like No troll banishment act will be needed (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=90713.msg1877392#new) and that Gustaf and MasterJedi need to be nominated for some kind of awards....

That's good. Now the Senate can vote on the End to Clogging Bill first.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on January 04, 2009, 03:13:06 PM
Thought I'd throw an idea out to the Senate regarding some trolling legislation:

Troll Suppression and Rehabilitation Act

Clauses

(A) Trolling shall be declared a chargeable offense in the land of Atlasia at the request of a forum moderator and the discretion of the Attorney General.

(B) The act of trolling is to be defined as the use of meaningless or otherwise distracting and malignant posting to sidetrack or interrupt proper forum discussion.

(C) Upon a guilty verdict returned by a majority of jurors, the punishment for said trolling is to be determined by the justice hearing the case; but, the punishment must consist of at least 1 month of suspended voting rights and 6 months of suspension from office, if one is held, or at most 6 months of suspended voting rights and 1 year of suspension from office.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on January 04, 2009, 03:19:29 PM
This legislation is extraneous because the Moderators already hold this power. In fact, you lowered possible suspensions and gave the Attorney General discretion, instead of leaving things as is. The system in effect now is better for the banishment of trolls. Look what it has done to me. :-)

The mods have no power as far as office holding by run-of-the-mill trolls. They may be able to delete the posts of excessive users, but it did take quite a while to get to this point. I would like some proactive power by users to oust trolls from Atlasia.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Gustaf on January 06, 2009, 06:50:13 AM
I'd like to note that a subsidy of an industry is generally a poor idea since economic theory shows that it is bound to damage your own country financially. A tariff is better. And free trade is even better than that. If we want to help those that get hurt by international trade there are less costlier ways of going about it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 06, 2009, 07:16:34 AM
The point of the legislation in question isn't to make money for fantasyland, but to limit the damage caused by fantasyland's one-sided trade policies to areas traditionally dependent on the industries in question.

Probably the best thing to do would be to repeal all the existingde facto subsidies for other countries industries "free trade" acts and replace them with, you know, actual free trade agreements, but I don't think that's likely here.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on January 06, 2009, 03:30:07 PM
Voting Whilst Banned Bill
1. It shall be a crime for any person to vote or attempt to vote in an Atlasian election whilst banned from doing so after being convicted in the Supreme Court and then sentenced to a ban from voting.
2. This crime shall be tried as though it were a crime under the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act.
3. Sentencing of the crime shall be by the presiding Justice; He may use any combination of the following as punishment, depending upon the severity of the offense:
i. Up to 3 months ban from voting in any Atlasian elections.
ii. Up to 6 months ban from holding any office under the Republic of Atlasia.

Contempt of Court Act
Section 1: Findings
The power of the Supreme Court to find persons to be in "contempt of court" is undefined in Atlasian Law, and whilst the offence exists in Common Law, it is desirable for the power to be expounded upon in Law.

Section 2: Contempt of Court
The presiding senior Judge of any Atlasian federal court may find a person in contempt for any of the following offences:
1. Failure to respond to a jury summons
2. Disrupting the proceedings of a federal court
3. Disobedience of a court order
4. Failure to appear as a witness when summoned by a Court.
5. Failure to produce documents when instructed by a Court.

Section 3: Punishment of Contempt of Court
1. This crime shall be tried as though it were a crime under the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act.
2. Sentencing of the crime shall be by the presiding Justice; He may use any combination of the following as punishment, depending upon the severity of the offense:
i. Up to 3 months ban from voting in any Atlasian elections.
ii. Up to 6 months ban from holding any office under the Republic of Atlasia.
iii. Removal or Suspension from the Supreme Court Bar, if applicable.

I should like any Senator to introduce the above bills. Recent Court cases have raised the possibility of the need for the Courts to hold persons in contempt and whilst I have no doubt that should Xahar (or any future convicted murderer criminal) attempt to vote, the vote would be discounted, I do nonetheless think that we should attempt to provide a sufficient deterant against convicts voting. Also, in many ways I see attempt to flout a ban as the closest an online community can come to a jail-breakout.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Gustaf on January 06, 2009, 05:38:28 PM
The point of the legislation in question isn't to make money for fantasyland, but to limit the damage caused by fantasyland's one-sided trade policies to areas traditionally dependent on the industries in question.

Probably the best thing to do would be to repeal all the existingde facto subsidies for other countries industries "free trade" acts and replace them with, you know, actual free trade agreements, but I don't think that's likely here.

I understand the intent. But I'm studying trade policy right now (my exam is next week) and what I'm saying is that you can get the exact same protection for those areas through a tariff, but at much greater benefit to your country.

But I sort of forget what you did to Atlasia during these past years. Is it still like the US or did you have your wish and turned it into a small country of no world significance? Because in the latter case the choice between tariff and subsidy becomes less important, but the gains from free trade becomes higher.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lief 🗽 on January 07, 2009, 12:03:02 AM
I introduced Peter's bills.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on January 19, 2009, 06:25:54 AM
Special Prosecutor Bill

1. The Attorney General, with the approval of the President, shall be empowered to appoint a special prosecutor to prosecute cases on behalf of the Republic of Atlasia.

2. The special prosecutor must be a member in good standing of the Supreme Court Bar.

3. In the absence of the Attorney General, the President shall be empowered to make appointments under this Act.

4. Nothing within this Act shall be construed such as to remove the right of the Attorney General to prosecute cases of behalf of the Republic of Atlasia.



Sponsor: Bacon King


If such a special prosecutor misbehaves, how will he or she be removed from his or her position of authority?  


this whole bill seems incredibly vague and I hate it unless more details are added :P

We just had an epic scandal on the part of our own attorney general and its shameful that there are not more conditions int his bill so soon after


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on January 20, 2009, 05:51:23 PM
Special Prosecutor Bill

1. The Attorney General, with the approval of the President, shall be empowered to appoint a special prosecutor to prosecute cases on behalf of the Republic of Atlasia.

2. The special prosecutor must be a member in good standing of the Supreme Court Bar.

3. In the absence of the Attorney General, the President shall be empowered to make appointments under this Act.

4. Nothing within this Act shall be construed such as to remove the right of the Attorney General to prosecute cases of behalf of the Republic of Atlasia.



Sponsor: Bacon King


If such a special prosecutor misbehaves, how will he or she be removed from his or her position of authority?  


this whole bill seems incredibly vague and I hate it unless more details are added :P

We just had an epic scandal on the part of our own attorney general and its shameful that there are not more conditions int his bill so soon after

     The same way the Deputy SoFA is removed, most likely.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on January 20, 2009, 06:32:44 PM
I think an explicit clause should be added to the Special Prosecutor Bill enumerating just that. Leaving ambiguities is never good. And by no means should the post be permanent or outlast the Attorney General's post. This is just to help lessen the workload on the AG.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on January 20, 2009, 06:39:11 PM
I think an explicit clause should be added to the Special Prosecutor Bill enumerating just that. Leaving ambiguities is never good. And by no means should the post be permanent or outlast the Attorney General's post. This is just to help lessen the workload on the AG.

     That as well as be there for when the AG has an obvious conflict of interest. If we had had BRTD as AG, & opebo were charged with some sort of crime, he obviously would not be fit to carry out the prosecution.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on January 30, 2009, 01:59:17 AM
I'd like to protest the complete inability of this Senate to do things. You have a long to-do list, including possibly calling a Constitutional Convention, reshaping the government. Let's see some discussions and voting here.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 30, 2009, 08:05:48 AM
I'd like to protest the complete inability of this Senate to do things. You have a long to-do list, including possibly calling a Constitutional Convention, reshaping the government. Let's see some discussions and voting here.

Senators would much rather partake of the well-known pleasures of this city's red light district, following, as they do, in the fine example of that greatest of Senators, Naso.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on February 04, 2009, 01:29:01 AM
The Malay government is improving and is hardly Nazi Germany.  Free trade would encourage further governmental transparency and economic fairness within the country while going through the effort to give them the economic finger would have the opposite effect.

MEEEKER MEEKER MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKER

     There's nothing keeping you from posting in the thread of the bill itself.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on February 04, 2009, 02:10:06 AM
I shall then.  I don't know how things work


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on February 04, 2009, 02:16:25 AM
     It's fine. Truth is, you can hang out in bill threads as much as you want. People only get angry if you try to vote on bills.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on February 04, 2009, 02:23:48 AM
     It's fine. Truth is, you can hang out in bill threads as much as you want. People only get angry if you try to vote on bills.

I might try that sometime, sounds like fun


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on February 04, 2009, 02:30:41 AM
     On the other hand, if you just quote posts they might get angry anyway. Input is always welcome though.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on February 04, 2009, 10:36:00 AM
No more Clogging?

()


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on February 04, 2009, 11:37:41 PM
     It's fine. Truth is, you can hang out in bill threads as much as you want. People only get angry if you try to vote on bills.

Ilikeverin yelled at me before. Tried to shoo me!

Beware Lunar. He may come for you too.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: ilikeverin on February 04, 2009, 11:38:42 PM
     It's fine. Truth is, you can hang out in bill threads as much as you want. People only get angry if you try to vote on bills.

Ilikeverin yelled at me before. Tried to shoo me!

Beware Lunar. He may come for you too.

*foams at mouth*


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on February 05, 2009, 02:10:51 AM
     It's fine. Truth is, you can hang out in bill threads as much as you want. People only get angry if you try to vote on bills.

Ilikeverin yelled at me before. Tried to shoo me!

Beware Lunar. He may come for you too.

     He was joking.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on February 05, 2009, 02:21:24 AM
Nevermind, we need to clog before our clogging rights are taken away


()

()

()


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on February 05, 2009, 09:19:20 PM
     It's fine. Truth is, you can hang out in bill threads as much as you want. People only get angry if you try to vote on bills.

Ilikeverin yelled at me before. Tried to shoo me!

Beware Lunar. He may come for you too.

     He was joking.

I know. So was I.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: ilikeverin on February 06, 2009, 09:52:00 AM
     It's fine. Truth is, you can hang out in bill threads as much as you want. People only get angry if you try to vote on bills.

Ilikeverin yelled at me before. Tried to shoo me!

Beware Lunar. He may come for you too.

     He was joking.

Back in my day, such actions were not allowed.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on February 15, 2009, 04:35:00 PM
So the President called for 4CC. What now?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lunar on February 16, 2009, 03:48:16 AM
ROAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on February 26, 2009, 09:32:21 AM
Due to recent drama in Atlasia, I would like a Senator to bring forward ethical reforms to prevent actions that are harmful to Atlasia, whether through manipulation or abuse of power.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lief 🗽 on February 26, 2009, 12:09:15 PM
Could you be more specific?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on February 26, 2009, 12:21:18 PM

We need laws so that we can deal with Xahar and his intimidation of users. We need laws addressing slander, libel, and other false claims. We need laws outlining unethical standards for political office so that abuses of power are not allowed to go unpunished.

Without these Atlasia will keep deteriorating. We lose the trust of new members and the interest of current members when these issues are left unaddressed.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on February 26, 2009, 01:50:53 PM
The Xahar Amendment
1. The user known as Xahar is banned from the Republic of Atlasia for life. Any future alias or account he may adopt is also banned.
2. If Xahar is found to have registered under another alias or account, then the President shall present evidence to the Senate, who may then strike the account from the voter rolls by ordinary legislation.
3. Any person banned under clause 2 of this Amendment, may appeal the facts of their case to the Supreme Court, whose decision on the matter shall be final.

Ethics laws are by their nature hard to draft, but if you want to bar Xahar permenantly, this is about the only legal way - Constitutional Amendment.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on February 26, 2009, 02:00:06 PM
The Xahar Amendment
1. The user known as Xahar is banned from the Republic of Atlasia for life. Any future alias or account he may adopt is also banned.
2. If Xahar is found to have registered under another alias or account, then the President shall present evidence to the Senate, who may then strike the account from the voter rolls by ordinary legislation.
3. Any person banned under clause 2 of this Amendment, may appeal the facts of their case to the Supreme Court, whose decision on the matter shall be final.

Ethics laws are by their nature hard to draft, but if you want to bar Xahar permenantly, this is about the only legal way - Constitutional Amendment.

I'll take that.

I guess other ethical standards are really up to the president to implement by executive order. What about libel laws? Are those allowed without an amendment?

EDIT: Oh, and welcome back Peter.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on February 26, 2009, 02:15:38 PM
I've been busy, but watching. I suppose I ought to do the decent thing and resign from the mideast assembly given that I have no intention of continuing with the position.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on February 26, 2009, 02:27:52 PM
I've been busy, but watching. I suppose I ought to do the decent thing and resign from the mideast assembly given that I have no intention of continuing with the position.

Eh, if you could just pop in with some votes every so often when you're watching that would be more respected than some other inactive user.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lief 🗽 on February 26, 2009, 03:38:25 PM
I'm incredibly opposed to that amendment. First, I don't think we should be amending our constitution to ban people from the game. Second, Xahar was already found guilty of a crime and sentenced to a punishment. Passing this amendment to punish him further for no additional proven crimes would go against the republican and liberal ideals of our constitution, is cruel and unusual punishment, and is something very close to double jeopardy (it probably has a real name, but I'm not a lawyer).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on February 26, 2009, 03:45:41 PM
I'm incredibly opposed to that amendment. First, I don't think we should be amending our constitution to ban people from the game. Second, Xahar was already found guilty of a crime and sentenced to a punishment. Passing this amendment to punish him further for no additional proven crimes would go against the republican and liberal ideals of our constitution, is cruel and unusual punishment, and is something very close to double jeopardy (it probably has a real name, but I'm not a lawyer).
Without question it is a bill of attainder - it would undoubtedly be struck down if passed as a statute. We're going down a constitutional road to avoid any legal conflict with the bill of rights (though certainly it has a philosophical conflict). It would appear that he has been committing further crimes, however, it is also apparent that we could not try him as he will be unable to mount a defence (being banned!), therefore a trial is at this point inappropriate. Given that a trial probably won't be able to start in time to satisfy our speedy trial laws, we only have a constitutional option.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on February 26, 2009, 03:53:31 PM
I think a reasonable case could be made in court once he returns.

I'm kind of reluctant to support the amendment here....it doesn't seem appropriate in a democratic game.

On the other hand, it does seem it would protect Atlasia, regardless of principle.

Still...wouldn't it make more sense to try him in court once he gets back?

Apparently, there is some proof concerning Marokai Blue's account. I have not seen any proof yet, but it seems quite probable. We could always give him the maximum penalty for that, and that'd get rid of the problem for a while at least.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on February 26, 2009, 04:02:15 PM
I think a reasonable case could be made in court once he returns.

I'm kind of reluctant to support the amendment here....it doesn't seem appropriate in a democratic game.

On the other hand, it does seem it would protect Atlasia, regardless of principle.

Still...wouldn't it make more sense to try him in court once he gets back?

Apparently, there is some proof concerning Marokai Blue's account. I have not seen any proof yet, but it seems quite probable. We could always give him the maximum penalty for that, and that'd get rid of the problem for a while at least.

The problem is we need a permanent solution to his shinanigans. Is there no sentence of life without parole? There needs to be a way to permanently remove people from the game. It shouldn't be easy to do, but it should be an available option.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on February 26, 2009, 04:05:08 PM
I think a reasonable case could be made in court once he returns.

I'm kind of reluctant to support the amendment here....it doesn't seem appropriate in a democratic game.

On the other hand, it does seem it would protect Atlasia, regardless of principle.

Still...wouldn't it make more sense to try him in court once he gets back?

Apparently, there is some proof concerning Marokai Blue's account. I have not seen any proof yet, but it seems quite probable. We could always give him the maximum penalty for that, and that'd get rid of the problem for a while at least.

The problem is we need a permanent solution to his shinanigans. Is there no sentence of life without parole? There needs to be a way to permanently remove people from the game. It shouldn't be easy to do, but it should be an available option.

Yes, treason carries a maximum life ban from voting and holding office. The problem is...we need some real evidence that actual treason happened defined by the CCJA. I don't think it would be very easy to prove in court, especially evidence...usually...has to come from somewhere on the Atlas forum...and that'd be difficult considering Xahar has been banned for a while. OTherwise an admission of guilt would need to have been documented in a public place and witnessed by multiple people.



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on February 26, 2009, 09:45:53 PM
Would treason extend to intent to sabotage an aspect of Atlasia? I think subversive tactics to attack an Atlasian party (RPP) or to induce fear upon individual members (Marokai) should be considered treason against Atlasia as a whole, no matter where the evidence is found (unless of course evidence can only be used from within the Atlas forum).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lief 🗽 on February 26, 2009, 10:04:15 PM
Would treason extend to intent to sabotage an aspect of Atlasia? I think subversive tactics to attack an Atlasian party (RPP) or to induce fear upon individual members (Marokai) should be considered treason against Atlasia as a whole, no matter where the evidence is found (unless of course evidence can only be used from within the Atlas forum).

No. Those things are not treason; that's ridiculous. I mean, I know people are out to get Xahar, but please let's not make a mockery of 1) the Atlasian legal system or 2) the Atlasian constitution to do it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on February 26, 2009, 10:30:41 PM
Would treason extend to intent to sabotage an aspect of Atlasia? I think subversive tactics to attack an Atlasian party (RPP) or to induce fear upon individual members (Marokai) should be considered treason against Atlasia as a whole, no matter where the evidence is found (unless of course evidence can only be used from within the Atlas forum).

No. Those things are not treason; that's ridiculous. I mean, I know people are out to get Xahar, but please let's not make a mockery of 1) the Atlasian legal system or 2) the Atlasian constitution to do it.

I'm just trying to be clear of the law. I was hoping the answer would have been in the affirmative, but I guess we will just have to see how the mods treat Marokai's info and see if it warrants further investigation.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sir Coffeebeans on February 26, 2009, 10:48:36 PM
I don't mind taking a more authoritarian stance on people who destroy the sanctity of this forum.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on February 27, 2009, 06:04:57 AM
Would treason extend to intent to sabotage an aspect of Atlasia? I think subversive tactics to attack an Atlasian party (RPP) or to induce fear upon individual members (Marokai) should be considered treason against Atlasia as a whole, no matter where the evidence is found (unless of course evidence can only be used from within the Atlas forum).

Treason is only for actually attempting to overthrow the government of Atlasia. And while many (including myself) believe that that was his intent....I don't think it's very likely that we have any case in court. I explained what evidence can be used in a previous post.

The terrorization of Marokai is also a terrible crime...but it certainly is not treason as defined by our law. I still think that incident would be the best way to go about right now, as it's (at this point) the most likely to result in a conviction. (Assuming we have clear evidence of that)




Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Smid on March 01, 2009, 04:58:46 AM
The terrorization of Marokai is also a terrible crime...but it certainly is not treason as defined by our law. I still think that incident would be the best way to go about right now, as it's (at this point) the most likely to result in a conviction. (Assuming we have clear evidence of that)

If it can be proven that he has done this to Marokai, then the evidence should be presented to the mods and he should be banned from the Forum permanently. If it can't be proven, then action should not be taken against him. Constitutional changes to prevent him from participating in the game is either a vastly inadequate punishment for what is clearly a terrible offence, or an unfair punishment against someone against whom no offence can be proved. This should be left in the hands of Dave and the mods.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on March 01, 2009, 08:43:24 AM
I'm considering a bill to shut down the senate during the convention, or at least allow no votes on constitutional amendments


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on March 01, 2009, 12:32:46 PM
I'm considering a bill to shut down the senate during the convention, or at least allow no votes on constitutional amendments

The latter would be more reasonable.

There are other things...not concerning the actual rules of the game, that could still be discussed.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on March 01, 2009, 12:33:36 PM
The terrorization of Marokai is also a terrible crime...but it certainly is not treason as defined by our law. I still think that incident would be the best way to go about right now, as it's (at this point) the most likely to result in a conviction. (Assuming we have clear evidence of that)

If it can be proven that he has done this to Marokai, then the evidence should be presented to the mods and he should be banned from the Forum permanently. If it can't be proven, then action should not be taken against him. Constitutional changes to prevent him from participating in the game is either a vastly inadequate punishment for what is clearly a terrible offence, or an unfair punishment against someone against whom no offence can be proved. This should be left in the hands of Dave and the mods.

OK, I agree. I was just talking from an Atlasian viewpoint, but you're right.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on March 05, 2009, 11:27:32 AM
I ask that this bill be brought forth immediatley and put into the Emergency slot:

Resolution Regarding Constitutional Amendments

1.) No senator shall propose a constitutional amendment until the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention
2.) No constitutional amendments shall be voted upon until the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention

LOL

As if you need legislation to prevent this Senate from doing anything...

I'll also consider bringing a case to strike this as unconstitutional if it does somehow get passed.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on March 05, 2009, 02:54:06 PM
I'd have to disagree - its a Senate rule for its proceedings, and the Courts have never interfered with these, and I would see it highly unlikely that they would.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on March 05, 2009, 03:20:12 PM
I'd have to disagree - its a Senate rule for its proceedings, and the Courts have never interfered with these, and I would see it highly unlikely that they would.

Maybe so, but if that were to be the case, then surely the resolution itself would not be enforced by the Court and so would become immediately redundant on passage. It is at best a waste of time and effort.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on March 08, 2009, 06:16:23 AM
But Senate rules are only enforced by the Presiding Officer. Its a bit like saying that an Irish Law is redundant because the Brazilian courts won't enforce it. Its a non-sequitur.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on March 30, 2009, 04:45:06 PM
Modification to the World War II Commemoration Act

Section 3 is repealed.

     I remember that when the bill was first discussed, we tried to replace MLK Jr. Day with Civil Rights Day on March 3rd. Maybe we could give that idea another go.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on March 30, 2009, 06:25:26 PM
Modification to the World War II Commemoration Act

Section 3 is repealed.

     I remember that when the bill was first discussed, we tried to replace MLK Jr. Day with Civil Rights Day on March 3rd. Maybe we could give that idea another go.

Well my main point is that MLK is just one person in the civil rights fight and he doesn't deserve his own day all by himself. I got it abolished along with another bill that had a million pointless days abolished as well. The bill passed rather easily originally that banned the bill so I'm hoping that it goes that way again. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on March 30, 2009, 06:39:37 PM
Modification to the World War II Commemoration Act

Section 3 is repealed.

     I remember that when the bill was first discussed, we tried to replace MLK Jr. Day with Civil Rights Day on March 3rd. Maybe we could give that idea another go.

Well my main point is that MLK is just one person in the civil rights fight and he doesn't deserve his own day all by himself. I got it abolished along with another bill that had a million pointless days abolished as well. The bill passed rather easily originally that banned the bill so I'm hoping that it goes that way again. :P

     DWTL made that point as well during the hearings for the World War II Commemoration Act. It would be nice to replace MLK's birthday with a day in honor of the Civil Rights Movement as a whole.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on March 30, 2009, 06:45:41 PM
Modification to the World War II Commemoration Act

Section 3 is repealed.

     I remember that when the bill was first discussed, we tried to replace MLK Jr. Day with Civil Rights Day on March 3rd. Maybe we could give that idea another go.

Well my main point is that MLK is just one person in the civil rights fight and he doesn't deserve his own day all by himself. I got it abolished along with another bill that had a million pointless days abolished as well. The bill passed rather easily originally that banned the bill so I'm hoping that it goes that way again. :P

     DWTL made that point as well during the hearings for the World War II Commemoration Act. It would be nice to replace MLK's birthday with a day in honor of the Civil Rights Movement as a whole.

True, though I'd rather have no holiday at all. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on March 30, 2009, 07:03:38 PM
Modification to the World War II Commemoration Act

Section 3 is repealed.

     I remember that when the bill was first discussed, we tried to replace MLK Jr. Day with Civil Rights Day on March 3rd. Maybe we could give that idea another go.

Well my main point is that MLK is just one person in the civil rights fight and he doesn't deserve his own day all by himself. I got it abolished along with another bill that had a million pointless days abolished as well. The bill passed rather easily originally that banned the bill so I'm hoping that it goes that way again. :P

     DWTL made that point as well during the hearings for the World War II Commemoration Act. It would be nice to replace MLK's birthday with a day in honor of the Civil Rights Movement as a whole.

True, though I'd rather have no holiday at all. :P

     I'd rather have every day be a holiday. You see? :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on March 30, 2009, 07:04:55 PM
Modification to the World War II Commemoration Act

Section 3 is repealed.

     I remember that when the bill was first discussed, we tried to replace MLK Jr. Day with Civil Rights Day on March 3rd. Maybe we could give that idea another go.

Well my main point is that MLK is just one person in the civil rights fight and he doesn't deserve his own day all by himself. I got it abolished along with another bill that had a million pointless days abolished as well. The bill passed rather easily originally that banned the bill so I'm hoping that it goes that way again. :P

     DWTL made that point as well during the hearings for the World War II Commemoration Act. It would be nice to replace MLK's birthday with a day in honor of the Civil Rights Movement as a whole.

True, though I'd rather have no holiday at all. :P

     I'd rather have every day be a holiday. You see? :P

Then no work or pay for you, go live in the alley out back! :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on April 07, 2009, 10:57:30 AM
Repeal of the Affirmative Action Bill

F.L. 28-9 is repealed.



Modification to the World War II Commemoration Act

Section 3 is repealed.



Repeal of the Aesbestos Ban Amendment Act

F.L. 12-5 is repealed.


Good work, Masterjedi. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on April 07, 2009, 01:22:06 PM
Repeal of the Affirmative Action Bill

F.L. 28-9 is repealed.



Modification to the World War II Commemoration Act

Section 3 is repealed.



Repeal of the Aesbestos Ban Amendment Act

F.L. 12-5 is repealed.


Good work, Masterjedi. :)

You won't like the third one, it repeals a bill to make aesbestos fully banned again. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on April 07, 2009, 01:23:28 PM
Repeal of the Affirmative Action Bill

F.L. 28-9 is repealed.



Modification to the World War II Commemoration Act

Section 3 is repealed.



Repeal of the Aesbestos Ban Amendment Act

F.L. 12-5 is repealed.


Good work, Masterjedi. :)

     It didn't occur to me earlier, but I should mention that section 3 of the Asbestos Ban Amendment Act has never banned anything. After its passge Bono issued an executive order (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39165.0) saying that there would be no restriction on the transportation of asbestos.

Repeal of the Affirmative Action Bill

F.L. 28-9 is repealed.



Modification to the World War II Commemoration Act

Section 3 is repealed.



Repeal of the Aesbestos Ban Amendment Act

F.L. 12-5 is repealed.


Good work, Masterjedi. :)

You won't like the third one, it repeals a bill to make aesbestos fully banned again. :P

     I think you would need to repass the original bill for it to come into effect again.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on April 07, 2009, 05:57:09 PM
Repeal of the Affirmative Action Bill

F.L. 28-9 is repealed.



Modification to the World War II Commemoration Act

Section 3 is repealed.



Repeal of the Aesbestos Ban Amendment Act

F.L. 12-5 is repealed.


Good work, Masterjedi. :)

You won't like the third one, it repeals a bill to make aesbestos fully banned again. :P

Well, 2/3 ain't bad.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on April 10, 2009, 12:13:59 PM
Legalization of Heroin Bill

Section 1: Findings
1. Heroin is a white, crystalline, narcotic powder, C21H23NO5, derived from morphine, formerly used as an analgesic and sedative.
2. The pharmaceutical price of heroin is only 5% of the average street price of heroin.

Section 2: Applicability
1. This law shall remove all federal restrictions on heroin in addition to legalization in Nyman and other federal territories which do not form a region.
2. The Regions of Atlasia shall be free to legalize and regulate heroin in any manner which they may choose.

Section 3: In Regards to the Legal Status of Heroin
1. The possession and consumption of heroin shall be legal.
2. This law shall not be interpreted as to decriminalize driving under the influence of heroin.
3. Penalties for driving under the influence of heroin shall be the same as those for driving under the influence of alcohol and other substances.

Section 4: Taxation
1. Taxes on heroin will be 30%.  Individual regions may set their own taxes on heroin as they see fit in addition to the federal tax which shall not exceed 20%.
2. Federal revenue raised from taxes on heroin shall be spent as follows:
   a.) 50% to a newly created National Opiate Addiction Help Center
   b.) 25% to funding for the needle exchange program created by the Atlasian Policy Regarding HIV/AIDS
   c.) 25% to improvements to federal interstate highways
3. Regional revenue generated from sales of heroin shall be used however the region deems necessary by a vote of the people upon voting for legalization.
4. The National Opiate Addiction Help Center shall not be funded by any other taxes.
5. The National Opiate Addiction Help Center shall focus on treatment options not involving methodone

Section 5: Purchases
1. Heroin shall be available at any licensed pharmacies.
2. Heroin shall not require a prescription but will kept behind the counter under all circumstances.
3. Individuals not in possession of the proper licenses shall still be prohibited from selling heroin.

Section 6: Age Restrictions
1. No one under the age of 18 shall be allowed to purchase heroin
2. Any pharmacist selling heroin to a person under the age of 18 shall be subject to any of the following:
   a.) a fine not to exceed $100,000
   b.) 30 days in a regional prison
   c.) a suspension or revokal of license

     I like it, except for section 4.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bacon King on April 10, 2009, 01:14:23 PM
Legalization of Heroin Bill

Section 1: Findings
1. Heroin is a white, crystalline, narcotic powder, C21H23NO5, derived from morphine, formerly used as an analgesic and sedative.
2. The pharmaceutical price of heroin is only 5% of the average street price of heroin.

Section 2: Applicability
1. This law shall remove all federal restrictions on heroin in addition to legalization in Nyman and other federal territories which do not form a region.
2. The Regions of Atlasia shall be free to legalize and regulate heroin in any manner which they may choose.

Section 3: In Regards to the Legal Status of Heroin
1. The possession and consumption of heroin shall be legal.
2. This law shall not be interpreted as to decriminalize driving under the influence of heroin.
3. Penalties for driving under the influence of heroin shall be the same as those for driving under the influence of alcohol and other substances.

Section 4: Taxation
1. Taxes on heroin will be 30%.  Individual regions may set their own taxes on heroin as they see fit in addition to the federal tax which shall not exceed 20%.
2. Federal revenue raised from taxes on heroin shall be spent as follows:
   a.) 50% to a newly created National Opiate Addiction Help Center
   b.) 25% to funding for the needle exchange program created by the Atlasian Policy Regarding HIV/AIDS
   c.) 25% to improvements to federal interstate highways
3. Regional revenue generated from sales of heroin shall be used however the region deems necessary by a vote of the people upon voting for legalization.
4. The National Opiate Addiction Help Center shall not be funded by any other taxes.
5. The National Opiate Addiction Help Center shall focus on treatment options not involving methodone

Section 5: Purchases
1. Heroin shall be available at any licensed pharmacies.
2. Heroin shall not require a prescription but will kept behind the counter under all circumstances.
3. Individuals not in possession of the proper licenses shall still be prohibited from selling heroin.

Section 6: Age Restrictions
1. No one under the age of 18 shall be allowed to purchase heroin
2. Any pharmacist selling heroin to a person under the age of 18 shall be subject to any of the following:
   a.) a fine not to exceed $100,000
   b.) 30 days in a regional prison
   c.) a suspension or revokal of license

Friendly tips:

Section five needs to be reworded. Right now it seems to suggest that all pharmacies are required to sell heroin.

Also, you probably want to specify the 30% as a sales tax or whatever.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on April 10, 2009, 01:33:15 PM
Took BaconKing's ideas

PiT, we can certainly work on that depending on what senators are willing to work with the bill and where the support lies.  The taxation section was worked on heavily with I believe Ebowed


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on April 10, 2009, 01:46:59 PM
I'll happily work on the heroin bill. I'll need to analyze it more closely, though.



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on April 20, 2009, 10:45:12 PM
I would propose, as a matter of forum affairs and internal Senate function, that the time period that the PPT Candidate Declaration Thread remain open be reduced from 72 hours to 48 hours, before the new Senate Session begins. I just don't want the progress and activity of the current Senate to slow because of the slow nature of the PPT election process.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HappyWarrior on April 20, 2009, 11:00:56 PM
I would propose, as a matter of forum affairs and internal Senate function, that the time period that the PPT Candidate Declaration Thread remain open be reduced from 72 hours to 48 hours, before the new Senate Session begins. I just don't want the progress and activity of the current Senate to slow because of the slow nature of the PPT election process.

In the grand scheme of things it is honestly not that long a wait.  Changing it by 24 hours won't affect much in my humble opinion.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on April 21, 2009, 09:18:24 PM
Somaliland Recognition Bill

1.  The Republic of Atlasia hereby recongnizes the Republic of Somaliland.

2.  Somaliland will be recognized to hold the lands of the former British colony of British Somaliland.

3.  Dahir Riyale Kahin is hereby recognized as the President of Somaliland.

This bill has already been done and passed awhile ago.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on April 21, 2009, 09:50:26 PM
Somaliland Recognition Bill

1.  The Republic of Atlasia hereby recongnizes the Republic of Somaliland.

2.  Somaliland will be recognized to hold the lands of the former British colony of British Somaliland.

3.  Dahir Riyale Kahin is hereby recognized as the President of Somaliland.

This bill has already been done and passed awhile ago.

Is it in the Wiki?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on April 21, 2009, 09:52:34 PM
Somaliland Recognition Bill

1.  The Republic of Atlasia hereby recongnizes the Republic of Somaliland.

2.  Somaliland will be recognized to hold the lands of the former British colony of British Somaliland.

3.  Dahir Riyale Kahin is hereby recognized as the President of Somaliland.

This bill has already been done and passed awhile ago.

Is it in the Wiki?

     Yes (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Somaliland_Recognition_Act)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on April 21, 2009, 09:54:05 PM
Fair enough. We will move on pirates in the next term. I have something in the works.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on April 21, 2009, 09:57:50 PM
Fair enough. We will move on pirates in the next term. I have something in the works.

     Good. I was thinking we needed something in regards to the pirates.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HappyWarrior on April 21, 2009, 10:07:56 PM
Oops completely forgot that bill lol.  I will of course withdraw it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Frodo on May 12, 2009, 12:11:33 PM
Atlasian Tax Code Resolution

Whereas, Atlasia has existed for years without a functioning or present tax code,
therefore let it be

Resolved, that an independent commission shall be instituted for the formation of a tax code to be presented to the Atlasian Senate for approval. The commission shall be made up of the President or a citizen so designated to fill his place, the Attorney General, the PPT, the five regional Governors or any citizen of the same region so designated by a Governor, and two additional Senators so appointed by the Senate. At any time the commission may, by two-thirds consent, approve the addition of outside members as full voting members.

Resolved, that this tax code shall include, but not be limited to, an income tax, sales tax, social security tax, and estate tax. The proposal shall be prepared and presented before the start of FY 2010.

Don't we also currently have a carbon tax, or was that just repealed?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on May 12, 2009, 12:48:59 PM
Atlasian Tax Code Resolution

Whereas, Atlasia has existed for years without a functioning or present tax code,
therefore let it be

Resolved, that an independent commission shall be instituted for the formation of a tax code to be presented to the Atlasian Senate for approval. The commission shall be made up of the President or a citizen so designated to fill his place, the Attorney General, the PPT, the five regional Governors or any citizen of the same region so designated by a Governor, and two additional Senators so appointed by the Senate. At any time the commission may, by two-thirds consent, approve the addition of outside members as full voting members.

Resolved, that this tax code shall include, but not be limited to, an income tax, sales tax, social security tax, and estate tax. The proposal shall be prepared and presented before the start of FY 2010.

Don't we also currently have a carbon tax, or was that just repealed?

It may be repealed in favor of cap-and-trade, or may not be. It can be included in this new tax code, but I want to make sure that we at least get the other things.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Frodo on May 15, 2009, 09:33:51 AM
Atlasian Tax Code Resolution

Whereas, Atlasia has existed for years without a functioning or present tax code,
therefore let it be

Resolved, that an independent commission shall be instituted for the formation of a tax code to be presented to the Atlasian Senate for approval. The commission shall be made up of the President or a citizen so designated to fill his place, the Attorney General, the PPT, the five regional Governors or any citizen of the same region so designated by a Governor, and two additional Senators so appointed by the Senate. At any time the commission may, by two-thirds consent, approve the addition of outside members as full voting members.

Resolved, that this tax code shall include, but not be limited to, an income tax, sales tax, social security tax, and estate tax. The proposal shall be prepared and presented before the start of FY 2010.

Don't we also currently have a carbon tax, or was that just repealed?

It may be repealed in favor of cap-and-trade, or may not be. It can be included in this new tax code, but I want to make sure that we at least get the other things.

Looks like the carbon tax is here to stay...

While we are on the subject of controlling CO2 emissions, it surprises me that no senator (even among the conservative bloc) has introduced a bill expanding the use of nuclear power until around 75 to 80% of our energy needs are met by nuclear power plants.  If there is anything about France that we should emulate, it is that.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on May 15, 2009, 09:49:23 AM
Atlasian Tax Code Resolution

Whereas, Atlasia has existed for years without a functioning or present tax code,
therefore let it be

Resolved, that an independent commission shall be instituted for the formation of a tax code to be presented to the Atlasian Senate for approval. The commission shall be made up of the President or a citizen so designated to fill his place, the Attorney General, the PPT, the five regional Governors or any citizen of the same region so designated by a Governor, and two additional Senators so appointed by the Senate. At any time the commission may, by two-thirds consent, approve the addition of outside members as full voting members.

Resolved, that this tax code shall include, but not be limited to, an income tax, sales tax, social security tax, and estate tax. The proposal shall be prepared and presented before the start of FY 2010.

Don't we also currently have a carbon tax, or was that just repealed?

It may be repealed in favor of cap-and-trade, or may not be. It can be included in this new tax code, but I want to make sure that we at least get the other things.

Looks like the carbon tax is here to stay...

While we are on the subject of controlling CO2 emissions, it surprises me that no senator (even among the conservative bloc) has introduced a bill expanding the use of nuclear power until around 75 to 80% of our energy needs are met by nuclear power plants.  If there is anything about France that we should emulate, it is that.

Hope you don't mind if I steal your idea....but it's a good one, and I plan to introduce something concerning that soon.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Frodo on May 15, 2009, 06:25:19 PM
Atlasian Tax Code Resolution

Whereas, Atlasia has existed for years without a functioning or present tax code,
therefore let it be

Resolved, that an independent commission shall be instituted for the formation of a tax code to be presented to the Atlasian Senate for approval. The commission shall be made up of the President or a citizen so designated to fill his place, the Attorney General, the PPT, the five regional Governors or any citizen of the same region so designated by a Governor, and two additional Senators so appointed by the Senate. At any time the commission may, by two-thirds consent, approve the addition of outside members as full voting members.

Resolved, that this tax code shall include, but not be limited to, an income tax, sales tax, social security tax, and estate tax. The proposal shall be prepared and presented before the start of FY 2010.

Don't we also currently have a carbon tax, or was that just repealed?

It may be repealed in favor of cap-and-trade, or may not be. It can be included in this new tax code, but I want to make sure that we at least get the other things.

Looks like the carbon tax is here to stay...

While we are on the subject of controlling CO2 emissions, it surprises me that no senator (even among the conservative bloc) has introduced a bill expanding the use of nuclear power until around 75 to 80% of our energy needs are met by nuclear power plants.  If there is anything about France that we should emulate, it is that.

Hope you don't mind if I steal your idea....but it's a good one, and I plan to introduce something concerning that soon.

I'll be looking forward to your bill when it comes out.  :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on May 17, 2009, 10:56:32 AM
Affirmative Action Prohibition Bill:

Section 1: Atlasia recognizes affirmative action based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or any factor not related to economic status as an unacceptable form of discrimination.

Section 2: Such policies shall be prohibited throughout Atlasia.

This is an excellent bill, and I hope the Senate can pass it quickly, with little or no alterations.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on May 17, 2009, 11:21:52 AM
Affirmative Action Prohibition Bill:

Section 1: Atlasia recognizes affirmative action based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or any factor not related to economic status as an unacceptable form of discrimination.

Section 2: Such policies shall be prohibited throughout Atlasia.

This is an excellent bill, and I hope the Senate can pass it quickly, with little or no alterations.

Good to hear ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on May 17, 2009, 03:43:14 PM
Affirmative Action Prohibition Bill:

Section 1: Atlasia recognizes affirmative action based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or any factor not related to economic status as an unacceptable form of discrimination.

Section 2: Such policies shall be prohibited throughout Atlasia.

This is an excellent bill, and I hope the Senate can pass it quickly, with little or no alterations.

Good to hear ;)

I just wanted to throw all of my political weight behind this bill ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on May 17, 2009, 04:02:46 PM
Affirmative Action Prohibition Bill:

Section 1: Atlasia recognizes affirmative action based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or any factor not related to economic status as an unacceptable form of discrimination.

Section 2: Such policies shall be prohibited throughout Atlasia.

This is an excellent bill, and I hope the Senate can pass it quickly, with little or no alterations.

Good to hear ;)

I just wanted to throw all of my political weight behind this bill ;)

I thought you wanted this bill to pass! ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on May 17, 2009, 04:33:34 PM
Affirmative Action Prohibition Bill:

Section 1: Atlasia recognizes affirmative action based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or any factor not related to economic status as an unacceptable form of discrimination.

Section 2: Such policies shall be prohibited throughout Atlasia.
This is an excellent bill, and I hope the Senate can pass it quickly, with little or no alterations.
Good to hear ;)
I just wanted to throw all of my political weight behind this bill ;)
I thought you wanted this bill to pass! ;)

Good point.  In that case, I completely oppose this legislation, and feel it should be defeated!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fine...I Made This More Civil on May 20, 2009, 06:16:49 PM
How come most every bill here has some sort of connection to current events in the real world? Why don't we base bills on how Atlasia is doing, rather how the US is doing? Obviously, first we would have to find out how Atlasia is doing. I propose that we try not to concern ourselves so much with the events of the outside world, and instead craft legislation that would thoroughly round out the Atlasian Gov't.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on May 20, 2009, 06:24:13 PM
How come most every bill here has some sort of connection to current events in the real world? Why don't we base bills on how Atlasia is doing, rather how the US is doing? Obviously, first we would have to find out how Atlasia is doing. I propose that we try not to concern ourselves so much with the events of the outside world, and instead craft legislation that would thoroughly round out the Atlasian Gov't.

I completely agree, but we have a GM that is anything but active. There is no known status of Atlasia without something like that.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fine...I Made This More Civil on May 20, 2009, 06:27:08 PM
How come most every bill here has some sort of connection to current events in the real world? Why don't we base bills on how Atlasia is doing, rather how the US is doing? Obviously, first we would have to find out how Atlasia is doing. I propose that we try not to concern ourselves so much with the events of the outside world, and instead craft legislation that would thoroughly round out the Atlasian Gov't.

I completely agree, but we have a GM that is anything but active. There is no known status of Atlasia without something like that.

Maybe we should try and get a more active GM. That recent bill in the Senate could probably help.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Frodo on May 24, 2009, 10:14:16 PM
Regarding the nuclear power expansion bill currently on the floor of the Senate -if there is going to be an amendment regarding the disposal of nuclear waste, shouldn't there also be one regarding the reprocessing (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm) of that same waste? 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Vepres on June 03, 2009, 10:59:48 PM
Privacy Protection Bill

1. It shall henceforth be a punishable crime in Atlasia to publicly post the contents of private discussions, whether by internet messaging, personal message or other forms of personal communication, without the consent of all parties involved in said correspondence.
2. This crime shall be tried as though it were a crime under the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act.
3. Sentencing of the crime shall be by the presiding Justice; He may sentence the guilty party for up to, but not exceeding, a 1 month ban from holding any office under the Republic of Atlasia.

Excellent bill senator!

Although I think in this case it was a simple lapse in judgment on PiT's part, this bill should prevent things like this in the future.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on June 03, 2009, 11:21:21 PM
Privacy Protection Bill

1. It shall henceforth be a punishable crime in Atlasia to publicly post the contents of private discussions, whether by internet messaging, personal message or other forms of personal communication, without the consent of all parties involved in said correspondence.
2. This crime shall be tried as though it were a crime under the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act.
3. Sentencing of the crime shall be by the presiding Justice; He may sentence the guilty party for up to, but not exceeding, a 1 month ban from holding any office under the Republic of Atlasia.

Excellent bill senator!

Although I think in this case it was a simple lapse in judgment on PiT's part, this bill should prevent things like this in the future.

     I agree that a bill to prevent this from happening again is a good thing. We really should not be in the business of using confidential conversations to incriminate each other. What's worse is that this is by no means the first time that this has happened.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 08, 2009, 08:58:42 PM
Resolution Compelling the President to Appoint a New GM

Whereas, the position of Game Moderator is necessary for the full function of the Senate; and,

Whereas, President bgwah's current GM, Ebowed, has proven sporadic and ineffective in his position; and,

Whereas, the Senate, by statute and subsequent motion, has dismissed GM Ebowed from his office; therefore let it be

RESOLVED, that the Senate hereby calls upon the President to exercise all due haste in nominating for Atlasia a new GM to be confirmed or denied by the Senate.

Good to see you are still pressing this, PS. It will be tough to break bgwah though.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on June 08, 2009, 09:00:13 PM
Resolution Compelling the President to Appoint a New GM

Whereas, the position of Game Moderator is necessary for the full function of the Senate; and,

Whereas, President bgwah's current GM, Ebowed, has proven sporadic and ineffective in his position; and,

Whereas, the Senate, by statute and subsequent motion, has dismissed GM Ebowed from his office; therefore let it be

RESOLVED, that the Senate hereby calls upon the President to exercise all due haste in nominating for Atlasia a new GM to be confirmed or denied by the Senate.

Good to see you are still pressing this, PS. It will be tough to break bgwah though.

Thank goodness for upcoming elections and term limits, but I hope I don't need to wait that long to see a new GM.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 12, 2009, 11:06:38 PM
A question for Purple State

I don't see how the Economic Zones are a liberal idea especially in the European form as you said? Could you clarify, how this contitutes that type of thing?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on June 13, 2009, 11:07:33 PM
A question for Purple State

I don't see how the Economic Zones are a liberal idea especially in the European form as you said? Could you clarify, how this contitutes that type of thing?

It is may use the best friends of conservatives (tax cuts), but it is messing with the market to preference and advantage disadvantaged regions. It builds equality of opportunity, but it is nothing near to a free market. So I support it, but I'm surprised the more conservative voters do.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on June 14, 2009, 02:22:01 PM
A question for Purple State

I don't see how the Economic Zones are a liberal idea especially in the European form as you said? Could you clarify, how this contitutes that type of thing?

It is may use the best friends of conservatives (tax cuts), but it is messing with the market to preference and advantage disadvantaged regions. It builds equality of opportunity, but it is nothing near to a free market. So I support it, but I'm surprised the more conservative voters do.

     Emptying the coffers of the thief, my dear colleague. ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 14, 2009, 02:50:55 PM
A question for Purple State

I don't see how the Economic Zones are a liberal idea especially in the European form as you said? Could you clarify, how this contitutes that type of thing?

It is may use the best friends of conservatives (tax cuts), but it is messing with the market to preference and advantage disadvantaged regions. It builds equality of opportunity, but it is nothing near to a free market. So I support it, but I'm surprised the more conservative voters do.

Well the idea was heavilly supported by the late great Jack Kemp. I think it is a wonderfull idea to help economically depressed areas of country by encouraging entrepreneurship and innovation in those areas. The only alternative is essentially create a culture of generational welfare in these areas. Most Conservatives prefer welfare to be a termporary safety net not a livelihood. Thats why conservatives support such a thing. Its not just a problem in the inner cities but in Appalachia and other rural areas as well.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on June 23, 2009, 06:55:01 AM
What day does the next Senate start on?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on June 23, 2009, 07:23:18 AM

Noon, 3 July.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on June 23, 2009, 07:38:34 AM

Thank you. Now I know when to stop introducing new bills.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on June 30, 2009, 08:59:18 PM
Party Name Change Bill

1. If the membership of a major political party, by vote of a quorum of all members of that party, decides that it wishes to change the name of that party, an officer of that party shall, within 14 days, notify the Secretary of Forum Affairs of this fact.

2. Once notified, the Secretary of Forum Affairs shall change the official party membership of all members registered within that party to the new name approved by the party membership.

Okay, I guess. Is this just making it easier for a party to change it's name, rather than making all the members reregister?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on June 30, 2009, 09:12:08 PM
Party Name Change Bill

1. If the membership of a major political party, by vote of a quorum of all members of that party, decides that it wishes to change the name of that party, an officer of that party shall, within 14 days, notify the Secretary of Forum Affairs of this fact.

2. Once notified, the Secretary of Forum Affairs shall change the official party membership of all members registered within that party to the new name approved by the party membership.

Okay, I guess. Is this just making it easier for a party to change it's name, rather than making all the members reregister?

     Correct. Bayh & I have been talking about the possibility of changing the RPP's name, but we realized that with nearly 30 members making everyone re-register is prohibitively difficult. There should be an easy way for large parties to change their name if their members want to do so.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 30, 2009, 10:03:55 PM
Party Name Change Bill

1. If the membership of a major political party, by vote of a quorum of all members of that party, decides that it wishes to change the name of that party, an officer of that party shall, within 14 days, notify the Secretary of Forum Affairs of this fact.

2. Once notified, the Secretary of Forum Affairs shall change the official party membership of all members registered within that party to the new name approved by the party membership.

Okay, I guess. Is this just making it easier for a party to change it's name, rather than making all the members reregister?

     Correct. Bayh & I have been talking about the possibility of changing the RPP's name, but we realized that with nearly 30 members making everyone re-register is prohibitively difficult. There should be an easy way for large parties to change their name if their members want to do so.

Not bad. Bgwah has occasionally mentioned the possibility of doing that as well. Quite a good bill that could benefit everyone.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on July 01, 2009, 03:26:47 PM
As everyone now should know the next Senate session starts at Noon on July 3rd. Because of that nothing new will be introduced since there just won't be enough time so lets get the work done on the rest of the stuff on the floor before then.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HappyWarrior on July 07, 2009, 01:26:31 PM
MJ what is it with you and all these new FTAs?  Its like you're trying to annoy me :p


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on July 07, 2009, 06:04:20 PM
MJ what is it with you and all these new FTAs?  Its like you're trying to annoy me :p

Haha, well I got all of the FTAs passed. And it's not to annoy you, it's supposed to get some kind of an agenda through Lief if possible. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on July 07, 2009, 06:12:19 PM
     You could let them hit the floor whenever they do & then just filibuster them until afleitch returns. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on July 07, 2009, 06:15:13 PM
     You could let them hit the floor whenever they do & then just filibuster them until afleitch returns. :P

Not in my "we must be active" Senate! :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 11, 2009, 12:11:24 AM
On behalf of the President:

Quote
2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Act

Recognizing the strain that the economic downturn has put on Atlasian families and businesses, seeking to offer struggling Atlasians relief while investing in an economic recovery, the Senate of Atlasia authorizes the following:

Section 1: Direct Aid to Struggling Atlasians ($254 billion)

   a. $100 billion for Medicaid
   b. $70 billion to extend unemployment benefits for eighteen months, individual unemployment compensation checks will be increased by $50
   c. $30 billion for a 25% increase in individual food stamp benefits
   d. $20 billion to fund additional Pell Grants, which shall be increased to $6,000 per individual
   e. $12 billion to increase the availability of Section 8 Housing Vouchers
   f. $10 billion to increase and extend welfare payments
   g. $10 billion to job training and disabled worker rehabilitation programs
   h. $2 billion for food program funding, including free school lunch programs, food banks, and meals programs for seniors (General food banks shall recieve priority funding)

Section 2: Infrastructure Investment ($162.5 billion)

   a. $60 billion to be distributed to highway, road, bridge construction/repair projects
   b. $20 billion for urban public transportation construction and repair projects
   c. $10 billion to immediately fund the 2009 High Speed Rail Act (FL 30-8)
   d. $10 billion to increase rural broadband coverage
   e. $10 billion for infrastructure repair and construction projects in the Social and Economic Development Zones enacted in FL 31-19
   f. $10 billion to repair and modernize government facilities and buildings
   g. $10 billion to repair sewage lines and drinking water infrastructure
   h. State governments will be required to pave or re-gravel all township roads and re-pave all township roads that have not been paved since January 1, 1999 by December 31, 2014. $6.5 billion is allocated to each region for this effort
   i. Two-thirds of the manufacturing material related to highway, road, and bridge construction or repair projects are required to have been produced and manufactured by Atlasian businesses

Section 3: Aid to the Atlasian Auto Industry ($45+ billion)

   a. The federal government will purchase majority shareholder status in the Big 3 auto companies: General Motors, Ford and Chrysler
   b. An Automobile Industry Reform Board (AIRB) will be selected, tasked with the running of the Big 3
   c. The AIRB will be tasked with refocusing and streamlining production, with a focus on the development and production of fuel efficient and hybrid cars
   d. The Big 3 will also be paid to produce buses and trains, to expand the Atlasian public transportation system
   e. The AIRB will be required to make reports to the Senate every six months
   f. A flexible goal of returning to the Big 3 to private ownership within five years will be set

Section 4: Regional & Local Fiscal Relief ($150 billion)

   a. $100 billion in financial aid to the regions, to decrease and prevent budget cuts of essential services and layoffs or cutbacks of government workers (This financial relief will be prioritized to state governments on the basis of budget severity)
   b. $50 billion to aid school districts facing budget shortfalls, to prevent cutbacks or layoffs

Section 5: Responsible Individual & Business Tax Relief ($42+ billion)

   a. $25 billion to exempt the first $5000 collected through unemployment compensation from taxation until December 31, 2010
   b. $8 billion to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit
   c. $6 billion to provide a voluntary annual $700 tax credit to home-owners who make use of solar, wind, or hydroelectric sources of energy (To qualify for the tax credit, home-owners must have at least 25% of their electricity generated from the aforementioned sources.)
   d. $3 billion to provide an expanded sales tax deducation from automobile purchases from Atlasian automobile companies
   e. The business tax rate shall be reduced by 2%
   f. Individual businesses making $300,000 or less in total annual income shall be exempt from all business taxes for exactly one year after The 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Act is made law

Co-Sponsor: MaxQue

Time to surprise the hell out of everyone, but I would vote for this provided four things are changed or added.


1. The Buy Atlasion Provisions are removed. We don't need Smoot-Hawley 2.0 thank you. As soon as this hits the floor I will offer an amendment to do just that.

2. The Auto Recovery section is modified so as to work more within the Private Sector and not be a Gov't takeover.

3. More Federal Loans to help people buy homes, cars, start business, and get an education. Primarily the first three. Finally in terms of businesses, loans to help the existing and new start ups make payroll, and thus avoid layoffs.

4. The Corporate Tax rate should be reduced to 25% which would match our exorbinant rate with foriegn rates on Business. Make competations easier, and reduce outsourcing. I will however not be so demanding on this one to the point that is absence from the bill will not prevent me from voting for it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 11, 2009, 12:36:13 AM
Sorry, I'll vote against the bill should any effort to remove the 'Buy Atlasian' provision be removed. We need something to stimulate the manufacturing sector which has been on the decline for decades, and outsourcing most, if not all, of our materials isn't an Atlasian stimulus, it's a Chinese stimulus. As for 3 and 4, I'm sure we can work together on something there.

However, I do think that temporary nationalization of the Atlasian auto companies is the best course of action, for a variety of reasons.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 11, 2009, 12:44:34 AM
Sorry, I'll vote against the bill should any effort to remove the 'Buy Atlasian' provision be removed. We need something to stimulate the manufacturing sector which has been on the decline for decades, and outsourcing most, if not all, of our materials isn't an Atlasian stimulus, it's a Chinese stimulus. As for 3 and 4, I'm sure we can work together on something there.

However, I do think that temporary nationalization of the Atlasian auto companies is the best course of action, for a variety of reasons.

There you go again Senator ignoring the negative consequences of your own actions. Those provisions risk a trade war at a time when our exports are falling and contributing to the growing unemployement, it would be the height of irresponsibility to pursue such a course. The Global economy is slumping and so there needs to be stimulus worldwide. The idea that you can isolate our economy would lead to a permenent Depression. Indeed the Smoot Hawley passed in 1930 jacked up tariff rates, a trade war ensued after which our exports plunged and Depression grew deeper. You want to help Manufacturing then invest in Technology, make our tax rates competative with foriegn manufacturers, and stop letting Unions drive them into the ground.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on July 11, 2009, 12:57:11 AM
I don't know if Marokai and Lief are open to that, but I am open to put Canada and European Union in the ''Buy Atlasian'' clause.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 11, 2009, 02:30:21 AM
There you go again Senator ignoring the negative consequences of your own actions. Those provisions risk a trade war at a time when our exports are falling and contributing to the growing unemployement, it would be the height of irresponsibility to pursue such a course. The Global economy is slumping and so there needs to be stimulus worldwide. The idea that you can isolate our economy would lead to a permenent Depression. Indeed the Smoot Hawley passed in 1930 jacked up tariff rates, a trade war ensued after which our exports plunged and Depression grew deeper. You want to help Manufacturing then invest in Technology, make our tax rates competative with foriegn manufacturers, and stop letting Unions drive them into the ground.

Okay, well, let's start off with something simple: You haven't a clue what you're talking about. For the sake of economic debate, I'll be referring to Atlasia as the US, using real-life statistics.

The global economy is indeed slumping and other countries have alot of work to do when it comes to stimulating our own economies. But the idea that I'm "ignoring the consequences of my own actions" is ludicrous. The U.S. (aka Atlasia) should not be stimulating the world on our own, other countries should stimulate their economies on their own. We can maintain trade, and make things easier for people to get into the market, but we need to be realistic about the real effect certain policies have on the economy, and, for one, "Buy Atlasian" ain't got nuthin' on Smoot-Hawley. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley)

Smoot-Hawley jacked up tariffs to record levels (more than quadrupling them) on over 20,000 types of imported products and effectively choked off trade to Europe and other areas of the world very quickly. This provision does nothing of the sort and pretending it does is the height of ignorance. This clause of the bill simply mandates that a great deal of the manufacturing material involved in projects funded by the stimulus package will be created/manufactured from Atlasian businesses and workers, it doesn't stop other projects from being funded by foreign sources, it doesn't block foreign sources from doing trade with us in any other way, and it still allows a full 33% of stimulus project materials to be obtained from other countries.

Protectionism is never a great policy when it's the only solution, and raising tariffs is seldom a bright idea when it comes to fixing the economy or raising revenue, but this is neither serious protectionism nor tariff raising, nor any other sort of trade restriction. I'm baffled that you would even pretend that they're on the same level.

Manufacturing employment has been dropping for years now (http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/C2_Imports_from_China.jpg) and during that time, our exports slow and our reliance on Chinese imports skyrockets. There's an interesting article from 2002 (http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_11202002/) that talks about the history of our trade and manufacturing relations with China since the end of the 80s, "Between 1989 and 2001, though U.S. exports to China more than tripled, imports from China increased eightfold, causing a whopping twelvefold surge in the U.S-China trade deficit."

()

You might be thinking "Well, a drop in employment is understandable as long as output continues to increase." Not so in most cases. Manufacturing output as either stalled, or, as government statistics have shown of industrial output overall (http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/6/18/saupload_1245267265.jpg), has consistently, with blips throughout the rapid economic expansion after the fall of the Soviet Union, fallen lower and lower, and the overall peaks of industrial output have been less strong with each peaking. (These are less broad and somewhat unrelated, but California (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CAMFG_Max_630_378.png) and Nebraska (https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/NEMFGN_Max_630_378.png) manufacturing employment numbers are somewhat startling.)

My point is this, our reliance on Chinese imports is hurting our industry and our ability to manufacture and to export. Free trade generally does increase jobs in certain sectors, but this is often at the expense of our manufacturing output, and we can't keep ignoring our ability to manufacture in favor of pencil pushing and service management jobs. The "Buy Atlasian" Provision makes it so we mandate a small portion of our overall manufacturing work be produced and done in Atlasia by Atlasians, and gives our manufacturing sector a much needed boost. Protectionism, in small doses as to not choke off trade or offend other nations, is not always a bad thing. Nations need an element of self-sufficiency.

And this ties into the argument for temporary nationalization of the 3 Auto-Makers. The success of the "Big 3" is not only an economic concern, but a concern of national security. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/opinion/16clark.html) These auto-makers often provide quick support for the military when materials and army trucks, jeeps, and even tanks and artillery are needed. These security demands increase our industrial production and manufacturing employment (which is, consequently, another contributor to the unusual freeze of manufacturing employment throughout the 90's, because of every other decade experiencing falls since WWII) and made sure that we could always rely on ourselves rather than other nations in fighting our wars.

There are, of course, obvious concerns economically as well. We could lose millions of jobs in the auto-making industry alone if we do nothing, not to mention the additional millions of jobs that are indirectly dependent on that sector.

Moving on to your other (asinine) points, taxes are often overblown, and there's only so long we can whine about them. The taxpayer is now dealing with one of the lowest tax burdens in decades (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/15/AR2009041503371.html) and other tax hikes, such as FDR's during the Great Depression, Reagan's during the period of economic expansion under his two terms, and Clinton's in the first year of his term (which were surprisingly broad, by the way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993#Specifics)) all had no noticeable negative effects on the economy. Especially Clinton's, which Republicans said would kill jobs, did nothing to stop the 23 million jobs created under Clinton's tenure.

Business taxes can be lowered, sure, we do have one of the highest (and some things put it at the highest) business tax rate in the world, but we should caution ourselves from just taking a hatchet to the business tax rate. Something like that is neither responsible, more effective than modest cuts, nor just economically sound at all. Permanent tax cuts are often bad, bad economic stimulus, and slashing the business tax rate has almost no sensible economic efficiency on the dollar (http://endtheecho.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/mz_012208_1t.gif) in comparison to other measures we could be taking. These tax cuts are modest and A) More psychological than seriously impacting, which does matter. And B) Designed to focus on very small businesses where tax cuts have a more sensitive effect.

Your union bashing is similarly dumb. Sticking to the topic of manufacturing work in auto-plants, non-unionized foreign auto-plants are very competitive with US-unionized plants in terms of pay. (http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2008/12/13/299179.html) There is no union-bashing to be done here, just business mismanagement. If you take a closer look at the numbers provided as comparisons, the major difference between the two are legacy costs which, dumbed down for you if you're too lazy to check the link, are things like pensions, healthcare benefits for retired workers, etc.

Quote
WAGES: Base hourly wages and cost of living adjustments
    * UAW: $29
    * Transplants: $26

WAGE RELATED: Paid vacation, overtime, holidays, night and weekend pay, break time
    * UAW: $14
    * Transplants: $9

BENEFITS: Healthcare, training, etc
    * UAW: $12
    * Transplants: $11

LEGACY COSTS (Without VEBA): Pension and healthcare benefits for retirees
    * UAW: $16
    * Transplants: $3

LEGACY COSTS (With VEBA): Pension and healthcare benefits for retirees
    * UAW: $3
    * Transplants: $3

TOTAL LABOR COST:
    * UAW (without VEBA): $71
   * UAW (with VEBA): $58
    * Transplants: $49

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2008/12/13/299179.html

This is, further, an argument that government management can bring forward the necessary changes that throwing money at the auto-makers, as we've done for many years now, could be the best bet we have towards properly restructuring their businesses and bringing forward a new American/Atlasian auto industry which is essential in more than a few ways. Simply, this has nothing to do with unions, just bad business decisions from the past and incompetent management. Stop with the knee-jerk union-bashing.

Of course, you and your RPP friend in the office of Game Moderator can continue to try and undermine anything the Senate does because he, through a partisan prism, doesn't like it. But let's stop acting like I'm ignoring the consequences of my actions and that I don't know what the hell I'm doing, hm?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on July 11, 2009, 04:31:06 AM
I have some major problems with parts of this legislation, but I hope we will all be able to find some middle ground.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on July 11, 2009, 09:00:11 AM
I support the changes that NC Yankee has suggested. Otherwise it's a no go.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Vepres on July 11, 2009, 11:03:50 AM
Sorry, I'll vote against the bill should any effort to remove the 'Buy Atlasian' provision be removed. We need something to stimulate the manufacturing sector which has been on the decline for decades, and outsourcing most, if not all, of our materials isn't an Atlasian stimulus, it's a Chinese stimulus. As for 3 and 4, I'm sure we can work together on something there.

However, I do think that temporary nationalization of the Atlasian auto companies is the best course of action, for a variety of reasons.

Most of those jobs aren't coming back, no matter what you do. When you can pay a Chinese man far less to do the same job. Interestingly, the Japanese and Korean car companies have many factories in the south, where there aren't strong unions. If you remove the UAW union's power, then the American companies can build plants in cheaper areas.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on July 11, 2009, 11:52:57 AM
I don't know if Marokai and Lief are open to that, but I am open to put Canada and European Union in the ''Buy Atlasian'' clause.
How the hell would it be "Buy Atlasian" if Canada and the EU were included?  Hell let's just throw in China, Japan, and the Sudan have a ball


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on July 11, 2009, 03:10:33 PM
I don't know if Marokai and Lief are open to that, but I am open to put Canada and European Union in the ''Buy Atlasian'' clause.
How the hell would it be "Buy Atlasian" if Canada and the EU were included?  Hell let's just throw in China, Japan, and the Sudan have a ball

Well, ''Buy in respectful countries'' then. Including our main trade parnter could be a good idea. Especially than there is no much difference between north and south of the border.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 11, 2009, 03:32:26 PM
Sorry, I'll vote against the bill should any effort to remove the 'Buy Atlasian' provision be removed. We need something to stimulate the manufacturing sector which has been on the decline for decades, and outsourcing most, if not all, of our materials isn't an Atlasian stimulus, it's a Chinese stimulus. As for 3 and 4, I'm sure we can work together on something there.

However, I do think that temporary nationalization of the Atlasian auto companies is the best course of action, for a variety of reasons.

Most of those jobs aren't coming back, no matter what you do. When you can pay a Chinese man far less to do the same job. Interestingly, the Japanese and Korean car companies have many factories in the south, where there aren't strong unions. If you remove the UAW union's power, then the American companies can build plants in cheaper areas.

Does no one read what I post?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 11, 2009, 03:33:27 PM
I don't know if Marokai and Lief are open to that, but I am open to put Canada and European Union in the ''Buy Atlasian'' clause.
How the hell would it be "Buy Atlasian" if Canada and the EU were included?  Hell let's just throw in China, Japan, and the Sudan have a ball

Well, there's an argument to be made that an exception for Canada could be sensible enough. There are many Atlasian/American workers working in Canada and we often share the same businesses due to our proximity to each other.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 11, 2009, 04:48:43 PM
Okay Marokai,

1. The reason I said you ignored the consequences of your actions was because 3 times last night you in fact did, on this, the LGBT Free Trade Act Amendment, and the Credit card interest rate caps. It seems you prefer feel-good legislation that looks good on paper, but is counterproductive to the desired goals.

2. How do you "know" what level of protectionism foreign countries will accept before they respond in kind? Some of these countries have political leaders that are in a very unstable position and may very well respond to populist demands for greater protectionism over the slightest of provocations. Atlasia should take the lead in shirking of these irresponsible populist demands, and not succumb to it.

3. I will agree that the trade deficit is a definate problem, however, right now, exports are falling off a cliff, and so is domestic demand as well. So lets say a wave of Protectionist policies across the world are established, the effect on Manufacturing would be the exact opposite of what you expect this bill to do.  Of course, you have a history of counterproductive bills and proposals, that hurt the very people you try to help. Last night this was proven on two different issues. You are playing a very dangerous game and you are gambling with the jobs of millions of Atlasians.

4. I understand the need for self sufficiency, but protectionism is not the way to do it, finding ways to help them compete is.

5. I never called for doing nothing to help the Big three automakers. I said we should work to help them within the market place. What about the Foreign manufacturers in the South, how are they going to compete with three gov't owned companies that can run up whatever debts they want to on taxpayer dime, and have a Gov't giving them other unfair advantages as well(Over other companies that employ Atlasians). Management has been incompetant, I don't deny thats the cause of most of the problems. I also have no problems with unions in general, indeed I think unions can be very beneficial to keep management in check at times. However I feel the in the past the UAW among others have been more concerned with there political influence then the needs of there members.

6. I never called for taking a hatchet to the corporate tax rate. What I would like to see done is the removal of most deductions and exemptions and lower the overall rate to 25% in increments over a few years. This will simplify a complex tax code, bring down the overall rates to competative levels, encourage business activity and reduce unfair advanteages giving to several companies through the influence of lobbyist. I said that this could rate, and I am willing to make some kind of deal to get this done.

7. What did you expect from someone like Brandon? I don't think he is acting out of partisanship, but out of wisdom that has come with age. Its not like he created the recession just to hurt Lief, Ebowed first began reporting it last year. I think he two can see that your policies are very counterproductive as well, and I think he is being very realistic in reporting the results. I am sure everyone will be unhappy with the news, he will be reporting, eventually myself included. But this is a game and you can't always be the winner.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 11, 2009, 04:59:59 PM
Quote
1. The reason I said you ignored the consequences of your actions was because 3 times last night you in fact did, on this, the LGBT Free Trade Act Amendment, and the Credit card interest rate caps. It seems you prefer feel-good legislation that looks good on paper, but is counterproductive to the desired goals.

Perhaps the fact that I am gay makes me biased, but I don't think building up a society that criminalizes a minority is a bright idea. It's the same thing as levying sanctions on another country, or condemning a slave trade. Who cares if a trade agreement with Morocco or some other country like that is revoked? I think our workers will muddle through the hundreds of jobs lost from that. ::)

As for interest rate caps, they're essential because they prevent abuse from companies who take advantage of those who A) Didn't understand the fine print or B) The companies were purposely deceptive in their fine print. It cap interest rates at TWENTY percent. You're making it out like we capped the rates at FIVE. Stop being a drama queen.

Quote
3. I will agree that the trade deficit is a definate problem, however, right now, exports are falling off a cliff, and so is domestic demand as well. So lets say a wave of Protectionist policies across the world are established, the effect on Manufacturing would be the exact opposite of what you expect this bill to do.  Of course, you have a history of counterproductive bills and proposals, that hurt the very people you try to help. Last night this was proven on two different issues. You are playing a very dangerous game and you are gambling with the jobs of millions of Atlasians.

4. I understand the need for self sufficiency, but protectionism is not the way to do it, finding ways to help them compete is.

I'm beginning to think there's something seriously wrong with you. There are no massive wave of protectionist policies here and I haven't a clue why you keep pedaling that nonsense. It simply mandates 66% of stimulus projects have materials obtained and manufactured in Atlasia and by Atlasian businesses. There's still a significant portion of projects that can be funded by foreign sources, and it doesn't affect anything outside of the stimulus projects.

Quote
6. I never called for taking a hatchet to the corporate tax rate. What I would like to see done is the removal of most deductions and exemptions and lower the overall rate to 25% in increments over a few years. This will simplify a complex tax code, bring down the overall rates to competative levels, encourage business activity and reduce unfair advanteages giving to several companies through the influence of lobbyist. I said that this could rate, and I am willing to make some kind of deal to get this done.

I honestly think sometimes I must speak a foreign language when I respond to people.

1. The corporate tax rate is much higher than 25%. Reducing it to that number is a heavy slash comparable to "taking a hatchet to it."

2. Cuts in the corporate tax rate overall are not conducive to economic growth nor swift economic stimulus. (Quite the opposite.) Please stop with the nonsense that cutting taxes will result in a boom, we've heard that for decades.

3. Any cuts should be breaks to smaller businesses, not broad severe cuts. Anything outside of that is incredibly irresponsible.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on July 11, 2009, 05:11:52 PM
     Since the thread has been opened for debating this bill, how about you two take it there?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 11, 2009, 05:54:11 PM
     Since the thread has been opened for debating this bill, how about you two take it there?

I beleive I already did.



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on July 11, 2009, 06:02:45 PM
     Since the thread has been opened for debating this bill, how about you two take it there?

I beleive I already did.

     Fair enough, though it looked like you two would continue debating it in here.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Vepres on July 11, 2009, 08:46:32 PM
Sorry, I'll vote against the bill should any effort to remove the 'Buy Atlasian' provision be removed. We need something to stimulate the manufacturing sector which has been on the decline for decades, and outsourcing most, if not all, of our materials isn't an Atlasian stimulus, it's a Chinese stimulus. As for 3 and 4, I'm sure we can work together on something there.

However, I do think that temporary nationalization of the Atlasian auto companies is the best course of action, for a variety of reasons.

Most of those jobs aren't coming back, no matter what you do. When you can pay a Chinese man far less to do the same job. Interestingly, the Japanese and Korean car companies have many factories in the south, where there aren't strong unions. If you remove the UAW union's power, then the American companies can build plants in cheaper areas.

Does no one read what I post?

I didn't at the time. :P However, you may be right.

By the way, why should Ford be bought by the government? Lately they've been a very competent company, with many cars rivaling Japanese cars in quality. They have paid off many of their debts as well.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 11, 2009, 09:03:25 PM
Sorry, I'll vote against the bill should any effort to remove the 'Buy Atlasian' provision be removed. We need something to stimulate the manufacturing sector which has been on the decline for decades, and outsourcing most, if not all, of our materials isn't an Atlasian stimulus, it's a Chinese stimulus. As for 3 and 4, I'm sure we can work together on something there.

However, I do think that temporary nationalization of the Atlasian auto companies is the best course of action, for a variety of reasons.

Most of those jobs aren't coming back, no matter what you do. When you can pay a Chinese man far less to do the same job. Interestingly, the Japanese and Korean car companies have many factories in the south, where there aren't strong unions. If you remove the UAW union's power, then the American companies can build plants in cheaper areas.

Does no one read what I post?

I didn't at the time. :P However, you may be right.

By the way, why should Ford be bought by the government? Lately they've been a very competent company, with many cars rivaling Japanese cars in quality. They have paid off many of their debts as well.

I'm fine with just nationalizing GM, if people could accept that.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 11, 2009, 09:05:16 PM
Sorry, I'll vote against the bill should any effort to remove the 'Buy Atlasian' provision be removed. We need something to stimulate the manufacturing sector which has been on the decline for decades, and outsourcing most, if not all, of our materials isn't an Atlasian stimulus, it's a Chinese stimulus. As for 3 and 4, I'm sure we can work together on something there.

However, I do think that temporary nationalization of the Atlasian auto companies is the best course of action, for a variety of reasons.

Most of those jobs aren't coming back, no matter what you do. When you can pay a Chinese man far less to do the same job. Interestingly, the Japanese and Korean car companies have many factories in the south, where there aren't strong unions. If you remove the UAW union's power, then the American companies can build plants in cheaper areas.

Does no one read what I post?

I didn't at the time. :P However, you may be right.

By the way, why should Ford be bought by the government? Lately they've been a very competent company, with many cars rivaling Japanese cars in quality. They have paid off many of their debts as well.

I'm fine with just nationalizing GM, if people could accept that.

What about Chrysler?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on July 21, 2009, 05:30:39 PM
Quote
Enumerated Powers Resolution
Article III, Section 2, Clause 6 shall be inserted into the OSPR to read: Any Senator introducing legislation into the Senate floor shall cite the section in the Constitution that allows this legislation in the legislation.

As per my campaign pomise, I introduce this on behalf of Fmr Senator and current Lt Gov. South Park Conservative.

Don't sound too happy about it Yank. ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on July 21, 2009, 05:34:43 PM
LGB Dignity Act.

All self described reperative therapy, psychological therapy, self help and 'ex gay' institutions, associations and ministries with the intent to subdue, erase, reform, negatively influence or attempt to change an individuals sexual orientation are hereby outlawed.
I do not think this can be justified under any federal power, moreover, I believe it could violate the free speech and free exercise of religion clauses as well.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on July 21, 2009, 05:36:20 PM
LGB Dignity Act.

All self described reperative therapy, psychological therapy, self help and 'ex gay' institutions, associations and ministries with the intent to subdue, erase, reform, negatively influence or attempt to change an individuals sexual orientation are hereby outlawed.
I do not think this can be justified under any federal power, moreover, I believe it could violate the free speech and free exercise of religion clauses as well.

I agree. So long as these institutions aren't compelling people to attend against their will, which would be illegal, we can't outright ban these.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SPC on July 21, 2009, 05:41:18 PM
Quote
Enumerated Powers Resolution
Article III, Section 2, Clause 6 shall be inserted into the OSPR to read: Any Senator introducing legislation into the Senate floor shall cite the section in the Constitution that allows this legislation in the legislation.

As per my campaign pomise, I introduce this on behalf of Fmr Senator and current Lt Gov. South Park Conservative.

Thank you. :D


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 21, 2009, 05:42:27 PM
Quote
Enumerated Powers Resolution
Article III, Section 2, Clause 6 shall be inserted into the OSPR to read: Any Senator introducing legislation into the Senate floor shall cite the section in the Constitution that allows this legislation in the legislation.

As per my campaign pomise, I introduce this on behalf of Fmr Senator and current Lt Gov. South Park Conservative.

Don't sound too happy about it Yank. ;)

I am not.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on July 21, 2009, 09:42:11 PM
Atlasia-EU Free Trade Bill
1. No tariffs, customs, or restrictions on movement of goods, except those that have been outlawed by the destination or interim nation, shall exist between the Republic of Atlasia and the Eurpean Union

2. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this bill.


Atlasia-Turkey Free Trade Bill
1. No tariffs, customs, or restrictions on movement of goods, except those that have been outlawed by the destination or interim nation, shall exist between the Republic of Atlasia and Turkey.

2. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this bill.


Summarized: MasterJedi gives a hearty welcome back to afleitch.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on August 15, 2009, 07:02:26 PM
I want to introduce Free Trade bills for Indonesia, Taiwan and the UAE. But seperatly or all as one? I'm asking Senators opinions on this.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 15, 2009, 07:19:20 PM
I want to introduce Free Trade bills for Indonesia, Taiwan and the UAE. But seperatly or all as one? I'm asking Senators opinions on this.

No fair, I was going to do Taiwan. >:(


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on August 15, 2009, 07:20:22 PM
I want to introduce Free Trade bills for Indonesia, Taiwan and the UAE. But seperatly or all as one? I'm asking Senators opinions on this.

No fair, I was going to do Taiwan. >:(

You snooze, you lose! :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on August 15, 2009, 10:37:52 PM
The UAE is an absolute monarchy, wtf?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on August 15, 2009, 11:36:24 PM
UAE is illegal under the original LGBT trade law, because it applies death penalty to homosexuals.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on August 15, 2009, 11:41:46 PM
UAE is illegal under the original LGBT trade law, because it applies death penalty to homosexuals.

Well it would be legal, but the SoEA likely would (and certainly should) immediately suspend it until they reformed those practices. I have to say I wouldn't support that sort of bill anyway (not that I will likely have a chance to vote on it).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HappyWarrior on August 16, 2009, 08:11:24 AM
I also feel that a Taiwanese FTA would drastically harm relations with the PRC.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: afleitch on August 16, 2009, 08:14:54 AM
I also feel that a Taiwanese FTA would drastically harm relations with the PRC.

Quite; it's a diplomatic nightmare


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on August 30, 2009, 12:43:26 PM
I urge all senators to oppose the massive intrusion of freedom in the bill Sen. Fritz's has just proposed.  Atlasia has a long history of party switching and waiting 60 days in between party switching is absurd


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on August 30, 2009, 05:43:49 PM
I urge all senators to oppose the massive intrusion of freedom in the bill Sen. Fritz's has just proposed.  Atlasia has a long history of party switching and waiting 60 days in between party switching is absurd

For a very rare time in my life, I completely agree with DWTL. That bill is a threat to democracy by deleting the freedom to be a member of the political party we want.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on August 30, 2009, 05:46:52 PM
I urge all senators to oppose the massive intrusion of freedom in the bill Sen. Fritz's has just proposed.  Atlasia has a long history of party switching and waiting 60 days in between party switching is absurd

For a very rare time in my life, I completely agree with DWTL. That bill is a threat to democracy by deleting the freedom to be a member of the political party we want.
I agree with DWTL and Senator Maxque. While it isn't great to be constantly switching parties, I don't see any good reason why it should be outlawed.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 30, 2009, 05:56:38 PM
I agree with the sentiment of the bill. But I think 60 days is way too much. I'd be fine with only changing parties once a week or something.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 30, 2009, 06:23:24 PM
I agree with the sentiment of the bill. But I think 60 days is way too much. I'd be fine with only changing parties once a week or something.

Yes, akin to a "mail-in" voter registration change delay. Real life you can't just type something on the internet and change parties. A week is the longest though, I'd prefer three days.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fritz on August 30, 2009, 06:53:32 PM
Agreed, sixty days is too long.  I will accept an amendment shortening the period of time as friendly, when this gets to the floor.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 30, 2009, 07:58:56 PM
A better idea would be to allow parties to regulate their own membership.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lief 🗽 on August 30, 2009, 09:23:37 PM
Putting the time down to 1-2 weeks is good, I think.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on August 30, 2009, 09:48:57 PM
A better idea would be to allow parties to regulate their own membership.

     Also, such a bill would be permitted under Article V, Section 1, Clause 8. As far as I know, there is no Constitutional justification for the Senate having the power to regulate how often a citizen may change parties.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 30, 2009, 10:20:32 PM
A better idea would be to allow parties to regulate their own membership.

No. Parties want members. Parties would only want to regulate when members are able to leave.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on August 31, 2009, 12:11:07 AM
A better idea would be to allow parties to regulate their own membership.

No. Parties want members. Parties would only want to regulate when members are able to leave.

Let the parties decide whether they want members. Not all parties are like yours, see.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HappyWarrior on August 31, 2009, 10:02:08 AM
I think that tmth's legislation is a regional matter rather than a national one.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on August 31, 2009, 10:21:31 AM
The legislation regarding motorcycles is awfully draconian.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Rowan on August 31, 2009, 10:30:54 AM
The legislation regarding motorcycles is awfully draconian.

That was my problem with it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on August 31, 2009, 02:39:31 PM
The legislation regarding motorcycles is awfully draconian.

How so? Actually, the punishments for violating Section A are slightly lower than America's, I believe.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Rowan on September 01, 2009, 08:34:02 AM
Is number 1 of Franzl's bill really necessary? Can't we just have 2 and 3?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on September 01, 2009, 11:12:46 AM
Is number 1 of Franzl's bill really necessary? Can't we just have 2 and 3?

I don't mind.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 02, 2009, 05:55:45 PM
Former Senator PiT and myself have worked together to produce this bill...

Party Self-Regulation Bill

1. Any organized political party shall have the power to include in its bylaws descriptions of actions taken by party members that may lead to their expulsion from the party.

2. If any member of an organized political party acts in violation of any bylaw enacted in accordance with section 1 of this act, the chairman of that party must, within 7 days, publically notify the Secretary of Forum Affairs of this fact, who will then officially remove the member in question from that party's membership. The member in question will automatically become an independent.

3. The chairman of an organized political party may also propose a motion to expel any registered member from that party. The motion shall then be voted on in a manner specified by the party bylaws. Should the motion succeed, the party chairman must, within 7 days, notify the Secretary of Forum Affairs of this fact, who will then officially remove the member in question from that party's membership. The member in question will automatically become an independent.

4. If the expelled member chooses to do so, they may seek mediation in the form of a third party agreed upon by the member in question and the party chairman. The mediator shall listen to both parties' cases. If the mediator rules in favor of the expelled member, the member shall be permitted back into the party immediately.

5. After a period of 60 days, if the party chairman wishes to remove the ban on an expelled member, they shall publically lift the ban. The party bylaws may be amended to include a method by which the membership of the party may negate this decision.

Well this certainly won't be challenged in court. ::)

(In fact I might do it myself, should it pass.)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on September 02, 2009, 05:57:01 PM
I also believe the bill to be unconstitutional.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on September 02, 2009, 06:07:47 PM
I also believe the bill to be unconstitutional.

     What parts of it are not justifiable under Article V, Section 1, Clause 8?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on September 02, 2009, 06:11:04 PM
At a certain point people will realize that regulating political parties in Atlasia is simply unconstitutional under the current power structure.

If anything, a comprehensive constitutional amendment would be necessary to effect the sort of change many want in political parties, but it is doubtful that such a thing could pass without a compelling impetus.

I also believe the bill to be unconstitutional.

     What parts of it are not justifiable under Article V, Section 1, Clause 8?

That clause gives the Senate the ability to determine benefits given to organized political parties (as in, you could say that only organized political parties could be on ballots if we were to change to a system of election by party lists). However, it does not indicate that the private actions of party membership falls under the purview of the government.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on September 02, 2009, 06:14:33 PM
At a certain point people will realize that regulating political parties in Atlasia is simply unconstitutional under the current power structure.

If anything, a comprehensive constitutional amendment would be necessary to effect the sort of change many want in political parties, but it is doubtful that such a thing could pass without a compelling impetus.

I also believe the bill to be unconstitutional.

     What parts of it are not justifiable under Article V, Section 1, Clause 8?

That clause gives the Senate the ability to determine benefits given to organized political parties (as in, you could say that only organized political parties could be on ballots if we were to change to a system of election by party lists). However, it does not indicate that the private actions of party membership falls under the purview of the government.

     This was intended to give them the benefit of being able to regulate their own membership, including channels through which they could do so. If you think it would be better, it could just be written to give the party a general right to do so, that they could write into their bylaws in whatever form they want.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 02, 2009, 07:02:29 PM
Doesn't require legislation, IMO, just a declaration by the SoFA.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on September 02, 2009, 07:19:30 PM
Doesn't require legislation, IMO, just a declaration by the SoFA.

     I actually spoke to Earl on this matter once some time ago, & he said that he wanted to see legislation saying that parties could do that first.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 02, 2009, 07:35:10 PM
In that case, just pass legislation granting parties the right to regulate their membership, without terms attached. Nothing else is needed.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on September 02, 2009, 07:36:34 PM
     Yeah, that's probably a good idea.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on September 02, 2009, 08:42:54 PM
At a certain point people will realize that regulating political parties in Atlasia is simply unconstitutional under the current power structure.

If anything, a comprehensive constitutional amendment would be necessary to effect the sort of change many want in political parties, but it is doubtful that such a thing could pass without a compelling impetus.

I also believe the bill to be unconstitutional.

     What parts of it are not justifiable under Article V, Section 1, Clause 8?

That clause gives the Senate the ability to determine benefits given to organized political parties (as in, you could say that only organized political parties could be on ballots if we were to change to a system of election by party lists). However, it does not indicate that the private actions of party membership falls under the purview of the government.

     This was intended to give them the benefit of being able to regulate their own membership, including channels through which they could do so. If you think it would be better, it could just be written to give the party a general right to do so, that they could write into their bylaws in whatever form they want.

That would be the best course, especially because the current legislation is in direct contradiction of the DA bylaws. A law affirming the general right of parties to remove members by whatever means agreed upon in their bylaws, noting that the SoFA may be notified of such action, and that the person removed shall then be automatically registered as an unaffiliated independent would be appropriate.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 02, 2009, 11:56:14 PM
How about this?

Party Empowerment Act

Organized political parties shall have the power to regulate their membership.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on September 03, 2009, 12:00:52 AM
How about this?

Party Empowerment Act

Organized political parties shall have the power to regulate their membership.

     I like that bill.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 03, 2009, 12:13:29 AM
How about this?

Party Empowerment Act

Organized political parties shall have the power to regulate their membership.

     I like that bill.

Generally, simple is good.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on September 03, 2009, 08:15:53 AM
How about this?

Party Empowerment Act

Organized political parties shall have the power to regulate their membership.
I'd be more than happy to modify it to that.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on September 03, 2009, 10:02:10 AM
How about this?

Party Empowerment Act

Organized political parties shall have the power to regulate their membership.
I'd be more than happy to modify it to that.

It can't be simply that or you aren't doing anything.

First, it needs to include the words, "except where specifically denied by the Constitution or in statute."

Also, you should make clear that if a party removes a member, it shall be permitted to inform the SoFA to remove that member from it's list, as well as indicating that said individual shall thene be registered as an independent until they indicate otherwise.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Rowan on September 03, 2009, 02:44:56 PM
Too vague. The word "regulate" needs to be more thoroughly defined.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on September 03, 2009, 03:50:34 PM
Too vague. The word "regulate" needs to be more thoroughly defined.

Why? The point is that the government has almost no role in party regulation. All this legislation can do is formalize avenues that parties may choose to use. For example, it has never been clear what power parties have to remove members. They can do it, but does the SoFA have to do anything? And can the person sign back up to the party?

The bill gives parties discretion and simply provides directive to the SoFA, which is exactly what it should do.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Rowan on September 03, 2009, 03:52:27 PM
Too vague. The word "regulate" needs to be more thoroughly defined.

Why? The point is that the government has almost no role in party regulation. All this legislation can do is formalize avenues that parties may choose to use. For example, it has never been clear what power parties have to remove members. They can do it, but does the SoFA have to do anything? And can the person sign back up to the party?

The bill gives parties discretion and simply provides directive to the SoFA, which is exactly what it should do.

Question, do American political parties have the power to remove members?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on September 03, 2009, 03:59:04 PM
Too vague. The word "regulate" needs to be more thoroughly defined.

Why? The point is that the government has almost no role in party regulation. All this legislation can do is formalize avenues that parties may choose to use. For example, it has never been clear what power parties have to remove members. They can do it, but does the SoFA have to do anything? And can the person sign back up to the party?

The bill gives parties discretion and simply provides directive to the SoFA, which is exactly what it should do.

Question, do American political parties have the power to remove members?
Question: Do American parties only have a couple dozen members, in which over half of it's members are extremely active in the government, and where a high % of members actually hold some sort of office?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on September 03, 2009, 03:59:17 PM
Too vague. The word "regulate" needs to be more thoroughly defined.

Why? The point is that the government has almost no role in party regulation. All this legislation can do is formalize avenues that parties may choose to use. For example, it has never been clear what power parties have to remove members. They can do it, but does the SoFA have to do anything? And can the person sign back up to the party?

The bill gives parties discretion and simply provides directive to the SoFA, which is exactly what it should do.

Question, do American political parties have the power to remove members?

I believe they do, although it is obviously not a commonly used ability and it is likely not very easy. I am not familiar enough with the charters of either major party though to fully answer the question.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Rowan on September 03, 2009, 04:01:45 PM
Well, either way, I don't believe parties should be able to kick out members. If someone wants to be a member of any party they want, then they should be able to, in my opinion.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Hash on September 03, 2009, 04:10:31 PM
I know that Canadian and French parties are allowed to temporarily 'exclude' members or kick out members. Something which is used more often than we think.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 03, 2009, 04:12:14 PM
Well, either way, I don't believe parties should be able to kick out members. If someone wants to be a member of any party they want, then they should be able to, in my opinion.

Nor do I, it does nothing to solve any problem we have going on right now other than giving parties some thin plausible deniability. If anyone is kicked out of a party, I'd encourage them to sue and see if such an action actually stands, anyway.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on September 03, 2009, 04:20:42 PM
Well, either way, I don't believe parties should be able to kick out members. If someone wants to be a member of any party they want, then they should be able to, in my opinion.

Nor do I, it does nothing to solve any problem we have going on right now other than giving parties some thin plausible deniability. If anyone is kicked out of a party, I'd encourage them to sue and see if such an action actually stands, anyway.

Umm, didn't your party kick Xahar out? We kicked Dan out for his abuse of our trust. I'm not really sure why extreme circumstances do not warrant that sort of power.

Not to mention, parties are private institutions. If you can fire someone for behavior unbecoming of an employee, why can't parties do the same?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 03, 2009, 04:26:00 PM
Well, either way, I don't believe parties should be able to kick out members. If someone wants to be a member of any party they want, then they should be able to, in my opinion.

Nor do I, it does nothing to solve any problem we have going on right now other than giving parties some thin plausible deniability. If anyone is kicked out of a party, I'd encourage them to sue and see if such an action actually stands, anyway.

Umm, didn't your party kick Xahar out? We kicked Dan out for his abuse of our trust. I'm not really sure why extreme circumstances do not warrant that sort of power.

We considered it, but we didn't, no. And I never supported it anyway.

I just want it known that Im not happy about any of this either, as I was one of his most vocal defenders. But I still don't think expulsion from the party is a reasonable sentence.

Suspension, as Sib just said, is likely to happen anyway.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on September 03, 2009, 04:30:42 PM
Well, either way, I don't believe parties should be able to kick out members. If someone wants to be a member of any party they want, then they should be able to, in my opinion.

Nor do I, it does nothing to solve any problem we have going on right now other than giving parties some thin plausible deniability. If anyone is kicked out of a party, I'd encourage them to sue and see if such an action actually stands, anyway.

Umm, didn't your party kick Xahar out? We kicked Dan out for his abuse of our trust. I'm not really sure why extreme circumstances do not warrant that sort of power.

We considered it, but we didn't, no. And I never supported it anyway.

I just want it known that Im not happy about any of this either, as I was one of his most vocal defenders. But I still don't think expulsion from the party is a reasonable sentence.

Suspension, as Sib just said, is likely to happen anyway.

Fair enough.

I do still believe (not sure if you responded before I edited it in) that as private institutions, parties have this right. The question then becomes what requirement does the government have to enforce that right. Obviously the current state of the law (no law) would indicate anyone could simply rejoin a party that expels them. The Senate may choose to simply deny the right of parties to do so by neglecting to pass this legislation. It would seem to be a valid path for the Senate to take, albeit one I disagree with.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese on September 04, 2009, 02:53:06 PM
I would like to bring attention to the fact that Marokai's introduced Protection of Public Health Act, as well as the Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act (Although I like that name) are regional matters that should not be addressed by the federal senate.

As a citizen who cares a great deal about our regions' rights, I see this as a huge wrong on the part of Senator Marokai Blue. I hope that others that care about regional rights will agree with me on this issue. This should be left to the regions.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on September 04, 2009, 03:06:26 PM
However, if these things are prohibited by federal law, maybe a bill simply decriminalizing them and not making them legal would be effective in turn allowing the regions to set precendent in a way they cannot now


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 04, 2009, 03:12:35 PM
I would like to bring attention to the fact that Marokai's introduced Protection of Public Health Act, as well as the Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act (Although I like that name) are regional matters that should not be addressed by the federal senate.

As a citizen who cares a great deal about our regions' rights, I see this as a huge wrong on the part of Senator Marokai Blue. I hope that others that care about regional rights will agree with me on this issue. This should be left to the regions.

It doesn't matter in the slightest. The former is a matter of public health and as such is most certainly in the jurisdiction of the federal government, and the latter is simply a matter of coming to terms with the reality of our modern society and growing up.

Unless you have a reason why this is harmful it's all "regional rights" nonsense just for the sake of it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese on September 04, 2009, 03:23:27 PM
I would like to bring attention to the fact that Marokai's introduced Protection of Public Health Act, as well as the Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act (Although I like that name) are regional matters that should not be addressed by the federal senate.

As a citizen who cares a great deal about our regions' rights, I see this as a huge wrong on the part of Senator Marokai Blue. I hope that others that care about regional rights will agree with me on this issue. This should be left to the regions.

It doesn't matter in the slightest. The former is a matter of public health and as such is most certainly in the jurisdiction of the federal government, and the latter is simply a matter of coming to terms with the reality of our modern society and growing up.

Unless you have a reason why this is harmful it's all "regional rights" nonsense just for the sake of it.

Don't get me wrong Marokai. I have nothing against the bills themselves. I was a strong advocate for the Mideast's Public Smoking Ban and was an important part of passing that legislation, and when the subject was brought up by Peter in a private conversation, I stated I wouldn't oppose a bill lowering the purchase age of pron to 14, as I do not believe it's the goverments job to regulate that.

However this is still regional matters. If you want to introduce them in the Pacific I will be behind you to 100 %, but it's not the Senate's area to force this on the regions.

I happen to be a member of an Assembly who's job it is to work with this issues. We were elected to handle this, you were elected to handle national problems. I do not believe teens watching porn or not, is one of those national problems.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 04, 2009, 03:28:13 PM
I would like to bring attention to the fact that Marokai's introduced Protection of Public Health Act, as well as the Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act (Although I like that name) are regional matters that should not be addressed by the federal senate.

As a citizen who cares a great deal about our regions' rights, I see this as a huge wrong on the part of Senator Marokai Blue. I hope that others that care about regional rights will agree with me on this issue. This should be left to the regions.

It doesn't matter in the slightest. The former is a matter of public health and as such is most certainly in the jurisdiction of the federal government, and the latter is simply a matter of coming to terms with the reality of our modern society and growing up.

Unless you have a reason why this is harmful it's all "regional rights" nonsense just for the sake of it.

Don't get me wrong Marokai. I have nothing against the bills themselves. I was a strong advocate for the Mideast's Public Smoking Ban and was an important part of passing that legislation, and when the subject was brought up by Peter in a private conversation, I stated I wouldn't oppose a bill lowering the purchase age of pron to 14, as I do not believe it's the goverments job to regulate that.

However this is still regional matters. If you want to introduce them in the Pacific I will be behind you to 100 %, but it's not the Senate's area to force this on the regions.

Since you seem to be a nice guy I'll try to be nice in my explanation back to you.

I don't think it matters. If the Senate has the authority to do it, and it's the right thing to do, then I have nothing against the Senate doing it. It's quite simple. This Senate has also passed legislation dealing with marriage, civil unions, education, among many other social issues, like drugs (Hi DWTL), and so on. We have the authority to legislate in this area.

Further, there is seemingly no test for what constitutes a regional issue and what doesn't. Is education standards and drugs a national issue, but public health from smoking is not a national issue? Why can we regulation marijuana smoking, yet not tobacco? Is marriage a national issue, but if so, why is porn consumption not?

Since there is seemingly no test for what is a regional vs. national issue, and we've rarely concerned ourselves with it in the past, and there's no stated harm for going ahead with it, I see no reason not to legislate it. If you oppose it, then push for it's repeal should you ever get to the Senate, take it to court, or try to battle it from your Assembly. Otherwise..


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on September 04, 2009, 03:33:39 PM
I would like to bring attention to the fact that Marokai's introduced Protection of Public Health Act, as well as the Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act (Although I like that name) are regional matters that should not be addressed by the federal senate.

As a citizen who cares a great deal about our regions' rights, I see this as a huge wrong on the part of Senator Marokai Blue. I hope that others that care about regional rights will agree with me on this issue. This should be left to the regions.

It doesn't matter in the slightest. The former is a matter of public health and as such is most certainly in the jurisdiction of the federal government, and the latter is simply a matter of coming to terms with the reality of our modern society and growing up.

Unless you have a reason why this is harmful it's all "regional rights" nonsense just for the sake of it.

Don't get me wrong Marokai. I have nothing against the bills themselves. I was a strong advocate for the Mideast's Public Smoking Ban and was an important part of passing that legislation, and when the subject was brought up by Peter in a private conversation, I stated I wouldn't oppose a bill lowering the purchase age of pron to 14, as I do not believe it's the goverments job to regulate that.

However this is still regional matters. If you want to introduce them in the Pacific I will be behind you to 100 %, but it's not the Senate's area to force this on the regions.

Since you seem to be a nice guy I'll try to be nice in my explanation back to you.

I don't think it matters. If the Senate has the authority to do it, and it's the right thing to do, then I have nothing against the Senate doing it. It's quite simple. This Senate has also passed legislation dealing with marriage, civil unions, education, among many other social issues, like drugs (Hi DWTL), and so on. We have the authority to legislate in this area.

Further, there is seemingly no test for what constitutes a regional issue and what doesn't. Is education standards and drugs a national issue, but public health from smoking is not a national issue? Why can we regulation marijuana smoking, yet not tobacco? Is marriage a national issue, but if so, why is porn consumption not?

Since there is seemingly no test for what is a regional vs. national issue, and we've rarely concerned ourselves with it in the past, and there's no stated harm for going ahead with it, I see no reason not to legislate it. If you oppose it, then push for it's repeal should you ever get to the Senate, take it to court, or try to battle it from your Assembly. Otherwise..

I think Marokai has a fair point. There has never been a case before the Court that has dealt with what, exactly, constitutes regional jurisdiction. Because the Constitution is pretty broad in its interpretation of what the Senate may do and pretty narrow on what the regions may not do, you more often see regional legislation taken to court (the SE's currency law) than federal legislation taken to court for overstepping regional jurisdiction.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on September 04, 2009, 04:12:45 PM
I'm glad Marokai brought up my drug bills as each one did nothing but make it not a crime to possess these drugs and allowed regions to set their own laws regarding possession, sale, and consumption


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 04, 2009, 04:18:49 PM
Point still stands.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on September 04, 2009, 04:21:30 PM
And I, like SC I presume, is completely on board with the idea of the bills, just not with shoving the will of the federal gov't upon different regions with different needs


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 04, 2009, 04:24:51 PM
And I, like SC I presume, is completely on board with the idea of the bills, just not with shoving the will of the federal gov't upon different regions with different needs

I'd be willing to entertain your concerns if you explained to me how any of this was harmful, what constituted a regional issue and what didn't, what makes these different from past bills, and where we don't have the authority.

Regional rights serve only to interfere, at every opportunity, with good governing.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese on September 04, 2009, 04:45:16 PM
Quote
Regional rights serve only to interfere, at every opportunity, with good governing.

Oh C'mon Marokai. That's bulb hockey. That isn't true in real life, nor is it in Atlasia.

In real life if it weren't for State rights, there'd currently be zero states with legalized same-sex marriage, there'd be no gun control what so ever in states like New York, and a lot of other things that you like would not be exsisting in America if it weren't for state rights.

Same with Atlasia. If the conservatives ever outgrow the liberals here, and they start to introduce conservative proposals for the entire country that you disagree with, I am sure you won't think Regional rights serve only to interfere with good governing.

The main reason I am so strongly opposed to this is that I am as I stated a member of an Asembly who works with these questions. Therefore I'd be very sorry to see them taken away from us and the citizens in the Mideast, to be decided by you. You often say you do not oppose regions as some of the JCP does, but if all issues are federal issues and there are no regional issues, why do we bother having Governors, Assemblies, and regional initiatives at all?



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 04, 2009, 04:49:06 PM
Actually, I do favor abolishing regions now. I didn't used to, but I've come to that conclusions after having been here for almost a year now.

In any case, if we constantly catered to "states rights" we'd have never got rid of slavery, we would have legal abortions, gay sex would still be illegal, blacks couldn't vote, women would've fought longer for voting rights, prayer would still be institutionalized in schools..


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Vepres on September 04, 2009, 04:55:38 PM
Actually, I do favor abolishing regions now. I didn't used to, but I've come to that conclusions after having been here for almost a year now.

In any case, if we constantly catered to "states rights" we'd have never got rid of slavery, we would have legal abortions, gay sex would still be illegal, blacks couldn't vote, women would've fought longer for voting rights, prayer would still be institutionalized in schools..

The Mideast and now the Midwest (hopefully) are very good examples of good regions. The other three just need a vigorous leader to push for new policies. Regions can explore creative things the federal government ignores.

That said, the regional Senate elections need reform so they're not so boring, though regions would need to still have some form of representation.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on September 04, 2009, 05:12:13 PM
The Dirty South is still the premiere region, we are just being held up by a few stubborn citizens blocking the legislature.  I mean sure we had to crash a little bit after last year, but Duke remains the greatest governor in the history of Atlasia (sorry Inks :()


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 04, 2009, 05:13:05 PM
People are kicked out of political parties all the time outside America.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on September 04, 2009, 05:51:23 PM
This is, of course, why regional and federal rights are a balancing act, not a choice between two extremes. Swedish Cheese pointed out why regional rights can be a great thing. Marokai pointed out why federal governance can be a great thing. So rather than totally remove the power of either, it is best to have each one balance with the other.

I also must say, I suspect that for all the rhetoric Marokai, you do in ways appreciate the regions when they aren't impeding your own initiatives. ;) You recognize the value of the regional assemblies and of having a place for new members to start off.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 04, 2009, 05:52:56 PM
Well I don't necessarily love regions, but if they do what I want then, hey, who's to complain? :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 04, 2009, 05:56:13 PM
Also I meant "wouldn't" with my last post, can't believe I missed that..


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on September 07, 2009, 06:15:16 PM
NC Yank, you make the market very happy today. Financial indicators up later.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 07, 2009, 10:07:08 PM
NC Yank, you make the market very happy today. Financial indicators up later.

If I recall the DOW went up 400 points when the first Tarp plan was unveiled and then it tanked 700 points when it failed in the House vote. Off course back then the DOW was still hoovering around 11,000 even when all that raucous ended in early October.

Usually I make everyone depressed, usually thats my number one goal also.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on September 07, 2009, 11:20:09 PM
NC Yank, you make the market very happy today. Financial indicators up later.

If I recall the DOW went up 400 points when the first Tarp plan was unveiled and then it tanked 700 points when it failed in the House vote. Off course back then the DOW was still hoovering around 11,000 even when all that raucous ended in early October.

Usually I make everyone depressed, usually thats my number one goal also.

I kinda lied. Up tomorrow. Your bill came out after the markets closed. But overnight futures say good things.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bacon King on September 08, 2009, 12:48:28 PM
A Senator should probably introduce this. :)

Senate Rules Correction Resolution

1. Article VIII, Section 1, Clause 2 is amended to the following:

"2. Any Senator shall have seventy-two (72) hours from such a public statement by the PPT and the President of the Senate to call for a resolution in the Senate to overrule the PPT and the President of the Senate in the use of powers designated by Clause 1 of this Article, if any Senator considers their decision to be on infringement of the intention of this resolution."

2. Article VIII, Section 1, Clause 3 is amended to the following:

"3. If this resolution passes by a two-thirds (2/3) vote in the affirmative (excluding the PPT), this joint action by the PPT and the President of the Senate shall be overruled."

3. Article IX, Section 1, Clause 2 is amended to the following:

"2. Following the swearing in of the new Senate at the beginning of each Session, the President of the Senate shall open a thread in the Fantasy Government board for Senators to announce their candidacy for the position of PPT. This thread shall be further known in this document as the PPT Candidacy Declaration Thread and shall be open for forty-eight (48) hours for Senators to declare their candidacy for the position."

4. Article IX, Section 1, Clause 3 is amended to the following:

"3. After forty-eight (48) hours, the PPT Candidacy Declaration Thread shall be closed and a vote on the election of the new PPT shall be opened in a new thread by the President of the Senate. This vote shall last for a maximum of five (5) days during which time the Senators must vote. Any and all Senators who do not vote will be considered to have abstained."


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 08, 2009, 01:02:24 PM
A Senator should probably introduce this. :)

Senate Rules Correction Resolution

1. Article VIII, Section 1, Clause 2 is amended to the following:

"2. Any Senator shall have seventy-two (72) hours from such a public statement by the PPT and the President of the Senate to call for a resolution in the Senate to overrule the PPT and the President of the Senate in the use of powers designated by Clause 1 of this Article, if any Senator considers their decision to be on infringement of the intention of this resolution."

2. Article VIII, Section 1, Clause 3 is amended to the following:

"3. If this resolution passes by a two-thirds (2/3) vote in the affirmative (excluding the PPT), this joint action by the PPT and the President of the Senate shall be overruled."

3. Article IX, Section 1, Clause 2 is amended to the following:

"2. Following the swearing in of the new Senate at the beginning of each Session, the President of the Senate shall open a thread in the Fantasy Government board for Senators to announce their candidacy for the position of PPT. This thread shall be further known in this document as the PPT Candidacy Declaration Thread and shall be open for forty-eight (48) hours for Senators to declare their candidacy for the position."

4. Article IX, Section 1, Clause 3 is amended to the following:

"3. After forty-eight (48) hours, the PPT Candidacy Declaration Thread shall be closed and a vote on the election of the new PPT shall be opened in a new thread by the President of the Senate. This vote shall last for a maximum of five (5) days during which time the Senators must vote. Any and all Senators who do not vote will be considered to have abstained."

Its taken care of. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bacon King on September 08, 2009, 01:04:08 PM
Much thanks!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: afleitch on September 09, 2009, 04:36:05 PM
Senator Marokai's Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act;

1. 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

May be, for good or bad, unecessary due to the Liberalisation of Sex Laws Act

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


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on September 09, 2009, 04:40:10 PM
Senator Marokai's Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act;

1. 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

May be, for good or bad, unecessary due to the Liberalisation of Sex Laws Act

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

Obviously, unecessary bill. Marokai, please withdraw that bill to no lose our time, thanks.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on September 09, 2009, 04:42:33 PM
Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 09, 2009, 04:43:57 PM
Senator Marokai's Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act;

1. 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

May be, for good or bad, unecessary due to the Liberalisation of Sex Laws Act

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

Obviously, unecessary bill. Marokai, please withdraw that bill to no lose our time, thanks.

When I was digging through the statutes on the wiki a few days ago I noticed that disgusting piece of trash. Time to repeal or amend it if you ask me.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 09, 2009, 04:44:07 PM
Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

I'm not going to, I was going to suggest doing the same thing, so it still serves a purpose.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 09, 2009, 04:45:39 PM
Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why? ::)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 09, 2009, 04:47:11 PM
Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

I'm not going to, I was going to suggest doing the same thing, so it still serves a purpose.

And I thought I was the only insane one around here, I am feeling much better knowing I am not. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on September 09, 2009, 04:47:59 PM
Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why? ::)

Why not? It's a victimless crime.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on September 09, 2009, 04:49:17 PM
Senator Marokai's Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act;

1. 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

May be, for good or bad, unecessary due to the Liberalisation of Sex Laws Act

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

Obviously, unecessary bill. Marokai, please withdraw that bill to no lose our time, thanks.

When I was digging through the statutes on the wiki a few days ago I noticed that disgusting piece of trash. Time to repeal or amend it if you ask me.

The problem is then some 14-18 years old paid for that. We can't force them to delete something they bought legally. That is not right.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 09, 2009, 04:55:04 PM
Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why? ::)

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on September 09, 2009, 04:58:09 PM
Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why? ::)

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this. :P

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 09, 2009, 04:59:52 PM
Senator Marokai's Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act;

1. 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

May be, for good or bad, unecessary due to the Liberalisation of Sex Laws Act

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

Obviously, unecessary bill. Marokai, please withdraw that bill to no lose our time, thanks.

When I was digging through the statutes on the wiki a few days ago I noticed that disgusting piece of trash. Time to repeal or amend it if you ask me.

The problem is then some 14-18 years old paid for that. We can't force them to delete something they bought legally. That is not right.

Why not?. If they already purchased the stuff legally, then they would be grandfathered in.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 09, 2009, 05:02:02 PM
Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why? ::)

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this. :P

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

Any parent who lets a 12 year old look at a nude women needs to have there children taken away and put in protective custody, and they should be punished severely.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on September 09, 2009, 05:02:12 PM
Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why? ::)

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this. :P

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.
I would support a bill that would just keep them from buying it. If their parents think they can have it, they can buy it for them. I'm not sure if you should make looking at it "illegal" though.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on September 09, 2009, 05:05:01 PM
Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why? ::)

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this. :P

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

Any parent who lets a 12 year old look at a nude women needs to have there children taken away and put in protective custody, and they should be punished severely.

I didn't know you hated freedom and like the nanny state so much ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 09, 2009, 05:07:28 PM
Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why? ::)

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this. :P

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.
I would support a bill that would just keep them from buying it. If their parents think they can have it, they can buy it for them. I'm not sure if you should make looking at it "illegal" though.

Well I would prefer to make all porn illegal for everyone, but thats not practical wih Senate lacking moral fiber. For now illegalisng the sale to minors would be a good start.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 09, 2009, 05:08:55 PM
Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why? ::)

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this. :P

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

Any parent who lets a 12 year old look at a nude women needs to have there children taken away and put in protective custody, and they should be punished severely.

I didn't know you hated freedom and like the nanny state so much ;)

Well I did say I would support a $12.50 minimum wage yesterday. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on September 09, 2009, 05:09:38 PM
Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why? ::)

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this. :P

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.
I would support a bill that would just keep them from buying it. If their parents think they can have it, they can buy it for them. I'm not sure if you should make looking at it "illegal" though.

Well I would prefer to make all porn illegal for everyone, but thats not practical wih Senate lacking moral fiber. For now illegalisng the sale to minors would be a good start.

Why settle for that? Let's ban sex outright.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 09, 2009, 05:11:49 PM
Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why? ::)

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this. :P

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.
I would support a bill that would just keep them from buying it. If their parents think they can have it, they can buy it for them. I'm not sure if you should make looking at it "illegal" though.

Well I would prefer to make all porn illegal for everyone, but thats not practical wih Senate lacking moral fiber. For now illegalisng the sale to minors would be a good start.

Why settle for that? Let's ban sex outright.

I am a Moderate remember. :P Just Banning Sex before marriage will do.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Rowan on September 09, 2009, 05:12:27 PM
Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why? ::)

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this. :P

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.
I would support a bill that would just keep them from buying it. If their parents think they can have it, they can buy it for them. I'm not sure if you should make looking at it "illegal" though.

Well I would prefer to make all porn illegal for everyone, but thats not practical wih Senate lacking moral fiber. For now illegalisng the sale to minors would be a good start.

Why settle for that? Let's ban sex outright.

I'll compromise with banning sodomy.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on September 09, 2009, 05:14:31 PM
Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why? ::)

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this. :P

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.
I would support a bill that would just keep them from buying it. If their parents think they can have it, they can buy it for them. I'm not sure if you should make looking at it "illegal" though.

Well I would prefer to make all porn illegal for everyone, but thats not practical wih Senate lacking moral fiber. For now illegalisng the sale to minors would be a good start.

Why settle for that? Let's ban sex outright.

I am a Moderate remember. :P Just Banning Sex before marriage will do.

Oh I see that I'm going to have fun with this bill :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 09, 2009, 05:16:04 PM
Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why? ::)

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this. :P

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.
I would support a bill that would just keep them from buying it. If their parents think they can have it, they can buy it for them. I'm not sure if you should make looking at it "illegal" though.

Well I would prefer to make all porn illegal for everyone, but thats not practical wih Senate lacking moral fiber. For now illegalisng the sale to minors would be a good start.

Why settle for that? Let's ban sex outright.

I am a Moderate remember. :P Just Banning Sex before marriage will do.

Oh I see that I'm going to have fun with this bill :)

Did you honestly think it would pass quitely? :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on September 09, 2009, 11:21:24 PM
Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why? ::)

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this. :P

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.
I would support a bill that would just keep them from buying it. If their parents think they can have it, they can buy it for them. I'm not sure if you should make looking at it "illegal" though.

Well I would prefer to make all porn illegal for everyone, but thats not practical wih Senate lacking moral fiber. For now illegalisng the sale to minors would be a good start.

I have a moral fiber. I just don't see why I should impose it on other persons.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lief 🗽 on September 10, 2009, 02:26:36 PM
The difference between Marokai's proposed law and FL 20-6 (what Afleitch linked) is that FL 20-6 amended laws that only applied to the District of Columbia and federal territories. The way Marokai's bill was written, it seems like it would apply to the entire country.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 10, 2009, 03:53:37 PM
Here's an interesting question. Is DC actually a federal territory in fantasyland? I mean, it's a fully paid-up part of the Mideast Region, isn't it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 10, 2009, 03:54:16 PM
Here's an interesting question. Is DC actually a federal territory in fantasyland? I mean, it's a fully paid-up part of the Mideast Region, isn't it.

u mean nyman?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Hash on September 10, 2009, 03:56:15 PM
Here's an interesting question. Is DC actually a federal territory in fantasyland? I mean, it's a fully paid-up part of the Mideast Region, isn't it.

u mean nyman?

AFAIK, it is known as Nyman D.C.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 10, 2009, 03:58:08 PM
Here's an interesting question. Is DC actually a federal territory in fantasyland? I mean, it's a fully paid-up part of the Mideast Region, isn't it.

u mean nyman?

AFAIK, it is known as Nyman D.C.

What is its standing? Is it a federal territory or regularly incorporated into the Mideast like states are? I suppose that was the original question. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on September 11, 2009, 04:04:52 AM
     There is a D.C. that is incorporated into the Mideast. Whether that D.C. is the same as Nyman D.C. is something that, as far as I know, has never been addressed.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on September 11, 2009, 04:57:49 AM
Quote from: Constitution, Article I, Section 5: Powers of the Senate
25. To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding twelve nautical miles square) as may, by cession of particular Regions, and the acceptance of the Senate, become the seat of the government of the Republic of Atlasia, and to be known as the District of Columbia.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on September 11, 2009, 02:48:29 PM
Quote from: Constitution, Article I, Section 5: Powers of the Senate
25. To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding twelve nautical miles square) as may, by cession of particular Regions, and the acceptance of the Senate, become the seat of the government of the Republic of Atlasia, and to be known as the District of Columbia.

     Yet there is still a D.C. incorporated into the Mideast. I suppose that this would this mean that it is a separate locale from Nyman D.C.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 11, 2009, 02:49:20 PM
Quote from: Constitution, Article I, Section 5: Powers of the Senate
25. To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding twelve nautical miles square) as may, by cession of particular Regions, and the acceptance of the Senate, become the seat of the government of the Republic of Atlasia, and to be known as the District of Columbia.

     Yet there is still a D.C. incorporated into the Mideast. I suppose that this would this mean that it is a separate locale from Nyman D.C.

So do we treat the Mideast DC as any other state in the region?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on September 11, 2009, 02:54:08 PM
Quote from: Constitution, Article I, Section 5: Powers of the Senate
25. To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding twelve nautical miles square) as may, by cession of particular Regions, and the acceptance of the Senate, become the seat of the government of the Republic of Atlasia, and to be known as the District of Columbia.

     Yet there is still a D.C. incorporated into the Mideast. I suppose that this would this mean that it is a separate locale from Nyman D.C.

So do we treat the Mideast DC as any other state in the region?

     Yes. In fact, the Mideast had a Governor nearly a year ago who resided in D.C.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 11, 2009, 04:29:30 PM
Cabinet Restructuring Act 2009

Pre-amble

The Senate recognises the recent legislative changes that have taken place and the potential effects and opportunities therein.

Section 1.
a. The post of Secretary for Health and Social Affairs is therefore established to be filled in accordance with existing Senate procedure.
b. The Secretary for Health and Social Affairs shall be responsible for the following portfolios; Health, Education, Welfare and Housing and in addition any other briefs conferred upon the Secretary by the President.

Section 2.
a. The post of Secretary of the Treasury is therefore established to be filled in accordance with existing Senate procedure.
b. The Secretary of the Treasury shall be responsible for the following portfolios; Taxation, Social Security, budgetary concerns and in addition any other briefs conferred upon the Secretary by the President.
c. The Secretary of the Treasury shall, with the assistance of the Game Moderator, be required to address the Senate once each session on the state of the economy and public expenditure.

I applaud the Senator for introducing this bill. We definately need a better economic framework for the country. I have one question. Are these playable or non playable?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on September 11, 2009, 04:34:44 PM
Quote from: Constitution, Article I, Section 5: Powers of the Senate
25. To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding twelve nautical miles square) as may, by cession of particular Regions, and the acceptance of the Senate, become the seat of the government of the Republic of Atlasia, and to be known as the District of Columbia.

     Yet there is still a D.C. incorporated into the Mideast. I suppose that this would this mean that it is a separate locale from Nyman D.C.

Nope
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=4957.0


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on September 11, 2009, 04:46:21 PM
Quote from: Constitution, Article I, Section 5: Powers of the Senate
25. To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding twelve nautical miles square) as may, by cession of particular Regions, and the acceptance of the Senate, become the seat of the government of the Republic of Atlasia, and to be known as the District of Columbia.

     Yet there is still a D.C. incorporated into the Mideast. I suppose that this would this mean that it is a separate locale from Nyman D.C.

Nope
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=4957.0

     So I assume that would mean that D.C. being in the Mideast is actually an error (which would in turn mean that The Mikado was not legally Governor :P).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 11, 2009, 04:47:40 PM
Quote from: Constitution, Article I, Section 5: Powers of the Senate
25. To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding twelve nautical miles square) as may, by cession of particular Regions, and the acceptance of the Senate, become the seat of the government of the Republic of Atlasia, and to be known as the District of Columbia.

     Yet there is still a D.C. incorporated into the Mideast. I suppose that this would this mean that it is a separate locale from Nyman D.C.

Nope
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=4957.0

     So I assume that would mean that D.C. being in the Mideast is actually an error (which would in turn mean that The Mikado was not legally Governor :P).

It just means that our capital city is not subject to the same restrictions as US's capital.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on September 11, 2009, 04:49:45 PM
Quote from: Constitution, Article I, Section 5: Powers of the Senate
25. To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding twelve nautical miles square) as may, by cession of particular Regions, and the acceptance of the Senate, become the seat of the government of the Republic of Atlasia, and to be known as the District of Columbia.

     Yet there is still a D.C. incorporated into the Mideast. I suppose that this would this mean that it is a separate locale from Nyman D.C.

Nope
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=4957.0

     So I assume that would mean that D.C. being in the Mideast is actually an error (which would in turn mean that The Mikado was not legally Governor :P).

It just means that our capital city is not subject to the same restrictions as US's capital.

     Notice the particular part of the quoted clause that I just bolded.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 11, 2009, 04:51:19 PM
Quote from: Constitution, Article I, Section 5: Powers of the Senate
25. To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding twelve nautical miles square) as may, by cession of particular Regions, and the acceptance of the Senate, become the seat of the government of the Republic of Atlasia, and to be known as the District of Columbia.

     Yet there is still a D.C. incorporated into the Mideast. I suppose that this would this mean that it is a separate locale from Nyman D.C.

Nope
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=4957.0

     So I assume that would mean that D.C. being in the Mideast is actually an error (which would in turn mean that The Mikado was not legally Governor :P).

It just means that our capital city is not subject to the same restrictions as US's capital.

     Notice the particular part of the quoted clause that I just bolded.

Then I guess Mikado wasn't legally Governor. So anything he signed is unlawed I assume?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on September 11, 2009, 04:54:16 PM
I don't think you can do that retroactively ;)

He was a governor, and since it wasn't legally challenged at that time, I don't see what that matters now.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 11, 2009, 08:19:26 PM
Amendment to the OSPR regarding Parliamentary Behaviour

Article 8; Senate Behaviour is hereby added to the OSPR and subsequent sections re-numbered accordingly.

Article 8: Senate Behaviour is to read as follows:

Improper behaviour and the use of unparliamentary language by Senators is hereby forbidden in all Senate debates and votes.

Section 1: Improper Behaviour

1. Improper behavior is defined as personal attacks on other Senators, blatantly false accusations, and lewd conduct.
2. Improper behavior during legislative debate in the Senate shall result in suspension from that chamber at the PPT's request.
3. The conditions of the suspension shall be determined at the PPT's discretion.
4. Following the PPT's decision on the matter, atleast three other Senators must then sign a certification of suspension from the chamber.

Section 2: Unparliamentary language

1. The words 'liar', 'asshole', 'jerk', 'pig', 'swine', 'coward' and 'traitor' are hereby considered to be unparliamentary language and shall not be used in any Senate debates and votes.
2. Use of the aforementioned words by a Senator shall result in a reminder of parliamentary etiquette by the PPT.
3. Further breaches of the terms in this Section by a Senator shall result in consequences to be determined by the PPT at such time.
4. Additional words can be added or words can be removed from the above list at any time by any Senator.

Might I ask why this is important, and what instances have made this necessary? Clause 4 section 2 could easily lend itself to being unfairly politicized and abused. The whole idea of "Suspension" from the chamber seems ludacris and unnecessary. Seems like it would consitute the denial of a constitutency's constitutional right to representation on votes and debates, especially when it comes to regional senators. Such a thing should only occur if a Senator is expelled or the seat is declared vacant. Expulsion is too severe for the standards for punishment in this legislation in my opinion.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fritz on September 11, 2009, 08:57:33 PM
Ditto what Yankee said.  This is too subjective to be legislated.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 11, 2009, 08:58:27 PM
I don't really like it either, to be honest. But people should've known I'd hate it considering.. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on September 11, 2009, 09:01:24 PM
I actually favor Senator Hashemite's bill, although I don't think "jerK" is that bad, and I think this should be included for anyone posting on the Senate floor, not just the Senators.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 11, 2009, 09:02:45 PM
I don't really like it either, to be honest. But people should've known I'd hate it considering.. :P

:) lol

You becoming cautious to the point that you are no longer out spoken would be a sheer trajedy, the Senate would be very boring indeed. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Hash on September 11, 2009, 09:04:07 PM
I'm open to making it less strict and work on reducing the consequences.

I thank Senator Tmthforu94 for his support.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Rowan on September 11, 2009, 09:39:35 PM
I will never support that kind of bill, but I'll wait until it comes to the floor before we discuss more of it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: afleitch on September 12, 2009, 01:22:14 AM
Cabinet Restructuring Act 2009

Pre-amble

The Senate recognises the recent legislative changes that have taken place and the potential effects and opportunities therein.

Section 1.
a. The post of Secretary for Health and Social Affairs is therefore established to be filled in accordance with existing Senate procedure.
b. The Secretary for Health and Social Affairs shall be responsible for the following portfolios; Health, Education, Welfare and Housing and in addition any other briefs conferred upon the Secretary by the President.

Section 2.
a. The post of Secretary of the Treasury is therefore established to be filled in accordance with existing Senate procedure.
b. The Secretary of the Treasury shall be responsible for the following portfolios; Taxation, Social Security, budgetary concerns and in addition any other briefs conferred upon the Secretary by the President.
c. The Secretary of the Treasury shall, with the assistance of the Game Moderator, be required to address the Senate once each session on the state of the economy and public expenditure.

I applaud the Senator for introducing this bill. We definately need a better economic framework for the country. I have one question. Are these playable or non playable?

Oh very playable :D I don't see why not given the support that the GM can now provide to government officials.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 12, 2009, 12:16:55 PM
Just ban insults on the Senate floor, I think. Also, banning "pig" might have unintended consequences with agricultural legislation (not that we have much of that).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 12, 2009, 02:24:51 PM
Cabinet Restructuring Act 2009

Pre-amble

The Senate recognises the recent legislative changes that have taken place and the potential effects and opportunities therein.

Section 1.
a. The post of Secretary for Health and Social Affairs is therefore established to be filled in accordance with existing Senate procedure.
b. The Secretary for Health and Social Affairs shall be responsible for the following portfolios; Health, Education, Welfare and Housing and in addition any other briefs conferred upon the Secretary by the President.

Section 2.
a. The post of Secretary of the Treasury is therefore established to be filled in accordance with existing Senate procedure.
b. The Secretary of the Treasury shall be responsible for the following portfolios; Taxation, Social Security, budgetary concerns and in addition any other briefs conferred upon the Secretary by the President.
c. The Secretary of the Treasury shall, with the assistance of the Game Moderator, be required to address the Senate once each session on the state of the economy and public expenditure.

I applaud the Senator for introducing this bill. We definately need a better economic framework for the country. I have one question. Are these playable or non playable?

Oh very playable :D I don't see why not given the support that the GM can now provide to government officials.

I was just wondering since the current GM doesn't like creating new offices. I was thinking of creating a Fed chairman that was playable. We could allow dual officeholding just for that office and give it to Sam Spade, that would be cool. I know he is busy now a days but all we would have to do is come on every month and pretend to be Alan Greenspan for 30 minutes. ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on September 12, 2009, 04:26:47 PM
Just ban insults on the Senate floor, I think. Also, banning "pig" might have unintended consequences with agricultural legislation (not that we have much of that).

     Replace all instances of the word "pig" in legislation with "porcine animal". ;D


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on September 12, 2009, 08:02:37 PM
Cabinet Restructuring Act 2009

Pre-amble

The Senate recognises the recent legislative changes that have taken place and the potential effects and opportunities therein.

Section 1.
a. The post of Secretary for Health and Social Affairs is therefore established to be filled in accordance with existing Senate procedure.
b. The Secretary for Health and Social Affairs shall be responsible for the following portfolios; Health, Education, Welfare and Housing and in addition any other briefs conferred upon the Secretary by the President.

Section 2.
a. The post of Secretary of the Treasury is therefore established to be filled in accordance with existing Senate procedure.
b. The Secretary of the Treasury shall be responsible for the following portfolios; Taxation, Social Security, budgetary concerns and in addition any other briefs conferred upon the Secretary by the President.
c. The Secretary of the Treasury shall, with the assistance of the Game Moderator, be required to address the Senate once each session on the state of the economy and public expenditure.

I applaud the Senator for introducing this bill. We definately need a better economic framework for the country. I have one question. Are these playable or non playable?

Oh very playable :D I don't see why not given the support that the GM can now provide to government officials.

I was just wondering since the current GM doesn't like creating new offices. I was thinking of creating a Fed chairman that was playable. We could allow dual officeholding just for that office and give it to Sam Spade, that would be cool. I know he is busy now a days but all we would have to do is come on every month and pretend to be Alan Greenspan for 30 minutes. ;)

My distaste for creating new offices is more about practical reasons than ideological ones. It simply reduces competition and turns this game into a government sim, rather than an election one. Are the current Cabinet officials that busy? I believe Treasury is already in the job description of the SoFA.

Just my thoughts in a non-GM, pro-game reform capacity. As GM, I would say that the possibility of having people to respond to my releases is always exciting, although it would be just as exciting if individuals already in government would respond substantively as well (not all, but a good chunk of ya'll could use your bully pulpits a little more. The markets and the world would appreciate it.)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HappyWarrior on September 12, 2009, 08:10:13 PM
Can someone explain the constitutionality of the motorcycle bill to me please.  How is the naitonal government given the right to legislate traffic policy?  Should'nt this be a regional rights issue?  And why isn't the "Regional Rights" Party againest it?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on September 12, 2009, 08:13:40 PM
Can someone explain the constitutionality of the motorcycle bill to me please.  How is the naitonal government given the right to legislate traffic policy?  Should'nt this be a regional rights issue?  And why isn't the "Regional Rights" Party againest it?

So sue. I'm already in one lawsuit.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HappyWarrior on September 12, 2009, 08:31:24 PM
Can someone explain the constitutionality of the motorcycle bill to me please.  How is the naitonal government given the right to legislate traffic policy?  Should'nt this be a regional rights issue?  And why isn't the "Regional Rights" Party againest it?

So sue. I'm already in one lawsuit.

I plan to but I'm not quite sure, I'm no legal expert.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on September 13, 2009, 07:35:52 AM
I believe Treasury is already in the job description of the SoFA.

There was a Treasury Secretary whose functions were devolved directly to the Presidency in the last Cabinet Restructuring Act.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on September 13, 2009, 08:59:29 AM
Can someone explain the constitutionality of the motorcycle bill to me please.  How is the naitonal government given the right to legislate traffic policy?  Should'nt this be a regional rights issue?  And why isn't the "Regional Rights" Party againest it?
Article I, Section V, Clause 10

To build or regulate the infrastructure needed for communication and transportation.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on September 13, 2009, 10:00:15 AM
Can someone explain the constitutionality of the motorcycle bill to me please.  How is the naitonal government given the right to legislate traffic policy?  Should'nt this be a regional rights issue?  And why isn't the "Regional Rights" Party againest it?
Article I, Section V, Clause 10

To build or regulate the infrastructure needed for communication and transportation.

I assume regulation of infrastructure can be expanded to include regulation of that which utilizes that infrastructure.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on September 14, 2009, 11:41:49 PM
If it's not too much, would the Senate pass legislation making it a crime to reveal classified or top secret information? I figure if I am, indeed, going to be supplying that sort of info, there should be some deterrent from publicizing it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on September 14, 2009, 11:47:13 PM
If it's not too much, would the Senate pass legislation making it a crime to reveal classified or top secret information? I figure if I am, indeed, going to be supplying that sort of info, there should be some deterrent from publicizing it.

I have a problem because of the possible case than Senators could need a secret information to pass a law. Senate will not give all the control to the President and the DoEA, from what I am seeing on the Senate floor.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 14, 2009, 11:47:47 PM
One would assume that Senators would be permitted to see classified information.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on September 14, 2009, 11:51:45 PM
One would assume that Senators would be permitted to see classified information.

I never assume things. I prefer to ask questions now. That is better than asking them when we will be in trouble.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on September 15, 2009, 12:12:29 AM
If it's not too much, would the Senate pass legislation making it a crime to reveal classified or top secret information? I figure if I am, indeed, going to be supplying that sort of info, there should be some deterrent from publicizing it.

I have a problem because of the possible case than Senators could need a secret information to pass a law. Senate will not give all the control to the President and the DoEA, from what I am seeing on the Senate floor.

It would really be up to the Senate how the law is crafted. I understand that information cannot only be shared with the PPT, but that is who the info will be released to in the Senate. The hope is that this person will share that info with the Senate.

Essentially, I will be sharing top secret info with the Pres., VP, SoEA and PPT. It is their responsibility to keep the Senate informed.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on September 15, 2009, 12:15:39 AM
If it's not too much, would the Senate pass legislation making it a crime to reveal classified or top secret information? I figure if I am, indeed, going to be supplying that sort of info, there should be some deterrent from publicizing it.

I have a problem because of the possible case than Senators could need a secret information to pass a law. Senate will not give all the control to the President and the DoEA, from what I am seeing on the Senate floor.

It would really be up to the Senate how the law is crafted. I understand that information cannot only be shared with the PPT, but that is who the info will be released to in the Senate. The hope is that this person will share that info with the Senate.

Essentially, I will be sharing top secret info with the Pres., VP, SoEA and PPT. It is their responsibility to keep the Senate informed.

I already know that. I was talking than we need an exception for Senators, since the PPT, the VP, the SoEA or the President could be prosecuted for saying it privately to the Senators.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on September 18, 2009, 02:31:36 PM
Right To Life Bill

1. This bill shall make it illegal for any woman to have an abortion that results in the termination of a pregnancy.

2. Any woman discovered to have had an illegal abortion, shall be subjected to up to a $10,000 fine and/or 3 years in jail.

3. Any doctor known to have performed said illegal abortion, shall immediately have his/her license revoked, be barred from practicing medicine for life, and face a $20,000 fine and/or 5 years in jail.



Well that's a "Hells no!" from me. First, I completely disagree. Second, not even a clause to take into account the health of the mother?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Rowan on September 18, 2009, 02:33:26 PM
Right To Life Bill

1. This bill shall make it illegal for any woman to have an abortion that results in the termination of a pregnancy.

2. Any woman discovered to have had an illegal abortion, shall be subjected to up to a $10,000 fine and/or 3 years in jail.

3. Any doctor known to have performed said illegal abortion, shall immediately have his/her license revoked, be barred from practicing medicine for life, and face a $20,000 fine and/or 5 years in jail.



Second, not even a clause to take into account the health of the mother?

That could be added potentially, if requested.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on September 18, 2009, 02:34:13 PM
Forget it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: afleitch on September 18, 2009, 02:38:05 PM

Indeed. It's already a firm 'nay' from me.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on September 18, 2009, 04:08:01 PM
I wouldn't support Rowan's current bill, as there needs to be something in there for protection of mothers life. Once that is added, and possibly incest, maybe rape, this bill will have my support.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 18, 2009, 04:09:31 PM
I oppose efforts to restrict abortion.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Hash on September 18, 2009, 05:13:14 PM
Hell no from my side too.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on September 18, 2009, 06:21:04 PM
If it has exceptions for rape and if the mother's life is in danger I'll vote for it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on September 19, 2009, 12:07:10 AM
I dislike very strongly abortion, but no.

I wouldn't be against mandatory meetings with a psy to be sure than the person is understanding than an abortion has long-term psychological effects in many case, to be sure than the person took all things in consideration before making his choice, to be sure than the person is not pushed by someone else and other psychological issues.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 19, 2009, 02:45:03 PM
I dislike very strongly abortion, but no.

I wouldn't be against mandatory meetings with a psy to be sure than the person is understanding than an abortion has long-term psychological effects in many case, to be sure than the person took all things in consideration before making his choice, to be sure than the person is not pushed by someone else and other psychological issues.

This. I think this is necessary for a proper abortion policy.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Hash on September 19, 2009, 02:58:23 PM
I dislike very strongly abortion, but no.

I wouldn't be against mandatory meetings with a psy to be sure than the person is understanding than an abortion has long-term psychological effects in many case, to be sure than the person took all things in consideration before making his choice, to be sure than the person is not pushed by someone else and other psychological issues.

This. I think this is necessary for a proper abortion policy.

Indeed. I support making sure that women know that getting an abortion isn't an easy decision like buying ice cream.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 19, 2009, 02:59:58 PM
I dislike very strongly abortion, but no.

I wouldn't be against mandatory meetings with a psy to be sure than the person is understanding than an abortion has long-term psychological effects in many case, to be sure than the person took all things in consideration before making his choice, to be sure than the person is not pushed by someone else and other psychological issues.

This. I think this is necessary for a proper abortion policy.

Indeed. I support making sure that women know that getting an abortion isn't an easy decision like buying ice cream.

My grandma worked as one of these in the early 70s when she was in college. She said that it helped a lot of young women understand exactly what they were getting in to and make the choice that best works for them.

Also, if you're going to try and ban abortions, you have to include a provision about the child's health as well.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 19, 2009, 03:59:10 PM
It needs a lot of amending to be sure. If properly amended I could support it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on September 19, 2009, 04:04:50 PM
Amending?  This is the only kind of abortion bill that should ever be passed.  I applaud the senator for his bill and will firmly support such measure whenever I re-enter the senate


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 19, 2009, 04:05:58 PM
Amending?  This is the only kind of abortion bill that should ever be passed.  I applaud the senator for his bill and will firmly support such measure whenever I re-enter the senate

Rowan won't be in the Senate though, so it'll be tough to get the votes for it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on September 19, 2009, 04:06:28 PM
Amending?  This is the only kind of abortion bill that should ever be passed.  I applaud the senator for his bill and will firmly support such measure whenever I re-enter the senate

Rowan won't be in the Senate though, so it'll be tough to get the votes for it.
Not if I run in October :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on September 19, 2009, 04:07:28 PM
Amending?  This is the only kind of abortion bill that should ever be passed.  I applaud the senator for his bill and will firmly support such measure whenever I re-enter the senate

Rowan won't be in the Senate though, so it'll be tough to get the votes for it.
Not if I run in October :)

But 1 + 1 = 2, not 6.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 19, 2009, 04:07:34 PM
Amending?  This is the only kind of abortion bill that should ever be passed.  I applaud the senator for his bill and will firmly support such measure whenever I re-enter the senate

Rowan won't be in the Senate though, so it'll be tough to get the votes for it.
Not if I run in October :)

Which wouldn't make an impact. Yank is pro-life. It'd only be neutral switch for this issue.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 19, 2009, 04:07:41 PM
Amending?  This is the only kind of abortion bill that should ever be passed.  I applaud the senator for his bill and will firmly support such measure whenever I re-enter the senate

Oh yes, you're truly a crusader for regional rights.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 19, 2009, 04:08:17 PM
Amending?  This is the only kind of abortion bill that should ever be passed.  I applaud the senator for his bill and will firmly support such measure whenever I re-enter the senate

Rowan won't be in the Senate though, so it'll be tough to get the votes for it.
Not if I run in October :)

But 1 + 1 = 2, not 6.

Whoever becomes Mideast senator is pro-life as well.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 19, 2009, 04:12:54 PM
Amending?  This is the only kind of abortion bill that should ever be passed.  I applaud the senator for his bill and will firmly support such measure whenever I re-enter the senate

Rowan won't be in the Senate though, so it'll be tough to get the votes for it.
Not if I run in October :)

Which wouldn't make an impact. Yank is pro-life. It'd only be neutral switch for this issue.

You see Hamilton DWTL has crossed wired me with the image of Lenin. Its pointless trying to convince him that I am not a pure blood red Communist. ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on September 19, 2009, 04:14:05 PM
Yank, you just said you'd only support an amended version of the bill, I'm not in favor of making loopholes like rape and mother's health that can be used as justification for any abortion


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 19, 2009, 04:20:08 PM
Yank, you just said you'd only support an amended version of the bill, I'm not in favor of making loopholes like rape and mother's health that can be used as justification for any abortion

So if the mother Develops Cancer and needs Chemo which will kill the baby, is the baby going to be left in the womb to die and then kill the mother from an infection from the rotting corpse. Thats real Pro-Life, man. More like Pro-Death. ::)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on September 19, 2009, 04:21:51 PM
Yank, you just said you'd only support an amended version of the bill, I'm not in favor of making loopholes like rape and mother's health that can be used as justification for any abortion

What happened to regional rights?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on September 19, 2009, 04:22:08 PM
The chances of that occuring are so small is not worth the exception.  The amount of abortions that would occur out of the loophole would dwarf the amount of times that happens.  Its also not our call to say who lives and who dies


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on September 19, 2009, 04:22:58 PM
Yank, you just said you'd only support an amended version of the bill, I'm not in favor of making loopholes like rape and mother's health that can be used as justification for any abortion

What happened to regional rights?
I support them fully but abortion is a matter of life and death, we must protect the innocent from death.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on September 19, 2009, 04:23:51 PM
Yank, you just said you'd only support an amended version of the bill, I'm not in favor of making loopholes like rape and mother's health that can be used as justification for any abortion

What happened to regional rights?
I support them fully but abortion is a matter of life and death, we must protect the innocent from death.

But isn't a woman whose life is in danger equally innocent?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 19, 2009, 04:24:05 PM
Yank, you just said you'd only support an amended version of the bill, I'm not in favor of making loopholes like rape and mother's health that can be used as justification for any abortion

What happened to regional rights?

Stop trying to portray the RPP as something it is not. When someone holds the belief that an act is murder, where is the regional rights involved in that? Is the Midwest allowed to create its own murder policy? Then why is Sewer Socialist still trolling this place? If someone holds the conviction that an act is murder, there would be no reason for that person to feel it is up to regional governments. CUT THE PROPAGANDA


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 19, 2009, 04:24:48 PM
Yank, you just said you'd only support an amended version of the bill, I'm not in favor of making loopholes like rape and mother's health that can be used as justification for any abortion

What happened to regional rights?
I support them fully but abortion is a matter of life and death, we must protect the innocent from death.

But isn't a woman whose life is in danger equally innocent?

Women's "health" and women's life are completely different. One is subjective, one is concrete.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 19, 2009, 04:24:56 PM
Yank, you just said you'd only support an amended version of the bill, I'm not in favor of making loopholes like rape and mother's health that can be used as justification for any abortion

What happened to regional rights?
I support them fully but abortion is a matter of life and death, we must protect the innocent from death.

Yea the gov't should protect the innocent. Think about it, if we didn't have to spend all that money protecting innocent people from you, we could balance the budget. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 19, 2009, 04:25:56 PM
Yank, you just said you'd only support an amended version of the bill, I'm not in favor of making loopholes like rape and mother's health that can be used as justification for any abortion

What happened to regional rights?
I support them fully but abortion is a matter of life and death, we must protect the innocent from death.

But isn't a woman whose life is in danger equally innocent?

Women's "health" and women's life are completely different. One is subjective, one is concrete.

Yeah, it's posts like this that either make me think you're blowing DWTL under his computer desk, or your PM score is bullshit.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: RIP Robert H Bork on September 19, 2009, 04:26:19 PM
Yank, you just said you'd only support an amended version of the bill, I'm not in favor of making loopholes like rape and mother's health that can be used as justification for any abortion

Agreed.

By the way, I strongly support RowanBrandon's bill, but I do support an exception for maternal health life.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 19, 2009, 04:27:19 PM
Yank, you just said you'd only support an amended version of the bill, I'm not in favor of making loopholes like rape and mother's health that can be used as justification for any abortion

What happened to regional rights?
I support them fully but abortion is a matter of life and death, we must protect the innocent from death.

But isn't a woman whose life is in danger equally innocent?

Women's "health" and women's life are completely different. One is subjective, one is concrete.

Yeah, it's posts like this that either make me think you're blowing DWTL under his computer desk, or your PM score is bullshit.

LOL. Sorry but I did not even state my position on the matter in this thread. I am merely combating misinformation. Women's "health" could mean ANYTHING.

And for the record, I endorsed Yankee almost the second DWTL proposed running.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: afleitch on September 19, 2009, 04:30:11 PM
Yank, you just said you'd only support an amended version of the bill, I'm not in favor of making loopholes like rape and mother's health that can be used as justification for any abortion

What happened to regional rights?
I support them fully but abortion is a matter of life and death, we must protect the innocent from death.

But isn't a woman whose life is in danger equally innocent?

Women's "health" and women's life are completely different. One is subjective, one is concrete.

Yeah, it's posts like this that either make me think you're blowing DWTL under his computer desk, or your PM score is bullshit.

LOL. Sorry but I did not even state my position on the matter in this thread. I am merely combating misinformation. Women's "health" could mean ANYTHING.

And for the record, I endorsed Yankee almost the second DWTL proposed running.

On that note; define what we mean 'woman'. I'm not having an 11 year old girl being forced to carry a child to full term that could kill her.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 19, 2009, 04:31:18 PM
Again, Marokai, the goal is to be able to see a position from someone else's point of view and not just criticize them blindly. It's not a matter if regional rights if someone truly believes that abortion is murder. Nowhere did I state a position in this thread, but those who have should know that there are many different ways people see abortion and that it is the driving cause between the policies they advocate.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 19, 2009, 04:32:13 PM
Yank, you just said you'd only support an amended version of the bill, I'm not in favor of making loopholes like rape and mother's health that can be used as justification for any abortion

What happened to regional rights?
I support them fully but abortion is a matter of life and death, we must protect the innocent from death.

But isn't a woman whose life is in danger equally innocent?

Women's "health" and women's life are completely different. One is subjective, one is concrete.

Yeah, it's posts like this that either make me think you're blowing DWTL under his computer desk, or your PM score is bullshit.

LOL. Sorry but I did not even state my position on the matter in this thread. I am merely combating misinformation. Women's "health" could mean ANYTHING.

And for the record, I endorsed Yankee almost the second DWTL proposed running.

On that note; define what we mean 'woman'. I'm not having an 11 year old girl being forced to carry a child to full term that could kill her.

Fair enough. The bill should specify 18 or older.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 19, 2009, 11:28:36 PM
Yank, you just said you'd only support an amended version of the bill, I'm not in favor of making loopholes like rape and mother's health that can be used as justification for any abortion

What happened to regional rights?

Stop trying to portray the RPP as something it is not. When someone holds the belief that an act is murder, where is the regional rights involved in that? Is the Midwest allowed to create its own murder policy? Then why is Sewer Socialist still trolling this place? If someone holds the conviction that an act is murder, there would be no reason for that person to feel it is up to regional governments. CUT THE PROPAGANDA

Dude, your habit is unhealthy.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on September 20, 2009, 01:08:54 AM

This is exactly the sort of post which would not elicit a response from Alexander Hamilton.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 20, 2009, 01:41:03 AM

This is exactly the sort of post which would not elicit a response from Alexander Hamilton.

Uh-huh


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Rowan on September 20, 2009, 08:24:20 AM
Yank, you just said you'd only support an amended version of the bill, I'm not in favor of making loopholes like rape and mother's health that can be used as justification for any abortion

What happened to regional rights?

Stop trying to portray the RPP as something it is not. When someone holds the belief that an act is murder, where is the regional rights involved in that? Is the Midwest allowed to create its own murder policy? Then why is Sewer Socialist still trolling this place? If someone holds the conviction that an act is murder, there would be no reason for that person to feel it is up to regional governments. CUT THE PROPAGANDA

Dude, your habit is unhealthy.

How many times a day do you think he blows DWTL under his computer desk?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HappyWarrior on September 20, 2009, 08:25:02 AM
Again, Marokai, the goal is to be able to see a position from someone else's point of view and not just criticize them blindly. It's not a matter if regional rights if someone truly believes that abortion is murder. Nowhere did I state a position in this thread, but those who have should know that there are many different ways people see abortion and that it is the driving cause between the policies they advocate.

The thing is you can't pick and choose when you wnat to be pro-region when that is supposed to be the whole point of the party.  Abortion is a regional issue and always has been in Atlasia as the majority of Atlasia is fully aware.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese on September 20, 2009, 08:29:05 AM
You know my problem with this is that by introducing the Abortion Ban Bill, and making this a national issue, you give the left the authority to introduce federal pro-choice bills as well. So by opening this door we might very well end up with a national bill forcing Regions to allow second trimester abortion, rather than one banning it. Which I think would be tragic.

As I've said before, we should keep the regional issues regional, and HappyWarrior makes a good point that you can't pick and choose when to be pro-regions and when not to be.






Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lief 🗽 on September 20, 2009, 11:44:30 AM
Does Atlasia have a federal abortion policy?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HappyWarrior on September 20, 2009, 04:12:48 PM
Does Atlasia have a federal abortion policy?

Like I said it has always been a regional issue by tradition.  For instance in the Mideast we  have embraced a policy wherein we only allow abortion in the case of abortion, incest, or danger to the mother.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 20, 2009, 04:27:25 PM
Abortion should remain at the regional level. No reason to make wedge issues out of something so polarizing, yet so irrelevant to the maintenance of good government. That applies to both sides, of course.

Anyways, there is no chance that this passes the 33rd Senate.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Vepres on September 20, 2009, 08:10:32 PM
Does Atlasia have a federal abortion policy?

Like I said it has always been a regional issue by tradition.  For instance in the Mideast we  have embraced a policy wherein we only allow abortion in the case of abortion, incest, or danger to the mother.

So, one can only abort in a case where one is going to abort. Very liberal for the Mideast :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HappyWarrior on September 20, 2009, 08:57:23 PM
Does Atlasia have a federal abortion policy?

Like I said it has always been a regional issue by tradition.  For instance in the Mideast we  have embraced a policy wherein we only allow abortion in the case of abortion, incest, or danger to the mother.

So, one can only abort in a case where one is going to abort. Very liberal for the Mideast :P
I meant rape lol


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on September 20, 2009, 11:18:25 PM
A thought I had: There is no legislation to help the failing banks. This may lead to dire economic results in one week's time unless substantial movement is made by the Senate to address the problem (it does not need to be bailing out the banks, but some sort of strategy to address the issue). Your GM has spoken. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 20, 2009, 11:20:37 PM
How about the Senate move to create a national bank, and let the banks that are failing fail. Enough corporate welfare.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on September 20, 2009, 11:29:31 PM
A thought I had: There is no legislation to help the failing banks. This may lead to dire economic results in one week's time unless substantial movement is made by the Senate to address the problem (it does not need to be bailing out the banks, but some sort of strategy to address the issue). Your GM has spoken. :)

      "The nation's banking system are on the verge of failure. If this issue is not addressed, the Atlasian dollar will have no use other than as toilet paper. You have seven days to address this problem. Meeting adjourned."


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lief 🗽 on September 20, 2009, 11:30:33 PM
How about the Senate move to create a national bank, and let the banks that are failing fail. Enough corporate welfare.

I support this plan (or some variation thereof).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 20, 2009, 11:32:01 PM
How about the Senate move to create a national bank, and let the banks that are failing fail. Enough corporate welfare.

I support this plan (or some variation thereof).

I'm sure the Senate is full of quality legislators able to deliver a competent plan. NC Yankee and Marokai Blue could probably strike gold working together on this.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 20, 2009, 11:39:38 PM
I don't support giving hundreds of billions to the banks. So we should do one of three things. Nationalize crippled banks. Bust the large banks into smaller banks. Let certain banks fail.

I have no idea how to go about writing this however.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 20, 2009, 11:45:07 PM
I don't support giving hundreds of billions to the banks. So we should do one of three things. Nationalize crippled banks. Bust the large banks into smaller banks. Let certain banks fail.

I have no idea how to go about writing this however.

Here was my idea (likely you won't care, but f it):

Create a "national bank"
It will be government ran and regulated
Credit will be offered to those looking to purchase homes or start businesses with fixed low rates
Instead of being private owned, the taxpayers revenue will be increased by the low interest rates
Significant risk management regulations would be put in place
The bank would be less of an assistant to private banks and more of a competitor

I suppose that this could be considered "socialist" but how "socialist" is it to create a means of encouraging capitalism? The easier access to safe and well-regulated credit as well as increased business opportunities should offer a boost to the economy as well as create a buffer to future server downturns as the one we recently experienced. I'd be glad to entertain any concerns or suggestions or whatever if someone likes this idea.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 20, 2009, 11:50:14 PM
That might be a good idea for going forward, but how will we prevent the current bank failures? That doesn't really help in the short term.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on September 20, 2009, 11:52:01 PM
That might be a good idea for going forward, but how will we prevent the current bank failures?

Bailouts, I'm afraid to say.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on September 20, 2009, 11:52:51 PM
That might be a good idea for going forward, but how will we prevent the current bank failures? That doesn't really help in the short term.

With Southeast money if they decides to burn it?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 20, 2009, 11:53:37 PM
That might be a good idea for going forward, but how will we prevent the current bank failures? That doesn't really help in the short term.

For the short term, I'd suggest letting the failing banks fail and creating some kind of legislation that allows the federal government to safeguard those who are going to be adversely affected simply by choosing to use a certain bank, as an emergency solution. The government may still be absorbing the loss, but we'd be doing that anyways. No need to give handouts to corporations in a capitalist, survival of the fittest economy. This is the point where we decide between corporatism and liberty.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 20, 2009, 11:54:44 PM
That might be a good idea for going forward, but how will we prevent the current bank failures?

Bailouts, I'm afraid to say.

No. We must absorb the losses, protect the victims, and allow the clients to consolidate under a more feasible company. Atlasia shouldn't reward a lack of success in business.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on September 21, 2009, 12:12:08 AM
Atlasia shouldn't reward a lack of success in business.

Well, it helps if we don't think of this as a 'reward', because it is not.

While I am terribly uncomfortable with the idea that a corporation is "too big to fail", the sort of global economic consequences that could arise from this sort of thing is a fairly disastrous gamble to be making...

Obviously the entire system needs to be reformed in such a way to prevent this from occurring once again: repealing all of the deregulation which allowed these bad loans to be made, and looking at strengthening our anti-trust laws.  And if we had a series of bailouts, clearly we would not be financing the massive CEO bonuses that were all too common in the U.S. Troubled Asset Relief Program.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 21, 2009, 12:13:06 AM
Atlasia shouldn't reward a lack of success in business.

Well, it helps if we don't think of this as a 'reward', because it is not.

While I am terribly uncomfortable with the idea that a corporation is "too big to fail", the sort of global economic consequences that could arise from this sort of thing is a fairly disastrous gamble to be making...

Obviously the entire system needs to be reformed in such a way to prevent this from occurring once again: repealing all of the deregulation which allowed these bad loans to be made, and looking at strengthening our anti-trust laws.  And if we had a series of bailouts, clearly we would not be financing the massive CEO bonuses that were all too common in the U.S. Troubled Asset Relief Program.

You should consider my previous proposal.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on September 21, 2009, 12:18:35 AM
You should consider my previous proposal.

Well I agree with creating a national bank.

If we were to buy out the banks which are going under completely rather than bail them out, we do face the issue of not getting the money back (as banks are already beginning to pay back the U.S. government for TARP).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 21, 2009, 12:22:00 AM
You should consider my previous proposal.

Well I agree with creating a national bank.

If we were to buy out the banks which are going under completely rather than bail them out, we do face the issue of not getting the money back (as banks are already beginning to pay back the U.S. government for TARP).

But no matter what we do those funds are already a loss. In the end I think that bit will eve itself out. It's more a matter of future liquidity, stability and prosperity. I also think that any steps we can take toward eliminating the notion that "it takes money to make money" should be. Making it easier for Atlasians to access safe credit, as well as taxpayer profits (possiblt decreasing the tax burden over time? ;)) will make it possible for more Atlasians to proper and climb the social ladder.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 21, 2009, 01:53:45 AM
Also, with the creation of a national bank, we could probably create a new cabinet position related to managing fiscal policy to go along with it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on September 21, 2009, 03:44:28 AM
Does Atlasia have a federal abortion policy?

I think the Reproductive Rights Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=53762.0) is the standing legislation on the issue.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: afleitch on September 21, 2009, 05:40:07 AM
I will not, under nearly every conceivable circumstance, support a 'National Bank.' Such measures are a knee-jerk reaction to a short period of financial instability and economic downturn and will inhibit economic recovery and economic competativeness. Nor am I favourable to bailing out failing banks. It is a waste of taxpayers money and furthermore saddles the taxpayer with the banks debt. By bailing out or nationalising banks in the UK, the government there has almost doubled our national debt which will not fall to pre-crisis levels until 2032. I will not punish a new generation with debt to cushion the retirement and security of their elders.

All I am interested in is securing savings, not securing banks.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 21, 2009, 05:43:22 AM
And now I see the Conservative in you. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on September 21, 2009, 09:13:37 AM
Does Atlasia have a federal abortion policy?

I think the Reproductive Rights Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=53762.0) is the standing legislation on the issue.

Though that law applies only to federal territories.  There is no such disclaimer in Senator RowanBrandon's proposal.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on September 21, 2009, 09:47:05 AM
Does Atlasia have a federal abortion policy?

I think the Reproductive Rights Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=53762.0) is the standing legislation on the issue.

Though that law applies only to federal territories.  There is no such disclaimer in Senator RowanBrandon's proposal.

Indeed so, fair points both.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 21, 2009, 04:31:43 PM
PS, is this revenge for us not respecting your Saturday rule. I go away for a Sunday and no we have October 29th within a week. Much has been posted and will be posted on this but I have a few points quickly

1. Do we have a Fed or not? If not we need to create one or create a "National Bank"(not what Hamilton's proposing) to do the same things: control insterest rates, money supply, etc.

2. Do we have an FDIC for small Bank deposits. If not one should be created ensuring deposits up to $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for Small Businesses.

3. Create a program that winds down failed banks but without the catastrophe of an "weekend Collapse" like Lehman, while at the same time, no AIG bailouts. The banks once failed should be sold off either as one unit, or split up and sold part and parcel. A good example might be Bear Stearns or WA Mu only without the taxpayer money involved. Any losses incurred by the program would be recouped by charging the Existing Banks a Fee or Premuim. In the meantime taxpayer money might have to be used to avoid a collapse but long term self sustainabililty would be key. Basically creating another FDIC for Investment banks.

4. A new Regulatory regime to prevent future collapses and make sure Tax payers on on the hook for future loses by preventing them from occuring in the first place.
     -Repeal the Commodities Futures Modernisation Act or significantly modifies it to eliminate the CDS market.
     -Create a 12-1 to one Leveraging Maximum
     -Minimum Researve requirments with a minimum amount or all of it being in Cash or liquid assets
     -Strict Standards for lending to Homeowners.
     -A few other things that I can't remember of the top of my head.

I am however at a loss as to how to write this up.


I oppose Hamiltons Public Option for Banks as much as I opposed the Public Health Care option. :P I also oppose a Tarp plan, structured like the one in the US. I don't won't "Too big to fail" and I don't want "Let it Fail and who cares what happens" What I want is Let it fail in an organised process that doesn't kill the economy. With standards and procedures for how that is to be done and paid for.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: afleitch on September 21, 2009, 04:36:00 PM
Luckily the FSA goes some way to regulating banks during a crisis.

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


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 21, 2009, 04:44:29 PM
The government's purpose is not to prop up dead or unsustainable businesses. The government does, however, have a vested interest in encouraging entrepreneurship. I think that any true fiscal conservative would support a national bank, as well as any economic individualist (most libertarians fall here).

It's also an opportunity to add an interesting dynamic to the game now that we have an active GM. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 21, 2009, 04:59:43 PM
Luckily the FSA goes some way to regulating banks during a crisis.

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

Yes but it didn't repeal the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which gave us the wonderfull Credit Default Swap.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 21, 2009, 05:03:36 PM
The government's purpose is not to prop up dead or unsustainable businesses. The government does, however, have a vested interest in encouraging entrepreneurship. I think that any true fiscal conservative would support a national bank, as well as any economic individualist (most libertarians fall here).

It's also an opportunity to add an interesting dynamic to the game now that we have an active GM. :)

Sure we should have a National Bank but I what do you want it to do. If its the job of the RL Fed and maybe some extra regulatory oversight, thats fine. But if you want a Gov't run bank that is competing with private banks like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, then no thats part of the problem.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 21, 2009, 05:05:49 PM
The government's purpose is not to prop up dead or unsustainable businesses. The government does, however, have a vested interest in encouraging entrepreneurship. I think that any true fiscal conservative would support a national bank, as well as any economic individualist (most libertarians fall here).

It's also an opportunity to add an interesting dynamic to the game now that we have an active GM. :)

Sure we should have a National Bank but I what do you want it to do. If its the job of the RL Fed and maybe some extra regulatory oversight, thats fine. But if you want a Gov't run bank that is competing with private banks like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, then no thats part of the problem.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac aren't exactly private ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 21, 2009, 05:40:43 PM
It appears that the Cabinet Restructuring Bill needs some kind of provision detailing appointment procedures.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 21, 2009, 05:48:55 PM
The government's purpose is not to prop up dead or unsustainable businesses. The government does, however, have a vested interest in encouraging entrepreneurship. I think that any true fiscal conservative would support a national bank, as well as any economic individualist (most libertarians fall here).

It's also an opportunity to add an interesting dynamic to the game now that we have an active GM. :)

Sure we should have a National Bank but I what do you want it to do. If its the job of the RL Fed and maybe some extra regulatory oversight, thats fine. But if you want a Gov't run bank that is competing with private banks like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, then no thats part of the problem.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac aren't exactly private ;)

No I meant that Fannie and Freddie are competing with private banks.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on September 21, 2009, 05:51:24 PM
It appears that the Cabinet Restructuring Bill needs some kind of provision detailing appointment procedures.

I interpreted "in accordance with current Senate procedure" to mean that they would be appointed as current cabinet members are.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 21, 2009, 06:20:08 PM
Yank, you just said you'd only support an amended version of the bill, I'm not in favor of making loopholes like rape and mother's health that can be used as justification for any abortion

What happened to regional rights?

Stop trying to portray the RPP as something it is not. When someone holds the belief that an act is murder, where is the regional rights involved in that? Is the Midwest allowed to create its own murder policy? Then why is Sewer Socialist still trolling this place? If someone holds the conviction that an act is murder, there would be no reason for that person to feel it is up to regional governments. CUT THE PROPAGANDA

Dude, your habit is unhealthy.

How many times a day do you think he blows DWTL under his computer desk?

Over/under of 11?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 21, 2009, 06:21:53 PM
Funny to see that comment coming from RowanBrandon of all people, I wish I could show Atlasia how you spent the last months being DWTL's bitch.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Rowan on September 21, 2009, 10:15:24 PM
Funny to see that comment coming from RowanBrandon of all people, I wish I could show Atlasia how you spent the last months being DWTL's bitch.

Uhh what?

Please share.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 21, 2009, 10:22:39 PM
Just sayin':

()


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on September 21, 2009, 10:38:06 PM
PS, is this revenge for us not respecting your Saturday rule. I go away for a Sunday and no we have October 29th within a week. Much has been posted and will be posted on this but I have a few points quickly

1. Do we have a Fed or not? If not we need to create one or create a "National Bank"(not what Hamilton's proposing) to do the same things: control insterest rates, money supply, etc.

2. Do we have an FDIC for small Bank deposits. If not one should be created ensuring deposits up to $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for Small Businesses.

3. Create a program that winds down failed banks but without the catastrophe of an "weekend Collapse" like Lehman, while at the same time, no AIG bailouts. The banks once failed should be sold off either as one unit, or split up and sold part and parcel. A good example might be Bear Stearns or WA Mu only without the taxpayer money involved. Any losses incurred by the program would be recouped by charging the Existing Banks a Fee or Premuim. In the meantime taxpayer money might have to be used to avoid a collapse but long term self sustainabililty would be key. Basically creating another FDIC for Investment banks.

4. A new Regulatory regime to prevent future collapses and make sure Tax payers on on the hook for future loses by preventing them from occuring in the first place.
     -Repeal the Commodities Futures Modernisation Act or significantly modifies it to eliminate the CDS market.
     -Create a 12-1 to one Leveraging Maximum
     -Minimum Researve requirments with a minimum amount or all of it being in Cash or liquid assets
     -Strict Standards for lending to Homeowners.
     -A few other things that I can't remember of the top of my head.

I am however at a loss as to how to write this up.


I oppose Hamiltons Public Option for Banks as much as I opposed the Public Health Care option. :P I also oppose a Tarp plan, structured like the one in the US. I don't won't "Too big to fail" and I don't want "Let it Fail and who cares what happens" What I want is Let it fail in an organised process that doesn't kill the economy. With standards and procedures for how that is to be done and paid for.

1. I would say there is one, but it would not act independently. You can assume that there is a mechanism to change interest rates, print money, etc. but that there are scant details on how such a thing is run. I would advise the Senate to clarify this by legislation (does the President have power to order it to act by executive order? Is its actions solely up to the Senate? Is it some mix of the two?)

2. Yes on exists, but it currently ensures only up to $100,000 for individuals. Legislation would be necessary to increase this number.

As for the rest, once you have a bill in the works the markets will be at least somewhat eased. I don't think a bank will fail within one week unless the markets are completely disillusioned by the Senate's actions. But, I do warn against dilly-dallying on this. Major missteps could lead investors to make runs on financial institution stocks and lead to a series of bank failures.

Let me also add that I will do my best to "score" in some way whatever bill comes up, partially in a "what it will cost" sense, but also to grade its effectiveness to help you guys craft something.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 22, 2009, 07:28:32 AM
PS, is this revenge for us not respecting your Saturday rule. I go away for a Sunday and no we have October 29th within a week. Much has been posted and will be posted on this but I have a few points quickly

1. Do we have a Fed or not? If not we need to create one or create a "National Bank"(not what Hamilton's proposing) to do the same things: control insterest rates, money supply, etc.

2. Do we have an FDIC for small Bank deposits. If not one should be created ensuring deposits up to $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for Small Businesses.

3. Create a program that winds down failed banks but without the catastrophe of an "weekend Collapse" like Lehman, while at the same time, no AIG bailouts. The banks once failed should be sold off either as one unit, or split up and sold part and parcel. A good example might be Bear Stearns or WA Mu only without the taxpayer money involved. Any losses incurred by the program would be recouped by charging the Existing Banks a Fee or Premuim. In the meantime taxpayer money might have to be used to avoid a collapse but long term self sustainabililty would be key. Basically creating another FDIC for Investment banks.

4. A new Regulatory regime to prevent future collapses and make sure Tax payers on on the hook for future loses by preventing them from occuring in the first place.
     -Repeal the Commodities Futures Modernisation Act or significantly modifies it to eliminate the CDS market.
     -Create a 12-1 to one Leveraging Maximum
     -Minimum Researve requirments with a minimum amount or all of it being in Cash or liquid assets
     -Strict Standards for lending to Homeowners.
     -A few other things that I can't remember of the top of my head.

I am however at a loss as to how to write this up.


I oppose Hamiltons Public Option for Banks as much as I opposed the Public Health Care option. :P I also oppose a Tarp plan, structured like the one in the US. I don't won't "Too big to fail" and I don't want "Let it Fail and who cares what happens" What I want is Let it fail in an organised process that doesn't kill the economy. With standards and procedures for how that is to be done and paid for.

1. I would say there is one, but it would not act independently. You can assume that there is a mechanism to change interest rates, print money, etc. but that there are scant details on how such a thing is run. I would advise the Senate to clarify this by legislation (does the President have power to order it to act by executive order? Is its actions solely up to the Senate? Is it some mix of the two?)

2. Yes on exists, but it currently ensures only up to $100,000 for individuals. Legislation would be necessary to increase this number.

As for the rest, once you have a bill in the works the markets will be at least somewhat eased. I don't think a bank will fail within one week unless the markets are completely disillusioned by the Senate's actions. But, I do warn against dilly-dallying on this. Major missteps could lead investors to make runs on financial institution stocks and lead to a series of bank failures.

Let me also add that I will do my best to "score" in some way whatever bill comes up, partially in a "what it will cost" sense, but also to grade its effectiveness to help you guys craft something.

Good thing I have a long weekend. We get out early Thursday and we are off Friday. I alone also have next monday off but it won't be productive, cause I am going into the Hospital. So I might be able to get something together by Friday or Saturday :P.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on September 27, 2009, 04:05:55 AM
Voting Reform Bill of 2009

1. A person is not eligible to become a registered member of Atlasia until they have been a member of the Atlas Forum proper for 6 months.

2. All current registered members of Atlasia will not be affected by this change.


Why?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 27, 2009, 05:22:56 AM
Voting Reform Bill of 2009

1. A person is not eligible to become a registered member of Atlasia until they have been a member of the Atlas Forum proper for 6 months.

2. All current registered members of Atlasia will not be affected by this change.


Why?

Yeah that seems awfully strict.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Rowan on September 27, 2009, 08:39:26 AM
Voting Reform Bill of 2009

1. A person is not eligible to become a registered member of Atlasia until they have been a member of the Atlas Forum proper for 6 months.

2. All current registered members of Atlasia will not be affected by this change.


Why?

Well, in America you have to be 18 years old, so why not have there be an age limit here?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on September 27, 2009, 08:41:33 AM
Voting Reform Bill of 2009

1. A person is not eligible to become a registered member of Atlasia until they have been a member of the Atlas Forum proper for 6 months.

2. All current registered members of Atlasia will not be affected by this change.


Why?

Well, in America you have to be 18 years old, so why not have there be an age limit here?


Simple, because this is a game that is supposed to be a source of fun!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Rowan on September 27, 2009, 09:04:19 AM
Well I must say, this would be a good way to get rid of those zombies that sign up, spam to 50 posts, and register to vote. But then again, most people are just talk about "zombie reform" and are scared to do anything about it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on September 27, 2009, 09:12:07 AM
Well I must say, this would be a good way to get rid of those zombies that sign up, spam to 50 posts, and register to vote. But then again, most people are just talk about "zombie reform" and are scared to do anything about it.

I'm all in favor of zombie reform, but you're confusing "zombie" with "newbie". There's a rather big difference.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on September 27, 2009, 10:14:48 AM
I think the easiest way to get rid of zombies is to tighten the number of national-level votes one may miss before being removed from the voter rolls. You could also not allow new members to vote in the first national election following their registration.

This would force people to remain at least remain somewhat interested for two months or more.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on September 27, 2009, 11:52:10 AM
Not a bad idea Sen. RowanBrandon. 6 months might be a bit long, but some such time requirement seems reasonable to me.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 27, 2009, 04:44:32 PM
This needs to be a constitutional amendment, by the way.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Hash on September 27, 2009, 06:22:22 PM
I would support the legislation if the time is reduced.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 27, 2009, 06:39:05 PM
1 month?

IMO, it's still too long; I registered very soon after I joined.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on September 27, 2009, 09:46:50 PM
1 month?

IMO, it's still too long; I registered very soon after I joined.

    As did I, though I only checked it out because you suggested that I should.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on September 28, 2009, 10:17:05 AM
I'd be willing to accept something like 2 weeks, but even that I'm kind of uncomfortable with.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on September 28, 2009, 05:19:25 PM
I'd be willing to accept something like 2 weeks, but even that I'm kind of uncomfortable with.

     It's actually two weeks (or perhaps 15 days, I'm not sure which one) currently.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on September 28, 2009, 05:21:01 PM
I'd be willing to accept something like 2 weeks, but even that I'm kind of uncomfortable with.

     It's actually two weeks (or perhaps 15 days, I'm not sure which one) currently.

In that case....I'm happy with the status quo.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 28, 2009, 05:33:10 PM
2. Each account must be at least 15 days old before registering to vote.

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


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 30, 2009, 12:51:53 AM
2. Each account must be at least 15 days old before registering to vote.

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

That Amendment looks more and more stupid every time I look at it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bacon King on September 30, 2009, 01:31:27 PM
I love the idea, though I think six months is a bit too long. Two or three? I also like PS's ideas.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Rowan on September 30, 2009, 01:54:28 PM
I love the idea, though I think six months is a bit too long. Two or three? I also like PS's ideas.

Yeah six months is probably too long. I'd compromise a shorter amount. I just wanted to get the idea out there.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 30, 2009, 05:08:29 PM
This needs to be a constitutional amendment, by the way.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on September 30, 2009, 05:10:08 PM
2. Each account must be at least 15 days old before registering to vote.

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

That Amendment looks more and more stupid every time I look at it.

Proud to have cast my vote against it


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 30, 2009, 07:33:55 PM
I consider it one of my greatest accomplishments.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on September 30, 2009, 09:48:49 PM
Ok, I'm very busy. I got the new bills on and will deal with other things such as votes, etc. tomorrow sometime. Thank you.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Vepres on October 02, 2009, 10:55:31 PM
You have done nothing to aid our banking industry. The stock market has been moving downward consistently for a month now. Do something!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 02, 2009, 10:59:59 PM
God (I mean, Purple State) has been straining my suspension of disbelief for awhile. He either doesn't care about the differences between Atlasia and the United States or he hasn't cared to look up the changes we've made in the past. (Such as repealing Gramm-Leach-Bliley, or implementing the ability for the President to save individual banks when necessary.) And, of course, as Meeker said "We are not as stupid as George Bush."

As such, I'm stepping back on this one and letting his pretend apocalypse play out.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on October 02, 2009, 11:02:27 PM
Just to get yelled at:

Troubled Asset Relief Program Bill

1. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is hereby established.
2. $600 billion will be available to failing banks and other corporations vital to the continued function of the Atlasian and global economies, and to be used by the Atlasian government to buy out liquidated assets at an inflated price.
3. $350 billion for this program will be available immediately upon the fulfillment of the drawing up of the next section's guidelines, while the second installment of $250 billion will be available no sooner than a month from the passage of this act and only with Senatorial approval.
4. Guidelines to determine eligibility for TARP will be established by the President, in his role as acting Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Internal Affairs, after consultation with the Game Moderator.

In theory, the mere introduction of this legislation will cause a temporary spike in the stock market. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Vepres on October 03, 2009, 04:11:32 PM
Just to get yelled at:

Troubled Asset Relief Program Bill

1. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is hereby established.
2. $600 billion will be available to failing banks and other corporations vital to the continued function of the Atlasian and global economies, and to be used by the Atlasian government to buy out liquidated assets at an inflated price.
3. $350 billion for this program will be available immediately upon the fulfillment of the drawing up of the next section's guidelines, while the second installment of $250 billion will be available no sooner than a month from the passage of this act and only with Senatorial approval.
4. Guidelines to determine eligibility for TARP will be established by the President, in his role as acting Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Internal Affairs, after consultation with the Game Moderator.

In theory, the mere introduction of this legislation will cause a temporary spike in the stock market. :P

Just introduce it, table it after market hours, then reintroduce it in the morning everyday into infinity. Problem solved :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 03, 2009, 08:39:36 PM
God (I mean, Purple State) has been straining my suspension of disbelief for awhile. He either doesn't care about the differences between Atlasia and the United States or he hasn't cared to look up the changes we've made in the past. (Such as repealing Gramm-Leach-Bliley, or implementing the ability for the President to save individual banks when necessary.) And, of course, as Meeker said "We are not as stupid as George Bush."

As such, I'm stepping back on this one and letting his pretend apocalypse play out.

::)

1. The difference started to late and wasn't substantial enough to do what you claim it would

2. Grahm-Leach-Bliley wasn't repealed till late last year, by then the damage was done.

3. Maybe you should accept that there was nothing Bush could have done beyond enforcment of what was on the books which would have barely dented the problems. When he tried to get new laws for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a coalition of Senators from both parties led by Chris Dodd shot him done. As Paul Volcker recently said on PBS the crisis was largely unpreventable from a practical standpoint because there wasn't the political will to regulate and enforce to the extent that would have been necessary to prevent this, at the appropriate time(2001-2004). Guess what, that key period came before the formation of Atlasia under the soverienty of the US. Meaning we would have inhereited it. Recognition of the problem didn't come till it was too late just like in RL.

4. The laws currently on the books from late 2008 didn't address the whole problem. Many issues weren't even touched and so it will be difficult to claim this has already been dealt with.

Just to get yelled at:

Troubled Asset Relief Program Bill

1. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is hereby established.
2. $600 billion will be available to failing banks and other corporations vital to the continued function of the Atlasian and global economies, and to be used by the Atlasian government to buy out liquidated assets at an inflated price.
3. $350 billion for this program will be available immediately upon the fulfillment of the drawing up of the next section's guidelines, while the second installment of $250 billion will be available no sooner than a month from the passage of this act and only with Senatorial approval.
4. Guidelines to determine eligibility for TARP will be established by the President, in his role as acting Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Internal Affairs, after consultation with the Game Moderator.

In theory, the mere introduction of this legislation will cause a temporary spike in the stock market. :P

Just introduce it, table it after market hours, then reintroduce it in the morning everyday into infinity. Problem solved :P

I would much prefer something along the lines of a Resolution regime laid out be PAul Volcker in RL. WE currently have a similar setup in place, but it is constructed a little differently.

http://www.financialcrisisupdate.com/2009/09/levitt-volcker-stress-need-for-resolution-authority-for-large-financial-institutions-basel-urges-cross-border-framework.html (http://www.financialcrisisupdate.com/2009/09/levitt-volcker-stress-need-for-resolution-authority-for-large-financial-institutions-basel-urges-cross-border-framework.html)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 03, 2009, 08:42:58 PM
I'm not pretending we don't have problems, I would just contend they're not as severe as our real-world counterpart. Action needs to be taken, I simply don't know what action to take.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 03, 2009, 10:28:04 PM
I'm not pretending we don't have problems, I would just contend they're not as severe as our real-world counterpart. Action needs to be taken, I simply don't know what action to take.

The reason the Senate hates dealing with the economy folks. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 05, 2009, 12:18:23 AM
I'm not pretending we don't have problems, I would just contend they're not as severe as our real-world counterpart. Action needs to be taken, I simply don't know what action to take.

The reason the Senate hates dealing with the economy folks. :)

I hate dealing with it too. Go figure.

I'm not pretending we don't have problems, I would just contend they're not as severe as our real-world counterpart. Action needs to be taken, I simply don't know what action to take.

I have consistently asked that those with superior knowledge of economics point out where I make faults. But, of course, simply saying I'm wrong doesn't help. When Yank thought I was wrong, he gave me links and thoughts, etc. which influenced a number of articles and resulted in better info. You are welcome to do the same.

And you are correct that I have not reviewed every piece of legislation the Senate has passed. This is why I requested you point out how the US and Atlasia differ. A simple response goes a long way (and do try to keep it simple because your long posts tend to confuse me ;)).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 05, 2009, 04:59:37 PM
I'm not pretending we don't have problems, I would just contend they're not as severe as our real-world counterpart. Action needs to be taken, I simply don't know what action to take.

The reason the Senate hates dealing with the economy folks. :)

I hate dealing with it too. Go figure.

I'm not pretending we don't have problems, I would just contend they're not as severe as our real-world counterpart. Action needs to be taken, I simply don't know what action to take.

I have consistently asked that those with superior knowledge of economics point out where I make faults. But, of course, simply saying I'm wrong doesn't help. When Yank thought I was wrong, he gave me links and thoughts, etc. which influenced a number of articles and resulted in better info. You are welcome to do the same.

And you are correct that I have not reviewed every piece of legislation the Senate has passed. This is why I requested you point out how the US and Atlasia differ. A simple response goes a long way (and do try to keep it simple because your long posts tend to confuse me ;)).
lol


Why don't you formulate a plan for where you want to take the economy. Keep it secret if you want but have a general plan of where to take it. I assume you saw my article predicting a crash in Oil Prices in the NWA, right?



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 05, 2009, 05:53:55 PM
We need a PPT election now.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fritz on October 05, 2009, 07:11:50 PM

No, we don't.  We just need Bacon King to step in and take over.  He did such a great job before.

If the rest of the Senate will agree, I would be okay with just letting BK preside over the remainder of the 33rd Senate.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 05, 2009, 07:30:14 PM
I'm not sure if we have to have a PPT election, but if we do, I suppose that's fine. I'm fine either having a PPT race and simply having BK take over for the rest of the time.

Although it is tempting to run for PPT again. You all deserve a second chance at making the right decision. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fritz on October 05, 2009, 07:38:31 PM
Actually, I kind of think the Senate rules should be amended so that we don't even have a PPT- just make it the Vice-President's job.  Give the VP something to do, and it would make the elections for VP a little more meaningful.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 05, 2009, 11:08:49 PM

Talk to BK.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 05, 2009, 11:08:54 PM
Actually, I kind of think the Senate rules should be amended so that we don't even have a PPT- just make it the Vice-President's job.  Give the VP something to do, and it would make the elections for VP a little more meaningful.

I think we should keep the PPT.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Hash on October 06, 2009, 07:22:35 AM
Regional & Local Fiscal Relief Act

1. The $100 billion to be distributed by region as per Section 4 (a.) of F.L. 32-13 (2009 Atlasian Relief and Recovery Act) is to be distributed between the regions as follows on the basis of budget severity and unemployment rates:
a. $30 billion to the Mideast
b. $22 billion to the Pacific
c. $22 billion to the Southeast
d. $15 billion to the Midwest
e. $11 billion to the Northeast

2. The Regional Legislatures of the various regions shall be responsible for the allocation and distribution of funds allocated to their regions.

3. Upon the event of a Region rejecting funds outlined under the 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Act and the Regional & Local Fiscal Relief Act, the federal government itself shall, where possible, conduct or fund infrastructure projects independent of the regional government, and distribute the rejected funds specifically for that region equally among the remaining regions.

Just because there was no action on the allocation of the 100 billion allocated to regions by FL 32-13, somebody needed to get the ball rolling, it isn't perfect and I'm very open to amendments on this one. The distribution is unequal because I want to give more funds to struggling regions (based on the GM's reports).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bacon King on October 06, 2009, 09:34:28 PM

No, we don't.  We just need Bacon King to step in and take over.  He did such a great job before.

If the rest of the Senate will agree, I would be okay with just letting BK preside over the remainder of the 33rd Senate.

First off, Senator, thank you for your kind words :)

I have started the PPT election process because the current Senate rules require a PPT to be elected immediately following the resignation of the current PPT. The rules also prevent the VP from directly running the Senate except when the PPT is absent.

I agree with you that a PPT is not always necessary- I think the option to elect one should exist, but I don't think it should be mandatory. I also think the VP should be allowed to run things to an extent even when a PPT is present.

I'd support it if anyone were to change any of this.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on October 07, 2009, 06:35:43 AM

No, we don't.  We just need Bacon King to step in and take over.  He did such a great job before.

If the rest of the Senate will agree, I would be okay with just letting BK preside over the remainder of the 33rd Senate.

First off, Senator, thank you for your kind words :)

I have started the PPT election process because the current Senate rules require a PPT to be elected immediately following the resignation of the current PPT. The rules also prevent the VP from directly running the Senate except when the PPT is absent.

I agree with you that a PPT is not always necessary- I think the option to elect one should exist, but I don't think it should be mandatory. I also think the VP should be allowed to run things to an extent even when a PPT is present.

I'd support it if anyone were to change any of this.

As a matter of precedent, there have been a number of VPs who did actively work with the PPT in helping keep Senate business moving along. IMO, it's a matter for the PPT and VP to decide themselves how they wish to work together.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 07, 2009, 06:55:31 AM
And I'm sure BK and I will have a lovely working relationship if I'm so lucky as to be elected PPT. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bacon King on October 08, 2009, 08:19:05 PM

No, we don't.  We just need Bacon King to step in and take over.  He did such a great job before.

If the rest of the Senate will agree, I would be okay with just letting BK preside over the remainder of the 33rd Senate.

First off, Senator, thank you for your kind words :)

I have started the PPT election process because the current Senate rules require a PPT to be elected immediately following the resignation of the current PPT. The rules also prevent the VP from directly running the Senate except when the PPT is absent.

I agree with you that a PPT is not always necessary- I think the option to elect one should exist, but I don't think it should be mandatory. I also think the VP should be allowed to run things to an extent even when a PPT is present.

I'd support it if anyone were to change any of this.

As a matter of precedent, there have been a number of VPs who did actively work with the PPT in helping keep Senate business moving along. IMO, it's a matter for the PPT and VP to decide themselves how they wish to work together.

I'd love to be more active, of course, but Senate Regulations specifically say I can't do many things unless the PPT misses a deadline or is away.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on October 11, 2009, 08:14:42 AM
Just to note that I'll be away for a few days - probably until Thursday.
Not sure whether I'll have any net access.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fritz on October 11, 2009, 10:31:49 AM
Teenage Liberation Act

All laws containing an age requirement or limit between the ages of 15 and 21 shall have that requirement or limit changed to the age of 14.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.  :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on October 11, 2009, 10:57:47 AM
Teenage Liberation Act

All laws containing an age requirement or limit between the ages of 15 and 21 shall have that requirement or limit changed to the age of 14.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.  :P
Not that I have a problem with this obviously, but would this include the purchase of firearms?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Rowan on October 11, 2009, 10:58:37 AM
What is the point of this legislation?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fritz on October 11, 2009, 11:51:22 AM
It's pretty simple- anyone over 14 is now an adult.  Yes, firearms are included, as well as drinking, smoking, driving, being in porn, sexual consent, having a job, leaving home and supporting yourself (your parents could kick you out too, if they wanted to), joining the military or being drafted, suing or being sued, etc. etc. etc.  I contend that if 14 year olds are mature enough to look at porn unrestrained, they have the maturity for all of these other things as well.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on October 11, 2009, 11:53:13 AM
Wow, 14 year olds in porn.  That is a tad creepy, although maybe not illegal.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese on October 11, 2009, 12:49:44 PM
Wow, 14 year olds in porn.  That is a tad creepy, although maybe not illegal.

Not only in porn. Considering prostitution is legal in Atlasia this bill would mean we'd have fourteen-year-olds selling sex.

Obviously this bill is taking things a bit too far :P

I'm asuming this is to make a political statement, kind of like when Anthony Weiner proposed we get rid of Medicare to prove Goverment run Healthcare isn't all that bad.

 

 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 11, 2009, 01:13:57 PM
You know what I am going to join them too. Nothing is okay till we have 14 years running down the street with AK-47s, being in pornography, drug trafficking, and using, drinking, smoking, serving in the military. Who cares the brains aren't fully developed and these thinks can do great damage. Who cares what bad effects this will have because guess what, they will do it all anyway so we should not even, not even make an attempt to stop. Hello Anarchy, here we come.


This is sarcasm of course.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on October 11, 2009, 01:27:42 PM
You know what I am going to join them too. Nothing is okay till we have 14 years running down the street with AK-47s, being in pornography, drug trafficking, and using, drinking, smoking, serving in the military. Who cares the brains aren't fully developed and these thinks can do great damage. Who cares what bad effects this will have because guess what, they will do it all anyway so we should not even, not even make an attempt to stop. Hello Anarchy, here we come.


This is sarcasm of course.

You know than I am opposed to all that junk. I voted for the first bill only because the law is unenforceable. Nobody ever showed us how to make that law enforceable. If someone had, I probably voted against the bill.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sbane on October 11, 2009, 01:51:52 PM
It's pretty simple- anyone over 14 is now an adult.  Yes, firearms are included, as well as drinking, smoking, driving, being in porn, sexual consent, having a job, leaving home and supporting yourself (your parents could kick you out too, if they wanted to), joining the military or being drafted, suing or being sued, etc. etc. etc.  I contend that if 14 year olds are mature enough to look at porn unrestrained, they have the maturity for all of these other things as well.

Being in porn? Prostitution? Drinking? Smoking? Are you insane? You don't see a difference between just watching some porn and these activities?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 11, 2009, 02:14:16 PM
It's pretty simple- anyone over 14 is now an adult.  Yes, firearms are included, as well as drinking, smoking, driving, being in porn, sexual consent, having a job, leaving home and supporting yourself (your parents could kick you out too, if they wanted to), joining the military or being drafted, suing or being sued, etc. etc. etc.  I contend that if 14 year olds are mature enough to look at porn unrestrained, they have the maturity for all of these other things as well.

Being in porn? Prostitution? Drinking? Smoking? Are you insane? You don't see a difference between just watching some porn and these activities?

Why is Fritz insane? Are you insane? Everytime I take a postion, Fritz takes a slightly different one, both of which disagree with you; We are insane for taking a different position from you. When did you get sole monopolization of the right ideas? I'll take Fritz's personal experience over your theoretical nonesense anyday.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Rowan on October 11, 2009, 04:57:32 PM
The Strategic Registration Amendment

1. Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 is hereby amended to read: "Persons may only change their State of registration once every 180 days."

I strongly support this legislation.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sbane on October 11, 2009, 05:27:45 PM
It's pretty simple- anyone over 14 is now an adult.  Yes, firearms are included, as well as drinking, smoking, driving, being in porn, sexual consent, having a job, leaving home and supporting yourself (your parents could kick you out too, if they wanted to), joining the military or being drafted, suing or being sued, etc. etc. etc.  I contend that if 14 year olds are mature enough to look at porn unrestrained, they have the maturity for all of these other things as well.

Being in porn? Prostitution? Drinking? Smoking? Are you insane? You don't see a difference between just watching some porn and these activities?

Why is Fritz insane? Are you insane? Everytime I take a postion, Fritz takes a slightly different one, both of which disagree with you; We are insane for taking a different position from you. When did you get sole monopolization of the right ideas? I'll take Fritz's personal experience over your theoretical nonesense anyday.

No he's not insane obviously. I just don't see the need for this straw man legislation. Where is the proof that watching pornography at the age of 14 is worse than at 18? On the other hand smoking and drinking is bad for you at every age (and even worse at 14 because you are still developing) but adults can make that choice for themselves. Arms are also dangerous in the hands of immature teenagers, pornography not so much. If you guys disagreed with the "bow chicka bow wow" bill that is just fine with me, but stop being such cry babies.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 11, 2009, 05:31:55 PM
Decentralisation of Currency Act

The Senate recognises that the Dollar is the sole legal tender of the Republic of Atlasia.

Section 1.

The Senate grants to all commercial and retail banks headquartered in Atlasia the right to issue promissory bank notes.

Section 2

a. It shall be lawful for every such bank to issue it's own bank notes to the extent of the amount certified by the Treasury to be held in that banks reserve, but not to any further extent; and it shall not be lawful for any bank to make or issue bank notes without certification from the Treasury.
b. Certification of the reserve of each bank shall be conducted on the 15th of each month by the Treasury.
c. All currency notes issued under this Act shall, for the purpose of the enactments relating to bank notes and the issue thereof be deemed to be bank notes, and the bank shall be liable in respect thereof accordingly.
d. All issued banknotes shall be deemed to be acceptable and exchangeable tender throughout the Republic of Atlasia.

Section 3

a. If any two or more banks have by written contract or agreement become united subsequently to the passing of this Act, it shall be lawful for the Treasury, to certify the aggregate of the amount of bank notes which such separate banks were previously authorized to issue under the separate certificates previously granted to them, and be deemed to be the limit of the amount of bank notes which such united bank may have in circulation.
b. It shall be the responsibility of the united bank to withdraw and replace the notes of the predecessor banks from circulation.

What does this do and why is it needed, Afleitch?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 11, 2009, 05:34:04 PM
The Strategic Registration Amendment

1. Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 is hereby amended to read: "Persons may only change their State of registration once every 180 days."

I strongly support this legislation.

     Yes, I urge all Senators to vote in favor of this amendment. Perhaps an exception should be included for moves in real life.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: afleitch on October 11, 2009, 05:38:52 PM
What does this do and why is it needed, Afleitch?

It allows banks to print currency and decentralises currency. It also has the added effects of allowing the Treasure to know exactly how 'kosher' the banks are. It echoes the system that's been operating in Scotland for the past 300 years.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 11, 2009, 05:39:39 PM
I'll take a pass on that one, Afleitch.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: afleitch on October 11, 2009, 05:41:41 PM

It's not everyones cup of tea...though it does unite all parties this side of the Atlantic ;D


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Rowan on October 11, 2009, 05:46:00 PM
The Strategic Registration Amendment

1. Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 is hereby amended to read: "Persons may only change their State of registration once every 180 days."

I strongly support this legislation.

     Yes, I urge all Senators to vote in favor of this amendment. Perhaps an exception should be included for moves in real life.

Is that really enforceable though? Unless you mean by matching IP addresses to locations.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 11, 2009, 06:05:52 PM

It's not everyones cup of tea...though it does unite all parties this side of the Atlantic ;D

I think I'll take a pass on that one as well.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 11, 2009, 06:10:26 PM
The Strategic Registration Amendment

1. Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 is hereby amended to read: "Persons may only change their State of registration once every 180 days."

I strongly support this legislation.

     Yes, I urge all Senators to vote in favor of this amendment. Perhaps an exception should be included for moves in real life.

Is that really enforceable though? Unless you mean by matching IP addresses to locations.

    Yes, that's exactly what I mean.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 11, 2009, 06:19:32 PM
The Strategic Registration Amendment

1. Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 is hereby amended to read: "Persons may only change their State of registration once every 180 days."

I strongly support this legislation.

     Yes, I urge all Senators to vote in favor of this amendment. Perhaps an exception should be included for moves in real life.

Is that really enforceable though? Unless you mean by matching IP addresses to locations.

    Yes, that's exactly what I mean.
The moderators would love that amendment....


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 11, 2009, 06:22:26 PM
The Strategic Registration Amendment

1. Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 is hereby amended to read: "Persons may only change their State of registration once every 180 days."

I strongly support this legislation.

     Yes, I urge all Senators to vote in favor of this amendment. Perhaps an exception should be included for moves in real life.

Is that really enforceable though? Unless you mean by matching IP addresses to locations.

    Yes, that's exactly what I mean.
The moderators would love that amendment....

180 is too long. I'd cut it to 90. The benefits of 90 is that you can't switch cycles every single time. 90 days means that you'll be spending up to 2 election cycles in that particular region.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: afleitch on October 11, 2009, 06:37:37 PM
I'm happy with a harsh limit. However I think we could insert an amendment that allows the SoFA to exercise discretion to allow a switch before then if the voter has a legitimate reason in order to do so. There may be an appeal for someone to fill an office, but there is a lack of candidates in that region so someone moves at the Governors request for example. That has happened in the past.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Rowan on October 11, 2009, 06:39:23 PM
Yes, the stricter the limit the better.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 11, 2009, 06:40:34 PM
I'm happy with a harsh limit. However I think we could insert an amendment that allows the SoFA to exercise discretion to allow a switch before then if the voter has a legitimate reason in order to do so. There may be an appeal for someone to fill an office, but there is a lack of candidates in that region so someone moves at the Governors request for example. That has happened in the past.

That just happened in the Midwest.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 11, 2009, 06:41:22 PM
The 180 day limit has my support. I'd rather not lower it.

I can open debate on this once we get some bills signed by the President. The inability to edit the thread titles make it difficult for Lief to know what's passed or not.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 11, 2009, 08:15:22 PM
I'm happy with a harsh limit. However I think we could insert an amendment that allows the SoFA to exercise discretion to allow a switch before then if the voter has a legitimate reason in order to do so. There may be an appeal for someone to fill an office, but there is a lack of candidates in that region so someone moves at the Governors request for example. That has happened in the past.

     Perhaps the Governor could file a formal request for a candidate with the SoFA. Then the SoFA would be required to approve the first three or so non-officeholders who offer to move there. It could use some tweaking, but such a system should be set up so as to not allow partisan abuse on the part of an unscrupulous SoFA.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on October 17, 2009, 10:59:17 PM
If I may suggest an idea:

Private Prison Bill

1. No federal money may be distributed to any privately owned and operated prisons.

This should probably be part of a larger-scale prison reform package, though I don't know how much can be done at the federal level.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on October 19, 2009, 09:23:45 AM
If I may suggest an idea:

Private Prison Bill

1. No federal money may be distributed to any privately owned and operated prisons.

This should probably be part of a larger-scale prison reform package, though I don't know how much can be done at the federal level.

I'll introduce it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on October 19, 2009, 07:51:27 PM
Thank you Senator. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 21, 2009, 05:23:22 PM
Vice-Presidential Election Amendment

The election to the office of Vice-President shall be a distinct and seperate election from that of the President, although the elections for both offices will occur simultaneously.
If this makes sense, on regional levels (Governor/Lt. Governor) I think the system should be with the Governor and Lt. Governor on the same ticket. On the national level, I'm pretty torn on this bill. I really like this idea, but what would it do? I'll have to see both arguements before deciding.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 21, 2009, 06:23:30 PM
Vice-Presidential Election Amendment

The election to the office of Vice-President shall be a distinct and seperate election from that of the President, although the elections for both offices will occur simultaneously.
If this makes sense, on regional levels (Governor/Lt. Governor) I think the system should be with the Governor and Lt. Governor on the same ticket. On the national level, I'm pretty torn on this bill. I really like this idea, but what would it do? I'll have to see both arguements before deciding.

This could be a very interesting move and could especially help create a stronger VP, as well as greater competition.

Of course, there are also some arguments against this, so it's all about which side's evidence has the greater weight. Definitely a good way to create a discussion though, so in that I applaud Senator Fritz.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Rowan on October 21, 2009, 06:25:06 PM
I think I fall on the ticket side of things.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 21, 2009, 06:34:54 PM
     Tickets are nice because of the possibility for odd unity tickets, like Keystone Phil/Ebowed. There'd be little impetus to do anything other than support your own party for both President & Vice-President if they were elected separately.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HappyWarrior on October 26, 2009, 07:28:13 PM
The bill that was just submitted by Tmth was under my directive and I hope it is what everyone thinks is needed for the situation in Somalia.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 26, 2009, 07:38:48 PM
The bill that was just submitted by Tmth was under my directive and I hope it is what everyone thinks is needed for the situation in Somalia.

It seems reasonable.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HappyWarrior on October 26, 2009, 07:44:31 PM
The bill that was just submitted by Tmth was under my directive and I hope it is what everyone thinks is needed for the situation in Somalia.

It seems reasonable.

I tried to be sure I did'nt include to many of my war hawk stances ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Vepres on October 31, 2009, 04:58:47 PM
Might as well re-post this here:

Here's a reasonable (I think) compromise between Marokai and his folk, and the more pro-regionalist folks such as PiT and NCYankee.

An upper house that would function much as the US Senate functions today in terms of power and procedure. It would be composed of five members, one from each region, who would have a term of a to be determined length. Each region would choose how they are selected/retained. Will they be elected? Appointed by the Governor or legislature? Will they have to be retained by a vote or simply reappointed?

Of course, you could also just have them be elected, whatever the ultimate idea is.

As a citizen and Governor of a region, I would urge the Senators to consider my idea, as I feel it is a good compromise.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 31, 2009, 06:18:43 PM
Might as well re-post this here:

Here's a reasonable (I think) compromise between Marokai and his folk, and the more pro-regionalist folks such as PiT and NCYankee.

An upper house that would function much as the US Senate functions today in terms of power and procedure. It would be composed of five members, one from each region, who would have a term of a to be determined length. Each region would choose how they are selected/retained. Will they be elected? Appointed by the Governor or legislature? Will they have to be retained by a vote or simply reappointed?

Of course, you could also just have them be elected, whatever the ultimate idea is.

As a citizen and Governor of a region, I would urge the Senators to consider my idea, as I feel it is a good compromise.

Would never fly, cause Marokai, JAs and co already have there "compromise" and everyone who opposes it is an ideologue who refuses to compromise.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on October 31, 2009, 06:19:53 PM
I think the Council of Governors provides sufficient regional representation, I might even view it as strengthening regions, considering they would be able to block legislation entirely.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Hash on October 31, 2009, 06:24:59 PM
I tend to prefer Vepres' proposal over the CoG thing myself, but only if the seats in the upper house are elected. Also, if we establish bicameralism, it must be equal and qualified bicameralism and not one house-and-a-half stuff.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 31, 2009, 06:27:55 PM
Well yeah, NCY. Kind of.

First of all, you and the regionalists have not given any coherent reason as to why we need regions involved in the process. You either decline to debate the issue entirely, claim any small issue of reform is a power grab, or just give incoherent or contradictory explanations. So I've been incredibly frustrated, because debate is the only way I know how to go about these things, and when people deny me that avenue, I don't know how to approach any of you.

Secondly, it IS a compromise already. We want an all at-large Senate, you want the regions to continue interfering in the legislature and warping our representation. An all at-large Senate gives fair (and exciting) representation to the Senate, a CoG allows regions to maintain their representation in the federal government, and spurs competition for the Governorships of Atlasia. We've been over this countless times but you and others refuse to listen. PiT said the only way he would tolerate a CoG is if they were given extraordinary power. When that's the starting point, it's impossible to progress and find middle ground.

I tend to prefer Vepres' proposal over the CoG thing myself, but only if the seats in the upper house are elected. Also, if we establish bicameralism, it must be equal and qualified bicameralism and not one house-and-a-half stuff.

Paging the Constitutional Convention..


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Hash on October 31, 2009, 06:31:30 PM
I tend to prefer Vepres' proposal over the CoG thing myself, but only if the seats in the upper house are elected. Also, if we establish bicameralism, it must be equal and qualified bicameralism and not one house-and-a-half stuff.

Paging the Constitutional Convention..

I'm sorry, but the abolish regional seats in return for a CoG is basically bicameralism, like it or not, and I've made it clear already that I will only personally stand for full bicameralism and a one-and-a-half-cameralism and nothing else.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 31, 2009, 06:40:36 PM
     I didn't mean that they be given any more power than the regional Senate seats already afford. However, when the regional Senate seats are replaced by a body that cannot propose or vote on bills, but merely veto them, why should we be happy?

     As I made a point of saying once, people think that the Atlasian right is just about saying nay to this, saying nay to that, so on & so forth. When we have to fight tooth & nail to make people realize we actually have proposals for new policies, doesn't it make sense that we don't want our position to be reduced to making it easier to say nay?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 31, 2009, 06:41:28 PM
I tend to prefer Vepres' proposal over the CoG thing myself, but only if the seats in the upper house are elected. Also, if we establish bicameralism, it must be equal and qualified bicameralism and not one house-and-a-half stuff.

Paging the Constitutional Convention..

I'm sorry, but the abolish regional seats in return for a CoG is basically bicameralism, like it or not, and I've made it clear already that I will only personally stand for full bicameralism and a one-and-a-half-cameralism and nothing else.

Your solution would simply duplicate the problems we already face in regional Senate elections, create a line of additional offices we may struggle to fill and maintain, and turns a blind eye to the inactivity of the races for Governor.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 31, 2009, 07:05:37 PM
Well yeah, NCY. Kind of.

First of all, you and the regionalists have not given any coherent reason as to why we need regions involved in the process. You either decline to debate the issue entirely, claim any small issue of reform is a power grab, or just give incoherent or contradictory explanations. So I've been incredibly frustrated, because debate is the only way I know how to go about these things, and when people deny me that avenue, I don't know how to approach any of you.

Secondly, it IS a compromise already. We want an all at-large Senate, you want the regions to continue interfering in the legislature and warping our representation. An all at-large Senate gives fair (and exciting) representation to the Senate, a CoG allows regions to maintain their representation in the federal government, and spurs competition for the Governorships of Atlasia. We've been over this countless times but you and others refuse to listen. PiT said the only way he would tolerate a CoG is if they were given extraordinary power. When that's the starting point, it's impossible to progress and find middle ground.

I tend to prefer Vepres' proposal over the CoG thing myself, but only if the seats in the upper house are elected. Also, if we establish bicameralism, it must be equal and qualified bicameralism and not one house-and-a-half stuff.

Paging the Constitutional Convention..

When are you going to address my concerns about the CoG not being able to introduce legislation? When are you going to at least stop condescending to us in our intent. Our intent is to keep the current balance senate. You refuse to listen as well.

I tend to prefer Vepres' proposal over the CoG thing myself, but only if the seats in the upper house are elected. Also, if we establish bicameralism, it must be equal and qualified bicameralism and not one house-and-a-half stuff.

Paging the Constitutional Convention..

I'm sorry, but the abolish regional seats in return for a CoG is basically bicameralism, like it or not, and I've made it clear already that I will only personally stand for full bicameralism and a one-and-a-half-cameralism and nothing else.

Your solution would simply duplicate the problems we already face in regional Senate elections, create a line of additional offices we may struggle to fill and maintain, and turns a blind eye to the inactivity of the races for Governor.

Why don't you answer his f**king question, stupid, instead of attacking his postion. You are the reason debate doesn't occur on this, you and your ego, Marokai. >:(


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 31, 2009, 07:06:26 PM
Upper houses are usually for modification and sometimes veto, not for introducing legislation.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 31, 2009, 07:08:37 PM
There is definitely a way to make a CoG work with more than simple veto power. If we can all agree to work on something where the CoG has similar power to the President's line-item veto, I think it warrants discussion.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 31, 2009, 07:12:05 PM
You want to kill two birds with one stone, Marokai, but still you fail to realise just how incompatible a CoG is for me. I am a strong beleive in separation of powers and this violates that. I have a plan to make the Governors more excited but your friends keep standing in my way for Partisan advantage a common ploy as you yourself just voted a certain way on an Amendment to suit your other goals. Thats why I wish BK and his compadres would work to restore the initiative process if they feel an assembly is unexceptable but there again, nothing. We could give Governor's more of a say in the Intiative process.

Also as Hashemite said, the CoG is basical 1 and 1/2 cameralism.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on October 31, 2009, 07:14:07 PM
It's a shame people here don't regard Atlasia as a what it is, a game, rather than what ideal government in the real world must be like.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 31, 2009, 07:14:55 PM
Upper houses are usually for modification and sometimes veto, not for introducing legislation.

Thats not how it is in the US and that will always be an unnacceptable two faced lie instead of a compromise in my book.

You guys don't want to compromise either.

There is definitely a way to make a CoG work with more than simple veto power. If we can all agree to work on something where the CoG has similar power to the President's line-item veto, I think it warrants discussion.

Nothing less then full legislative powers shall be acceptable as a compromise. And even then you aren't even discussing or dealing with the major deal breaker and that is that the CoG violates Separation of Powers making the CoG or any modification of it unnacceptable.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 31, 2009, 07:17:15 PM
It's a shame people here don't regard Atlasia as a what it is, a game, rather than what ideal government in the real world must be like.

Its an elections game with a political simulation to make the elections worth having. It is not however a game of charades. If thats what you want I suggest you look for a different site. I fully intend to argue for nothing less then what I truly beleive here.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on October 31, 2009, 07:19:45 PM
If thats what you want I suggest you look for a different site. I fully intend to argue for nothing less then what I truly beleive here.

Then argue for what you believe in you holier-than-thou arrogant prick. I'll do precisely the same thing, and we'll see where that gets us.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 31, 2009, 07:20:15 PM
You want to kill two birds with one stone, Marokai, but still you fail to realise just how incompatible a CoG is for me. I am a strong beleive in separation of powers and this violates that. I have a plan to make the Governors more excited but your friends keep standing in my way for Partisan advantage a common ploy as you yourself just voted a certain way on an Amendment to suit your other goals. Thats why I wish BK and his compadres would work to restore the initiative process if they feel an assembly is unexceptable but there again, nothing. We could give Governor's more of a say in the Intiative process.

Also as Hashemite said, the CoG is basical 1 and 1/2 cameralism.

The mere size of Atlasia makes "separation of powers" between regional and federal unnecessary. Of course, full disclosure, I advocate partial dual-office holding between regional and federal so go figure.

Having a CoG makes the gubernatorial elections much more exciting, while ensuring proper regional representation on the federal level. I think this is an appropriate and pragmatic compromise for regionalists to make.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 31, 2009, 07:23:12 PM
I'm willing to accept the ability of the CoG to amend legislation and send it back to the Senate. I'm uncomfortable with them introducing legislation, however. If they want something introduced it's really easy to find a willing Senator to introduce it for them.

If they do get the power to introduce legislation, they should only have the power to introduce certain types of legislation, otherwise things could get quite hectic.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 31, 2009, 07:24:46 PM
I'm willing to accept the ability of the CoG to amend legislation and send it back to the Senate. I'm uncomfortable with them introducing legislation, however. If they want something introduced it's really easy to find a willing Senator to introduce it for them.

If they do get the power to introduce legislation, they should only have the power to introduce certain types of legislation, otherwise things could get quite hectic.

I would agree with that.

Simply put, allowing two bodies to introduce legislation is likely to get way too complicated and messy.

I am willing to work with you, Franzl, Hash, etc. to craft something that is acceptable.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 31, 2009, 07:30:22 PM
I'm willing to accept the ability of the CoG to amend legislation and send it back to the Senate. I'm uncomfortable with them introducing legislation, however. If they want something introduced it's really easy to find a willing Senator to introduce it for them.

If they do get the power to introduce legislation, they should only have the power to introduce certain types of legislation, otherwise things could get quite hectic.

     That definitely sounds like an interesting proposal. Giving them the ability to modify bills as well as vote them down is a much better deal than just letting them vote it down.

     It might be anathema to certain people, but I think that if this proposal is passed amendments should be required to pass the Council of Governors as well as the Senate. It might be acceptable to me to require a mere majority rather than a supermajority, though.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 31, 2009, 07:31:49 PM
If thats what you want I suggest you look for a different site. I fully intend to argue for nothing less then what I truly beleive here.

Then argue for what you believe in you holier-than-thou arrogant prick. I'll do precisely the same thing, and we'll see where that gets us.

You ask me to compromise what I beleive because "its a game". I am sorry if I am not the moderate hero you thought I was originally. You didn't have to come to my office thread and say " I trully like the way you operate". I am not moderate. I am insane, mentally unstable right wing extremist with a populist tilt who hates Liberals, Socialists, Centrists, hypocrits, and especially modern Europeans with few exceptions. You fit four of those, so things never looked good for us from the start.

You know the irony is, I wasn't intending to be holier then thou. I guess its too late now to clarify that though.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on October 31, 2009, 07:35:27 PM
If thats what you want I suggest you look for a different site. I fully intend to argue for nothing less then what I truly beleive here.

Then argue for what you believe in you holier-than-thou arrogant prick. I'll do precisely the same thing, and we'll see where that gets us.

You ask me to compromise what I beleive because "its a game". I am sorry if I am not the moderate hero you thought I was originally. You didn't have to come to my office thread and say " I trully like the way you operate". I am not moderate. I am insane, mentally unstable right wing extremist with a populist tilt who hates Liberals, Socialists, Centrists, hypocrits, and especially modern Europeans with few exceptions. You fit four of those, so things never looked good for us from the start.

You know the irony is, I wasn't intending to be holier then thou. I guess its too late now to clarify that though.

I suppose I had to learn that through experience, but your own recognition of those facts does suggest that not all hope is lost.



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 31, 2009, 07:39:55 PM
If thats what you want I suggest you look for a different site. I fully intend to argue for nothing less then what I truly beleive here.

Then argue for what you believe in you holier-than-thou arrogant prick. I'll do precisely the same thing, and we'll see where that gets us.

You ask me to compromise what I beleive because "its a game". I am sorry if I am not the moderate hero you thought I was originally. You didn't have to come to my office thread and say " I trully like the way you operate". I am not moderate. I am insane, mentally unstable right wing extremist with a populist tilt who hates Liberals, Socialists, Centrists, hypocrits, and especially modern Europeans with few exceptions. You fit four of those, so things never looked good for us from the start.

You know the irony is, I wasn't intending to be holier then thou. I guess its too late now to clarify that though.

I suppose I had to learn that through experience, but your own recognition of those facts does suggest that not all hope is lost.



There is no such thing as hope. There is only disappointment. I regret a lot of things in life most notably the fact that I am in fact alive. Too say I regret saying that would just add one more thing to list of things I already regret. I didn't ask for Neurosis, I didn't ask for Depression, and I didn't ask for IBS, yet I got everyone of them. I don't see where there is any room for hope anymore. 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 31, 2009, 07:42:30 PM
If thats what you want I suggest you look for a different site. I fully intend to argue for nothing less then what I truly beleive here.

Then argue for what you believe in you holier-than-thou arrogant prick. I'll do precisely the same thing, and we'll see where that gets us.

You ask me to compromise what I beleive because "its a game". I am sorry if I am not the moderate hero you thought I was originally. You didn't have to come to my office thread and say " I trully like the way you operate". I am not moderate. I am insane, mentally unstable right wing extremist with a populist tilt who hates Liberals, Socialists, Centrists, hypocrits, and especially modern Europeans with few exceptions. You fit four of those, so things never looked good for us from the start.

You know the irony is, I wasn't intending to be holier then thou. I guess its too late now to clarify that though.

I suppose I had to learn that through experience, but your own recognition of those facts does suggest that not all hope is lost.



There is no such thing as hope. There is only disappointment. I regret a lot of things in life most notably the fact that I am in fact alive. Too say I regret saying that would just add one more thing to list of things I already regret. I didn't ask for Neurosis, I didn't ask for Depression, and I didn't ask for IBS, yet I got everyone of them. I don't see where there is any room for hope anymore. 

()


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 31, 2009, 07:47:19 PM
If thats what you want I suggest you look for a different site. I fully intend to argue for nothing less then what I truly beleive here.

Then argue for what you believe in you holier-than-thou arrogant prick. I'll do precisely the same thing, and we'll see where that gets us.

You ask me to compromise what I beleive because "its a game". I am sorry if I am not the moderate hero you thought I was originally. You didn't have to come to my office thread and say " I trully like the way you operate". I am not moderate. I am insane, mentally unstable right wing extremist with a populist tilt who hates Liberals, Socialists, Centrists, hypocrits, and especially modern Europeans with few exceptions. You fit four of those, so things never looked good for us from the start.

You know the irony is, I wasn't intending to be holier then thou. I guess its too late now to clarify that though.

I suppose I had to learn that through experience, but your own recognition of those facts does suggest that not all hope is lost.



There is no such thing as hope. There is only disappointment. I regret a lot of things in life most notably the fact that I am in fact alive. Too say I regret saying that would just add one more thing to list of things I already regret. I didn't ask for Neurosis, I didn't ask for Depression, and I didn't ask for IBS, yet I got everyone of them. I don't see where there is any room for hope anymore. 

()

Thats not funny Marokai, not in the slightest. Your attempts to lighten the mood will only piss me off more. If you truly seek to escalate the situation, then I would question as to just what kind of sick f**k you really are.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 31, 2009, 07:48:04 PM
Yankee, just relax. This isn't a big deal to get this upset over. Really.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on October 31, 2009, 07:49:17 PM
What would an appropriate response have been?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on October 31, 2009, 07:54:10 PM
For the record, I don't support a CoG not being able to make amendments. I prefer bicameralism, over a watered down CoG.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 31, 2009, 07:55:10 PM

But this isn't the U.S. Of course there's nothing wrong with influence from American institutions, but equally it's not binding either. Most upper houses do not have the power to introduce legislation - indeed, this is often viewed as a basic constitutional requirement. The U.S Senate is a strange institution that has had very little influence on parliamentary institutions in other countries.

Quote
and that will always be an unnacceptable two faced lie instead of a compromise in my book.


You appear to use words in a different way to the rest of us. I have never seen the word "lie" abused so violently.

Quote
You guys don't want to compromise either.

I do wonder who "You guys" are. Fwiw I've only recently become aware of the idea of a "CoG" and know nothing of how it would work in theory and don't know whether I'd support it or not as I spent the first third or so of the relevant time working on my dissertation, and the second two thirds or so in hospital. You aren't going to win many people over to your point of view if you get so angry and so paranoid that you think that everyone is part of a grand conspiracy against you and what you're pleased to think of as your thinking.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 31, 2009, 07:55:36 PM
What would an appropriate response have been?

Nothing, just let me cool off. You at least had the courtesy to due that.

Yankee, just relax. This isn't a big deal to get this upset over. Really.

I am more pissed at you then I am at Franzl right now and if that was the intent all along, I must say you played me like a harp.

Just for the record I am not suicidal. I am however suffering from those three illnesses mentioned though.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 31, 2009, 08:00:24 PM

But this isn't the U.S. Of course there's nothing wrong with influence from American institutions, but equally it's not binding either. Most upper houses do not have the power to introduce legislation - indeed, this is often viewed as a basic constitutional requirement. The U.S Senate is a strange institution that has had very little influence on parliamentary institutions in other countries.

Quote
and that will always be an unnacceptable two faced lie instead of a compromise in my book.


You appear to use words in a different way to the rest of us. I have never seen the word "lie" abused so violently.

Quote
You guys don't want to compromise either.

I do wonder who "You guys" are. Fwiw I've only recently become aware of the idea of a "CoG" and know nothing of how it would work in theory and don't know whether I'd support it or not as I spent the first third or so of the relevant time working on my dissertation, and the second two thirds or so in hospital. You aren't going to win many people over to your point of view if you get so angry and so paranoid that you think that everyone is part of a grand conspiracy against you and what you're pleased to think of as your thinking.

My whole life is paranoia. Paranoia about where I will be living in a few months, how I will be eating. I am sorry if that keeps coming out here but its just a part of me now.



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on October 31, 2009, 08:01:49 PM
Just for the record I am not suicidal. I am however suffering from those three illnesses mentioned though.

Well, it takes courage to say than we have mental illnesses and I will stand against those who insult and bully people who are suffering of mental illnesses.

My best friend had one and this is very difficult. That is enough complicated to manage, you don't need to be picked on for that, too.

That is a little bit insensible, Marokai.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 31, 2009, 08:04:29 PM
Max, I was just kidding.

Yankee may have some problems that we do or do not know about, but he doesn't need to tell us about how he's deeply paranoid and unstable. That's just not something you randomly say in public, is all.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on October 31, 2009, 08:06:27 PM
Would never fly, cause Marokai, JAs and co already have there "compromise" and everyone who opposes it is an ideologue who refuses to compromise.

Not to let the facts get in your way, again, but I'll happily restate that I disapprove of the CoG proposal.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 31, 2009, 08:18:27 PM
Max, I was just kidding.

Yankee may have some problems that we do or do not know about, but he doesn't need to tell us about how he's deeply paranoid and unstable. That's just not something you randomly say in public, is all.

The reason I said it publically is because I am not a jerk and I would not due and act like this in my normall state, and I would prefer to let you know about this then have you think that I would indeed due and say some of these things.

Just for the record I am not suicidal. I am however suffering from those three illnesses mentioned though.

Well, it takes courage to say than we have mental illnesses and I will stand against those who insult and bully people who are suffering of mental illnesses.

My best friend had one and this is very difficult. That is enough complicated to manage, you don't need to be picked on for that, too.

That is a little bit insensible, Marokai.

What makes it worse, Maxy is that Marokai has known about this since about July or August, just to put it in perspective.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 31, 2009, 08:21:38 PM
Would never fly, cause Marokai, JAs and co already have there "compromise" and everyone who opposes it is an ideologue who refuses to compromise.

Not to let the facts get in your way, again, but I'll happily restate that I disapprove of the CoG proposal.

Your, right, I am sorry for including you there. It was highly unfair and I apoligize. To be honest I would much rather we had just a consideration for having 10 At-large Senate seats and no CoG. At least it would get 70-30 consideration leaning towards against, instead of 100% opposition like the so called "compromise".


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Vepres on October 31, 2009, 09:02:23 PM
Might as well re-post this here:

Here's a reasonable (I think) compromise between Marokai and his folk, and the more pro-regionalist folks such as PiT and NCYankee.

An upper house that would function much as the US Senate functions today in terms of power and procedure. It would be composed of five members, one from each region, who would have a term of a to be determined length. Each region would choose how they are selected/retained. Will they be elected? Appointed by the Governor or legislature? Will they have to be retained by a vote or simply reappointed?

Of course, you could also just have them be elected, whatever the ultimate idea is.

As a citizen and Governor of a region, I would urge the Senators to consider my idea, as I feel it is a good compromise.

Would never fly, cause Marokai, JAs and co already have there "compromise" and everyone who opposes it is an ideologue who refuses to compromise.

Of course, the Senate could be reduced to eight members to compensate for the increased number of positions, but I doubt that would appeal to many people


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 01, 2009, 01:27:16 AM
As the person who first came up with the idea, I hope I can get a word in here lengthwise.

I believe I brought up an idea similar to that of Vepres, in that the regions can choose how their representatives are chosen and the length of their terms. It doesn't really matter to me whether they can introduce legislation; it isn't as though the queue is filled to bursting.

When a bill is sent by the Senate to the Council, the Council would have three options. The first would be to approve it, in which case it would be sent to the President. The second would be to reject it, in which case it would be sent to the Senate, which would need a two-thirds majority to send it to the President. The third would be to approve it with modifications, in which case the Senate would take a vote on whether to send it to the President in its original form, which would require a two-thirds majority. If this failed, the Senate could send the edited bill to the President with a simple majority. If the Council were to take none of the described actions within seven days, this would be considered approval.

Just some thoughts.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on November 01, 2009, 01:30:07 AM
As the person who first came up with the idea, I hope I can get a word in here lengthwise.

I believe I brought up an idea similar to that of Vepres, in that the regions can choose how their representatives are chosen and the length of their terms. It doesn't really matter to me whether they can introduce legislation; it isn't as though the queue is filled to bursting.

When a bill is sent by the Senate to the Council, the Council would have three options. The first would be to approve it, in which case it would be sent to the President. The second would be to reject it, in which case it would be sent to the Senate, which would need a two-thirds majority to send it to the President. The third would be to approve it with modifications, in which case the Senate would take a vote on whether to send it to the President in its original form, which would require a two-thirds majority. If this failed, the Senate could send the edited bill to the President with a simple majority. If the Council were to take none of the described actions within seven days, this would be considered approval.

Just some thoughts.

The only question is what if the President vetoes it? Or line-item vetoes it? Can get confusing at that point and those scenarios would need to be hashed out in the Constitution.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 01, 2009, 01:34:29 AM
As the person who first came up with the idea, I hope I can get a word in here lengthwise.

I believe I brought up an idea similar to that of Vepres, in that the regions can choose how their representatives are chosen and the length of their terms. It doesn't really matter to me whether they can introduce legislation; it isn't as though the queue is filled to bursting.

When a bill is sent by the Senate to the Council, the Council would have three options. The first would be to approve it, in which case it would be sent to the President. The second would be to reject it, in which case it would be sent to the Senate, which would need a two-thirds majority to send it to the President. The third would be to approve it with modifications, in which case the Senate would take a vote on whether to send it to the President in its original form, which would require a two-thirds majority. If this failed, the Senate could send the edited bill to the President with a simple majority. If the Council were to take none of the described actions within seven days, this would be considered approval.

Just some thoughts.

The only question is what if the President vetoes it? Or line-item vetoes it? Can get confusing at that point and those scenarios would need to be hashed out in the Constitution.

A veto would be handled in the same way it's handled today.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on November 01, 2009, 01:38:13 AM
As the person who first came up with the idea, I hope I can get a word in here lengthwise.

I believe I brought up an idea similar to that of Vepres, in that the regions can choose how their representatives are chosen and the length of their terms. It doesn't really matter to me whether they can introduce legislation; it isn't as though the queue is filled to bursting.

When a bill is sent by the Senate to the Council, the Council would have three options. The first would be to approve it, in which case it would be sent to the President. The second would be to reject it, in which case it would be sent to the Senate, which would need a two-thirds majority to send it to the President. The third would be to approve it with modifications, in which case the Senate would take a vote on whether to send it to the President in its original form, which would require a two-thirds majority. If this failed, the Senate could send the edited bill to the President with a simple majority. If the Council were to take none of the described actions within seven days, this would be considered approval.

Just some thoughts.

The only question is what if the President vetoes it? Or line-item vetoes it? Can get confusing at that point and those scenarios would need to be hashed out in the Constitution.

A veto would be handled in the same way it's handled today.

And a line-item veto? Say the CoG amends something and the Senate sends it to the President because it can't overturn it by two-thirds but still wants some sort of bill. Then the President amends it back and sends it back to the Senate for their approval. Kinda cutting the CoG out there.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on November 01, 2009, 01:42:59 AM
As the person who first came up with the idea, I hope I can get a word in here lengthwise.

I believe I brought up an idea similar to that of Vepres, in that the regions can choose how their representatives are chosen and the length of their terms. It doesn't really matter to me whether they can introduce legislation; it isn't as though the queue is filled to bursting.

When a bill is sent by the Senate to the Council, the Council would have three options. The first would be to approve it, in which case it would be sent to the President. The second would be to reject it, in which case it would be sent to the Senate, which would need a two-thirds majority to send it to the President. The third would be to approve it with modifications, in which case the Senate would take a vote on whether to send it to the President in its original form, which would require a two-thirds majority. If this failed, the Senate could send the edited bill to the President with a simple majority. If the Council were to take none of the described actions within seven days, this would be considered approval.

Just some thoughts.

The only question is what if the President vetoes it? Or line-item vetoes it? Can get confusing at that point and those scenarios would need to be hashed out in the Constitution.

A veto would be handled in the same way it's handled today.

And a line-item veto? Say the CoG amends something and the Senate sends it to the President because it can't overturn it by two-thirds but still wants some sort of bill. Then the President amends it back and sends it back to the Senate for their approval. Kinda cutting the CoG out there.

     Maybe after the Senate votes to approve the edited version, it should be sent back to the CoG, with the option of then sending it back to the President or vetoing it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Vepres on November 01, 2009, 08:41:15 PM
Or, 2/3 vote in the Senate and 3/5 vote in the council of a "to be determined office".


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Vepres on November 01, 2009, 08:44:36 PM
Or, 2/3 vote in the Senate and 3/5 vote in the council of a "to be determined office" to overturn the veto, or a simple majority in both to pass the President's version.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Vepres on November 10, 2009, 07:25:56 PM
Capital Punishment Abolition Amendment:

The death penalty may not be given for any crime throughout Atlasia, whether federal or regional.



Yes yes, I know it failed a while ago....but I'm not giving up :)

The southerners are going to hide in you closet and kill you in your sleep.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 10, 2009, 07:36:14 PM
Its a freakin all out assualt on Regional Rights. If the DS wants to preserve the Death penalty that is none of anyone elses businesses. We refused to be governed by the Mideast laws, Franzl. How would you like it if we foisted ours on you? You want war, then war you shall get.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on November 10, 2009, 07:37:23 PM
Its a freakin all out assualt on Regional Rights. If the DS wants to preserve the Death penalty that is none of anyone elses businesses. We refused to be governed by the Mideast laws, Franzl. How would you like it if we foisted ours on you? You want war, then war you shall get.

This.

Just another attempt to usurp individual and regional sovereignty.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 10, 2009, 09:01:23 PM
Its a freakin all out assualt on Regional Rights. If the DS wants to preserve the Death penalty that is none of anyone elses businesses. We refused to be governed by the Mideast laws, Franzl. How would you like it if we foisted ours on you? You want war, then war you shall get.

If he considers the death penalty wrong, wouldn't it be wrong everywhere?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on November 11, 2009, 02:10:05 AM
When it comes to the protection of human life, I don't give a damn about regional rights.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on November 11, 2009, 02:12:35 AM
When it comes to the protection of human life, I don't give a damn about regional rights.

You voted to table the Right to Life bill. Is that not a human life?

Depends who you ask.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on November 11, 2009, 02:14:53 AM
When it comes to the protection of human life, I don't give a damn about regional rights.

You voted to table the Right to Life bill. Is that not a human life?

Personally, I don't think the two are comparable, but I do understand alternative points of view. I was pro-life in the past.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on November 11, 2009, 02:58:07 AM
On the other hand, I do respect that you are sticking up for your principles regardless of its chance at success/popularity. That is commendable, and something the ARC likes to see from Senators.

Appreciated ;)

It does seem, though, that the ARC might even be sympathetic to my proposal here. After all, regardless of whether you believe a fetus constitutes human life, the issue here is capital punishment.

Considering the primary goal of the ARC is to reduce the power of the state and fight for freedom from the state, couldn't it be possible that the party comes to realize that capital punishment, a state monopoly on murder, is unacceptable?

Just a thought!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on November 11, 2009, 03:16:16 AM
Its a freakin all out assualt on Regional Rights. If the DS wants to preserve the Death penalty that is none of anyone elses businesses. We refused to be governed by the Mideast laws, Franzl. How would you like it if we foisted ours on you? You want war, then war you shall get.

If you want to stay in the 19th century, you are free to do so, but be ready to face the consequences...


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 11, 2009, 05:10:30 PM
Anti Speculation Act:

1.) On all stock market transactions will be charged a tax of 1% of the volume.

1.1) This tax is not applicable when between buying and selling is more than a year.

2.) For all foreign exchange transactions gives it generally a tax of 0.25% of the volume.

3.) All revenues flow to a Deposit insurance to protect bank depositors for banks which are in payment trouble. If a bank must take to claim this Deposit insurance, she goes on to state ownership.

This law will make short-term speculative transactions unprofitable and the money for the troubled banks comes from those who are to blame.



This is my first proposal and I think it's a bill we really need.

I agree. Tell me though, would this expand the FDIC to cover Investment banks. Currently they only insure bank deposits. I also don't much care for the idea of Investment banks thinking they can take risks and just get bailed out everytime.

I am currently working on broader regulatory reforms. I would appreciated any ideas or input you may have.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on November 11, 2009, 05:28:36 PM
On the other hand, I do respect that you are sticking up for your principles regardless of its chance at success/popularity. That is commendable, and something the ARC likes to see from Senators.

Appreciated ;)

It does seem, though, that the ARC might even be sympathetic to my proposal here. After all, regardless of whether you believe a fetus constitutes human life, the issue here is capital punishment.

Considering the primary goal of the ARC is to reduce the power of the state and fight for freedom from the state, couldn't it be possible that the party comes to realize that capital punishment, a state monopoly on murder, is unacceptable?

Just a thought!

     While I am not a member of the ARC, I will point out that murder is murder. It is my firm belief that a crime being committed by the state is never justified any more than a crime being committed by an individual actor is.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bacon King on November 14, 2009, 03:54:00 PM
Repeal of Privacy Protection Act:

FL 31-18 is hereby repealed.

Just a note here, Franzl- this would have gone onto the Senate floor anyway, even without Tmthforu94's sponsorship. The anti-clogging language in Senate bylaws only prevents a person from having too many bills on the floor if there are other bills waiting behind them. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on November 14, 2009, 03:57:26 PM
Repeal of Privacy Protection Act:

FL 31-18 is hereby repealed.

Just a note here, Franzl- this would have gone onto the Senate floor anyway, even without Tmthforu94's sponsorship. The anti-clogging language in Senate bylaws only prevents a person from having too many bills on the floor if there are other bills waiting behind them. :)

Oh didn't know that...thanks :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HappyWarrior on November 14, 2009, 07:28:23 PM
Repeal of Privacy Protection Act:

FL 31-18 is hereby repealed.

Just a note here, Franzl- this would have gone onto the Senate floor anyway, even without Tmthforu94's sponsorship. The anti-clogging language in Senate bylaws only prevents a person from having too many bills on the floor if there are other bills waiting behind them. :)

Why are you guys repealing this perfectly good law?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on November 14, 2009, 07:30:29 PM
Repeal of Privacy Protection Act:

FL 31-18 is hereby repealed.

Just a note here, Franzl- this would have gone onto the Senate floor anyway, even without Tmthforu94's sponsorship. The anti-clogging language in Senate bylaws only prevents a person from having too many bills on the floor if there are other bills waiting behind them. :)

Why are you guys repealing this perfectly good law?

We're probably not, but I still think are some major issues with the way it can be abused.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Badger on November 20, 2009, 01:37:50 PM
I'm currently undecided about the Protection of Democracy Act, but nevertheless can spot two highly suggested changes:

1) The required minimum number of posts should include posts made in the Fantasy Government board as well as in Fantasy Elections.

2) Section 1 of the bill should be deleted. It's just far too easy for someone who isn't a zombie voter to be tied up with work, school, family, vacation or other real life matters for 5 days and miss that window. Yes, the law allows an official notice of absence, but:

a) It's too likely that a brand new voter--again, even a non-zombie--may not be aware of the requirement or understandably forget to do so in an emergency or busy stressful week. There's simply too much chance of catching innocent non-zombie voters who got busy a week after registering and doesn't discover it until their first vote in a fantasy election is disqualified. Welcome to Altasia....

b) Section 2 of the bill requiring at least 5 posts within a month of registering more than adequately meets the goal of cleaning the voting rolls of inactive zombies, but without nearly the same risk to innocent newbies that Section 1 poses.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 01, 2009, 10:06:57 PM
Marokai's new proposal is interesting.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 04, 2009, 09:05:19 PM
Can a Senator please sponsor the following bill?:

Government Workers Finally Put Their Money Where Their Mouth Is Bill
Realizing that our rising budget deficit can not be left unattended indefinitely, the fundamental unfairness of our punitively high income tax rates and unconscionable limits on private sector compensation, and that we must make efforts for our politicians to become less hypocritical, as 100% of government workers' salaries are funded by the Atlasian citizenry, the Senate hereby authorizes the following comprehensive changes to our income tax system and laws:

1.  The taxable income of Senators, the President, Vice President and other elected or appointed officials of the legislative and executive branches of the Atlasian federal government ("Atlasian Government Officials") shall be taxed at the highest marginal rate provided for under Atlasian federal law, without regard to the taxable income of such Atlasian Government Official in any taxable year.  

2.  No Atlasian Government Official shall be entitled to take any credit, deduction or other allowance against that Atlasian Government Official's income if any other Atlasian citizen is not entitled to or phased out from taking such credit, deduction or allowance due to that citizen's income.

3.  No Atlasian Government Official or other Atlasian federal government employee may receive any bonus or other non-periodical compensation of any type at any time during which the Atlasian federal government restricts or otherwise limits the ability of any Atlasian company to compensate its employees in any manner whatsoever.

4(a) The Atlasian federal government shall create a "Tax Me More Fund".  Any Atlasian citizen who believes that Atlasian federal taxes are too low for any other Atlasian citizen may contribute the amount by which that citizen believes such taxes are too low into the Tax Me More Fund.  No tax deduction, credit or other allowance may be taken by any citizen for any contribution to the Tax Me More Fund.
(b) The President Pro-Tempore of the Senate shall keep and publish a "hypocrites list" of Senators who vote in favor of any increase in Atlasian federal taxes but does not contribute to the Tax Me More Fund.  The hypocrites list shall be maintained in a post on the Atlasian Federal Government board.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 04, 2009, 09:06:32 PM
Can a Senator please sponsor the following bill?:

Government Workers Finally Put Their Money Where Their Mouth Is Bill
Realizing that our rising budget deficit can not be left unattended indefinitely, the fundamental unfairness of our punitively high income tax rates and unconscionable limits on private sector compensation, and that we must make efforts for our politicians to become less hypocritical, as 100% of government workers' salaries are funded by the Atlasian citizenry, the Senate hereby authorizes the following comprehensive changes to our income tax system and laws:

1.  The taxable income of Senators, the President, Vice President and other elected or appointed officials of the legislative and executive branches of the Atlasian federal government ("Atlasian Government Officials") shall be taxed at the highest marginal rate provided for under Atlasian federal law, without regard to the taxable income of such Atlasian Government Official in any taxable year.  

2.  No Atlasian Government Official shall be entitled to take any credit, deduction or other allowance against that Atlasian Government Official's income if any other Atlasian citizen is not entitled to or phased out from taking such credit, deduction or allowance due to that citizen's income.

3.  No Atlasian Government Official or other Atlasian federal government employee may receive any bonus or other non-periodical compensation of any type at any time during which the Atlasian federal government restricts or otherwise limits the ability of any Atlasian company to compensate its employees in any manner whatsoever.

4(a) The Atlasian federal government shall create a "Tax Me More Fund".  Any Atlasian citizen who believes that Atlasian federal income taxes are too low for any other Atlasian citizen may contribute the amount by which that citizen believes such taxes are too low into the Tax Me Fund.  No tax deduction, credit or other allowance may be taken by any citizen who contributes to the Tax Me More Fund.
(b) The President Pro Tempore of the Senate shall keep and publish a "hypocrites list" of Senators who vote in favor of any increase in Atlasian federal taxes but does not contribute to the Tax Me More Fund.  The hypocrites list shall be maintained in a post on the Atlasian Federal Government board.

<3 cinyc


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 04, 2009, 09:12:27 PM
Stupidity over serious policy.

And if any Senator introduces it, I'll be striking it from the que unless my actions are overridden. Just saying.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 04, 2009, 09:13:11 PM
Future Senator Mint will gladly sponsor it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 04, 2009, 09:13:25 PM
This also runs into fourth wall issues.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 04, 2009, 09:13:41 PM
Future Senator Mint will gladly sponsor it.

Good luck with that. Enjoy the inevitable veto threat.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on December 04, 2009, 09:14:28 PM
Stupidity over serious policy.

And if any Senator introduces it, I'll be striking it from the que unless my actions are overridden. Just saying.

Playing politics as PPT is what's stupidity. I could have stricken crap I thought useless as PPT but I didn't because it's not the right thing to do unless it's spam which this obviously isn't.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: cinyc on December 04, 2009, 09:15:20 PM
Stupidity over serious policy.

And if any Senator introduces it, I'll be striking it from the que unless my actions are overridden. Just saying.

Oh, it's a serious policy - Senators should do unto themselves what they do to others.  Otherwise, they'll never feel the effects of what they do.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 04, 2009, 09:20:13 PM
Let it through. It's not as if there's a chance in hell of it passing. It's not like there's a queue that it would impede.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 04, 2009, 09:21:35 PM
Let it through. It's not as if there's a chance in hell of it passing. It's not like there's a queue that it would impede.

I suppose it would be amusing to actually let cinyc attempt to defend the idea. Go ahead, someone sponsor it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 04, 2009, 09:23:06 PM
Let it through. It's not as if there's a chance in hell of it passing. It's not like there's a queue that it would impede.

I suppose it would be amusing to actually let cinyc attempt to defend the idea. Go ahead, someone sponsor it.

Why do you need to tell anyone to sponsor it? Too lazy to even do THAT yourself?

Why would I sponsor a bill I don't support? I've no desire to be a legislation dispenser.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 04, 2009, 09:23:50 PM
Let it through. It's not as if there's a chance in hell of it passing. It's not like there's a queue that it would impede.

I suppose it would be amusing to actually let cinyc attempt to defend the idea. Go ahead, someone sponsor it.

Why do you need to tell anyone to sponsor it? Too lazy to even do THAT yourself?

Why would I sponsor a bill I don't support? I've no desire to be a legislation dispenser.

Franzl did it recently, I believe. And tmth did it on behalf of Franzl as well.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 04, 2009, 09:24:35 PM
Let it through. It's not as if there's a chance in hell of it passing. It's not like there's a queue that it would impede.

I suppose it would be amusing to actually let cinyc attempt to defend the idea. Go ahead, someone sponsor it.

Why do you need to tell anyone to sponsor it? Too lazy to even do THAT yourself?

Why would I sponsor a bill I don't support? I've no desire to be a legislation dispenser.

Franzl did it recently.

And I'm not Franzl.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MasterJedi on December 04, 2009, 09:25:32 PM
Stupidity over serious policy.

And if any Senator introduces it, I'll be striking it from the que unless my actions are overridden. Just saying.

Playing politics as PPT is what's stupidity. I could have stricken crap I thought useless as PPT but I didn't because it's not the right thing to do unless it's spam which this obviously isn't.

I strike something when I find it to be ludicrous and not at all meant to be taken seriously. I did it once before with a left-wing Senator, so I'm not playing politics here. This is stupid, everyone knows it would never pass and no one actually considers this a serious proposal unless they're trolls. No one who complained about taxes (except Vepres) actually popped in with their complaints, but now people like cinyc are prancing around with this nonsense. Spare me, MJ.

Oh, and don't talk to me about conduct as an official.

My policy was to let anything threw unless it was spam and it worked just fine and no one complained. Who cares if it won't pass, it can still be debated and something could come from that. You as PPT are not supposed to stop that.

And I'll speak my peace whenever I want and I'll talk about conduct. It's not like I care what people think. If you don't like it? Oh boy, it's the internent, if people hate me they're so tough!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 04, 2009, 09:27:51 PM
Stupidity over serious policy.

And if any Senator introduces it, I'll be striking it from the que unless my actions are overridden. Just saying.

Playing politics as PPT is what's stupidity. I could have stricken crap I thought useless as PPT but I didn't because it's not the right thing to do unless it's spam which this obviously isn't.

I strike something when I find it to be ludicrous and not at all meant to be taken seriously. I did it once before with a left-wing Senator, so I'm not playing politics here. This is stupid, everyone knows it would never pass and no one actually considers this a serious proposal unless they're trolls. No one who complained about taxes (except Vepres) actually popped in with their complaints, but now people like cinyc are prancing around with this nonsense. Spare me, MJ.

Oh, and don't talk to me about conduct as an official.

My policy was to let anything threw unless it was spam and it worked just fine and no one complained. Who cares if it won't pass, it can still be debated and something could come from that. You as PPT are not supposed to stop that.

And I'll speak my peace whenever I want and I'll talk about conduct. It's not like I care what people think. If you don't like it? Oh boy, it's the internent, if people hate me they're so tough!

I, as PPT, have the power to strike amendments or legislation if they are frivolous or otherwise nonsensical. This is the grand total of the second time I've ever threatened to invoke such a power, so take a chill pill.

And you can speak all you want about it, but you're not a damn bit credible on the subject. You went MIA as PPT, then reappeared to turn into a fanatical moderator deleting whatever posts you didn't like. Your words would matter to me if you practiced what you preached.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 04, 2009, 09:28:22 PM
That's two more times than you ought to have used it. ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Vepres on December 04, 2009, 09:42:15 PM
I think Saudi Arabia should receive tighter restrictions due to their human rights abuses.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 04, 2009, 10:33:08 PM
Government Workers Finally Put Their Money Where Their Mouth Is Bill
Realizing that our rising budget deficit can not be left unattended indefinitely, the fundamental unfairness of our punitively high income tax rates and unconscionable limits on private sector compensation, and that we must make efforts for our politicians to become less hypocritical, as 100% of government workers' salaries are funded by the Atlasian citizenry, the Senate hereby authorizes the following comprehensive changes to our income tax system and laws:

1.  The taxable income of Senators, the President, Vice President and other elected or appointed officials of the legislative and executive branches of the Atlasian federal government ("Atlasian Government Officials") shall be taxed at the highest marginal rate provided for under Atlasian federal law, without regard to the taxable income of such Atlasian Government Official in any taxable year. 

2.  No Atlasian Government Official shall be entitled to take any credit, deduction or other allowance against that Atlasian Government Official's income if any other Atlasian citizen is not entitled to or phased out from taking such credit, deduction or allowance due to that citizen's income.

3.  No Atlasian Government Official or other Atlasian federal government employee may receive any bonus or other non-periodical compensation of any type at any time during which the Atlasian federal government restricts or otherwise limits the ability of any Atlasian company to compensate its employees in any manner whatsoever.

4(a) The Atlasian federal government shall create a "Tax Me More Fund".  Any Atlasian citizen who believes that Atlasian federal taxes are too low for any other Atlasian citizen may contribute the amount by which that citizen believes such taxes are too low into the Tax Me More Fund.  No tax deduction, credit or other allowance may be taken by any citizen who contributes to the Tax Me More Fund.
(b) The President Pro-Tempore of the Senate shall keep and publish a "hypocrites list" of Senators who vote in favor of any increase in Atlasian federal taxes but does not contribute to the Tax Me More Fund.  The hypocrites list shall be maintained in a post on the Atlasian Federal Government board.

In accordance to Article 3, Section 1, Clause 7 of the Senate rules I declare this legislation by RowanBrandon withdrawn due to his resignation.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HappyWarrior on December 04, 2009, 10:39:30 PM
I think Saudi Arabia should receive tighter restrictions due to their human rights abuses.

But can you imagine how terribly this would affect the Atlasian economy?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 04, 2009, 11:24:51 PM
Diplomatic recognition ought to be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia (among other places).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 04, 2009, 11:27:39 PM
I think Saudi Arabia should receive tighter restrictions due to their human rights abuses.

But can you imagine how terribly this would affect the Atlasian economy?

I'm remembering this.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HappyWarrior on December 04, 2009, 11:41:08 PM
Diplomatic recognition ought to be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia (among other places).

Trust me if we could withdraw diplomatic recognition from alot of nations like that I would, but sadly it'd just wreck industry and economy.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on December 07, 2009, 01:46:01 AM
Fusion Voting Act

1. Any declared candidate for any office in the Republic of Atlasia may opt to appear on the ballot for all major parties offering the candidate an official endorsement.
2. Official endorsements by parties must be certified by the chairman of the party giving the endorsement.
3. The SoFA must be notified of the endorsement at least 5 days in advance by the declared candidate receiving a cross-endorsement.

I hope that a Senator will consider introducing this, or something similar to this.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 07, 2009, 01:55:36 AM
This would be nice.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Hash on December 07, 2009, 08:03:46 AM
I just introduced it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Badger on December 10, 2009, 01:09:55 AM
Stupidity over serious policy.

And if any Senator introduces it, I'll be striking it from the que unless my actions are overridden. Just saying.

Oh, it's a serious policy - Senators should do unto themselves what they do to others.  Otherwise, they'll never feel the effects of what they do.

You mean like decrying the horrors of government provided health insurance yet accepting health insurance from the government as part of their compensation package?

I'm proud to say my governor, Ted Strickland, refused to accept the government health insurance package provided members of congress unless universal coverage was provided, buying health insurance seperately out of his own pocket. Wouldn't it be great to see Congress forced to decide between expanding their plan nationally or getting rid of it?

The difference between this scenario and yours, Cincy, is that everytime Congress votes to raise upper income taxes, they pay taxes the same as anyone else struggling by on around $170k a year, but when congress votes to deny universal health care (or VA funding, or mental health care, or uextended unemployment compensation, etc) they keep their benefits and perks while other people get screwed.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 11, 2009, 04:02:21 PM
It would be nice if a Senator could introduce some legislation clearing up the situation over notice of election. Apparently the current legislation and the constitution are not cousins.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on December 19, 2009, 09:37:45 PM
Can a Senator please present the following piece of legislation...

Top Secret Classification Bill

§1. The Game Moderator shall have the power to label select documents as "Top Secret" for the purpose of dissemination of matters vital to national security or economic imperative.

§2. Matters deemed as "Top Secret" must labeled clearly at the top of the message.

§3. Matters deemed as "Top Secret" may only be revealed, whether in full form or in summary, to the President, Vice President, Cabinet and Senate. Such matters may also be revealed to the Justices of the Supreme Court and to trial juries only where necessary for the prosecution of cases outlined by this Act.

§4. It shall be punishable under Atlasian Law for any person entrusted with material labeled "Top Secret" to reveal that information to an individual not mentioned in §3.
    a. This crime shall be tried as though it were a crime under the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act.
    b. Use of "Top Secret" material as evidence in such cases shall be revealed and discussed in private among the presiding Justice, Counsel and the jury, where applicable.
    c. Sentencing of the crime shall be by the presiding Justice; He may sentence the guilty party for up to, but not exceeding, a 2 month ban from voting and a 6 month ban from holding any office under the Republic of Atlasia.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 20, 2009, 01:26:00 AM
Is this necessary?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on December 20, 2009, 09:42:28 AM

I would appreciate if there were a purpose to Top Secret memos, so yes.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on January 02, 2010, 05:35:40 PM
President of the Senate Bill

1. The office of President Pro Tempore of the Senate is hereby abolished.  The Vice-President, as President of the Senate, will perform the duties previously performed by the President Pro Tempore.

2. In the event of a vacancy in the office of Vice-President, the Dean of the Senate shall serve as President of the Senate.
The PPT office is a constitutional office - there will need to be an amendment.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Badger on January 02, 2010, 07:52:26 PM
President of the Senate Bill

1. The office of President Pro Tempore of the Senate is hereby abolished.  The Vice-President, as President of the Senate, will perform the duties previously performed by the President Pro Tempore.

2. In the event of a vacancy in the office of Vice-President, the Dean of the Senate shall serve as President of the Senate.
The PPT office is a constitutional office - there will need to be an amendment.

True, but it's a worthwhile change deserving amendment.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fritz on January 02, 2010, 10:19:00 PM
President of the Senate Bill

1. The office of President Pro Tempore of the Senate is hereby abolished.  The Vice-President, as President of the Senate, will perform the duties previously performed by the President Pro Tempore.

2. In the event of a vacancy in the office of Vice-President, the Dean of the Senate shall serve as President of the Senate.
The PPT office is a constitutional office - there will need to be an amendment.

Thank you for clarifying that for me, Peter, I was unsure.  I have edited my post to indicate that it is an Amendment, not a bill.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fritz on January 04, 2010, 03:18:36 AM
Okay, I changed everything.  Rather than abolishing the PPT, my bill puts the offices back in their proper and constitutional order.  The Vice-President truly is President of the Senate, and the PPT only presides if the VP is absent, or if the VP says so.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on January 04, 2010, 05:05:03 PM
Its better but I must ask whats the difference in having the PPT step in when the Veep is innactive then having the Veep step in when the PPT is innactive?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Rowan on January 05, 2010, 10:46:33 AM
How about a ban on office-holding of those on the TrollList?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Vepres on January 05, 2010, 11:30:07 AM
Its better but I must ask whats the difference in having the PPT step in when the Veep is innactive then having the Veep step in when the PPT is innactive?

It would give the PPT more time to debate. MJ rarely debated back when he was PPT after all.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on January 05, 2010, 05:28:26 PM
Its better but I must ask whats the difference in having the PPT step in when the Veep is innactive then having the Veep step in when the PPT is innactive?

It would give the PPT more time to debate. MJ rarely debated back when he was PPT after all.

I am not MJ. I don't beleive Marokai refrained from debating contentious topics when he was PPT and I plan to continue to debate topics just as much as I previously did. The PPT stuff is easy, especially with the Senate as active as it is now. I don't see how any PPT wouldn't "have the time" to debate. ::)


If MJ refrained from debate it was because he felt obligated to do so as part of his position. I feel that is unnecessary but respectable overkill. As long as the PPT can separate his duties from PPT from the debate which I can and will, this won't be an issue.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on January 05, 2010, 06:44:36 PM
How about a ban on office-holding of those on the TrollList?

No.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Rowan on January 05, 2010, 06:46:05 PM

Oh it's cause your buddies are on there, I get it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Vepres on January 05, 2010, 07:18:34 PM
Its better but I must ask whats the difference in having the PPT step in when the Veep is innactive then having the Veep step in when the PPT is innactive?

It would give the PPT more time to debate. MJ rarely debated back when he was PPT after all.

I am not MJ. I don't beleive Marokai refrained from debating contentious topics when he was PPT and I plan to continue to debate topics just as much as I previously did. The PPT stuff is easy, especially with the Senate as active as it is now. I don't see how any PPT wouldn't "have the time" to debate. ::)


If MJ refrained from debate it was because he felt obligated to do so as part of his position. I feel that is unnecessary but respectable overkill. As long as the PPT can separate his duties from PPT from the debate which I can and will, this won't be an issue.


Well, he's the only PPT I've seen last more than a month or two :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Vepres on January 12, 2010, 09:51:02 PM
Hey! Where's the controversial, ideological legislation?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on January 12, 2010, 10:02:20 PM
Hey! Where's the controversial, ideological legislation?

Would you be willing to help me look for it, I have been searching high low for it since New Years?

I should file a missing person's report. ;)



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fritz on January 17, 2010, 11:53:03 PM
I think the Senate might want to consider an expulsion motion against Mint, if he doesn't start doing some Senator-ing.  I mean, we can give him a little more time, but so far this has been his one and only contribution to the Senate:



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Mint on January 18, 2010, 12:00:25 AM
lol


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fritz on January 18, 2010, 12:03:52 AM
Well, it appears I got your attention.  :)  There are a few more bills being voted on......


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Mint on January 18, 2010, 12:06:33 AM
Don't wake sleeping dogs. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on January 18, 2010, 01:03:05 AM
Before someone threathen to expell me, I am writing a bill. Well, nothing is written yet, but I expect to present it tomorrow.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Vepres on January 25, 2010, 04:53:00 PM
I just had an idea to improve the job of the SoIA. Why not give him power over the monetary policy, much like the federal reserve in real life?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on January 25, 2010, 04:55:20 PM
I just had an idea to improve the job of the SoIA. Why not give him power over the monetary policy, much like the federal reserve in real life?

I'm a little fearful of actually letting such a complicated job be held by children, to be honest. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Vepres on January 25, 2010, 05:01:02 PM
I just had an idea to improve the job of the SoIA. Why not give him power over the monetary policy, much like the federal reserve in real life?

I'm a little fearful of actually letting such a complicated job be held by children, to be honest. :P

It was your buddy Lief who nominated the (very smart) kid :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Vepres on February 16, 2010, 05:56:26 PM
Senators, if you haven't already, please read this thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=111047.0 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=111047.0)

If action is not taken, some voters will be disenfranchised by legal issues.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on February 18, 2010, 05:08:32 AM
Capital Punishment Abolition Amendment:

The death penalty may not be given for any crime throughout Atlasia, whether federal or regional.

I wish you better luck than I had (twice...).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HappyWarrior on February 18, 2010, 07:29:46 AM
I would like to say that I believe Senator Mint's final submittied bill will damage our military readiness as well as our international prestige.  If anything we need to increase foreign aid.  That is all from the office of the SOEA.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on February 18, 2010, 10:47:10 AM
Would a senator please introduce the following legislation on behalf of the Department of Forum Affairs?

Amendment to the Absentee Voting Act:

F.L. 32-8: The Absentee Voting Act

Section 1: Absentee Voting
As mandated by Article V, Section 2, Clause 8 of the Federal Constitution, all voters shall have the right to cast absentee votes after the candidacy declaration period has expired starting one week before the earliest possible begin of the election.
Upon the candidacy declaration deadline occurring At that point, the Secretary of Forum Affairs or Deputy Secretary of Forum Affairs shall publically post that absentee voting application has opened. In the event of runoff elections, once the need for a runoff election is known, the Secretary or Deputy Secretary shall publically post that absentee voting application has opened.
Voters wishing to apply for an absentee vote shall notify this publically in a manner specified by the Secretary of Forum Affairs.
The Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Forum Affairs shall then grant the request to absentee vote publically, at which point the voter may proceed to vote in the Absentee Voting Booth.
Absentee Voters shall post their votes in the same format as if it were a regular ballot, and they shall be subject to the same rules and regulations as regular ballots.

Section 2: Disqualification from Absentee Voting
Should an Absentee Voter post more than 5 times anywhere on the Atlas Forum in the regular election period, their absentee vote shall be nullified and treated as non extant.
Any person who has their absentee vote nullified may vote again by regular ballot.
Any person who votes by regular ballot after voting by absentee ballot, shall have their absentee ballot treated as non-extant.
Persons who attempt to vote in the Absentee thread without prior notification of the Department of Forum Affairs shall have that vote treated as non-extant.

Section 3: Repeals
Section 6 of the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act and Clause 1 of the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act (Amendment) Act are repealed.




Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on February 22, 2010, 12:54:03 AM
I would like to say that I believe Senator Mint's final submittied bill will damage our military readiness as well as our international prestige.  If anything we need to increase foreign aid.  That is all from the office of the SOEA.

On a sorta, kinda similar note, maybe we should bring back the budget before we go slashing it. ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on February 25, 2010, 04:16:25 PM
The Trolls Can't Vote Act.

Any person banned from posting on the forum by the moderators or Dave Leip is prohibited from voting, being listed on a candidate on a ballot in any election, or serving in any Atlasian office during the term of said banning. Any write-in votes cast for a banned individual are not to be counted.

I see one problem with this....you need to find a way around the use of "person". From my perspective at the DoFA, any new voter with a different forum name is a new person, even if that's not a sensible position in practice.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on February 26, 2010, 11:30:35 PM
The Trolls Can't Vote Act.

Any person banned from posting on the forum by the moderators or Dave Leip is prohibited from voting, being listed on a candidate on a ballot in any election, or serving in any Atlasian office during the term of said banning. Any write-in votes cast for a banned individual are not to be counted.

I see one problem with this....you need to find a way around the use of "person". From my perspective at the DoFA, any new voter with a different forum name is a new person, even if that's not a sensible position in practice.

     It also happens to be the position that has been assumed by the Supreme Court of Atlasia, though that has always been one of the Court's more controversial rulings.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Hash on March 06, 2010, 12:35:49 PM
I would appreciate if a confirmation vote on my nomination as SoEA could be held soon :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Barnes on March 06, 2010, 01:13:10 PM
I would appreciate if a confirmation vote on my nomination as SoEA could be held soon :)

Same goes for me as AG. :)

Especially because of the current court cases that we have going on. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on March 14, 2010, 10:49:28 AM
Daylight Savings Time Abolition Act

1. The Republic of Atlasia shall no longer recognize Daylight Savings Time.
2. Clocks will not be set back or forward for any reason.

This could make life for the SoFA and all voters very confusing.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on March 14, 2010, 11:24:07 AM
Daylight Savings Time Abolition Act

1. The Republic of Atlasia shall no longer recognize Daylight Savings Time.
2. Clocks will not be set back or forward for any reason.

This could make life for the SoFA and all voters very confusing.
Though I hate Daylight Savings time to the fullest extent, this bill would massively throw me off. And if we ever have an SoFA that's on Daylight Savings time, it will throw him/her off too.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on March 14, 2010, 12:03:10 PM
It would be in country, not in game.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on March 14, 2010, 08:11:57 PM

Probably better to word it as a resolution against daylight savings time, rather than as a law abolishing it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on March 15, 2010, 05:24:38 AM

Probably better to word it as a resolution against daylight savings time, rather than as a law abolishing it.

Ah. How would you word it then?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on March 15, 2010, 05:00:27 PM

Probably better to word it as a resolution against daylight savings time, rather than as a law abolishing it.

Ah. How would you word it then?

Whereas, [insert why you hate DST]; and

Whereas, [insert more reasons];

Be it therefore resolved, that the Senate expresses its opposition to the original creation of DST.

Something like that.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on March 15, 2010, 07:36:45 PM
Somebody introduce this:

Disunity Act

If a Presidential candidate is a member of a party, his running mate may not be a member of a different party.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Badger on March 16, 2010, 11:25:27 AM
Somebody introduce this:

Disunity Act

If a Presidential candidate is a member of a party, his running mate may not be a member of a different party.

Does this mean VP "must be of same party", or could also be a registered Independent?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on March 16, 2010, 02:51:31 PM
Somebody introduce this:

Disunity Act

If a Presidential candidate is a member of a party, his running mate may not be a member of a different party.

Does this mean VP "must be of same party", or could also be a registered Independent?

The latter.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bgwah on March 16, 2010, 02:53:59 PM
Somebody introduce this:

Disunity Act

If a Presidential candidate is a member of a party, his running mate may not be a member of a different party.

Does this mean VP "must be of same party", or could also be a registered Independent?

The latter.

I do intend to introduce such legislation soon--it was my idea after all--but I was busy with finals and what not, and also wanted to get a feel for the Senate first before I started proposing anything.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 16, 2010, 08:07:06 PM
I still see no reason behind this, that isn't politically motivated. Unity tickets both give and take away from competativeness. Usually though a party alliance doesn't last very long in Atlasia, so I don't see the urgent need or justification.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 17, 2010, 06:52:00 PM
And here I was worried the Senate would move so fast that I would fall behind in votes by being sick and thus not online as much. I knew you guys would have my back. Thanks for being so cough...incompe.. ahh considerate. cough cough.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Badger on March 17, 2010, 06:53:38 PM
F#$k you too, Yank. :P

I also don't see any need for this bill. Banning unity tickets is an unnecessary restriction on political discourse, organizing and activity.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on March 17, 2010, 06:56:01 PM
I also don't see any need for this bill. Banning unity tickets is an unnecessary restriction on political discourse, organizing and activity.
Ditto.
Since Bgwah apparently didn't pay enough attention to notice that I introduced a strikingly similar bill on behalf of Xahar on the 15th, I'll go ahead and delete mine.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 17, 2010, 07:12:21 PM
Hey, if anyone's concerned about a boring Senate, just say the word and I'll get into a fistfight with NCY on the Senate floor. For old times sake. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Vepres on March 17, 2010, 10:19:57 PM
What a boring Senate


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 17, 2010, 11:11:42 PM
What this Senate needs are some regularly scheduled cage matches.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Badger on March 18, 2010, 07:37:33 AM

Suggestions?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HappyWarrior on March 22, 2010, 03:08:44 PM
Legalizing cocaine? For real?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bacon King on March 22, 2010, 03:43:18 PM
Question. When exactly do HAEV members get reappointed? and in what order?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on March 22, 2010, 03:56:03 PM
Question. When exactly do HAEV members get reappointed? and in what order?
A question of some debate.

We serve 6 months term, staggered every 2 months, but there was no consideration in the original bill, in what order the original 3 would split.

Barnes helped out by going just before 2 months, so I stated at the time that Bullmoose was considered to be filling the regular vacancy rather than a special vacancy.

4 months from creation is around 20th April, and either Meeker or I could go at that time (and potentially be renominated). I've had no discussions at all with anybody over which of us would go first, though we'll have to eventually cross that bridge.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bacon King on March 22, 2010, 03:59:01 PM
Question. When exactly do HAEV members get reappointed? and in what order?
A question of some debate.

We serve 6 months term, staggered every 2 months, but there was no consideration in the original bill, in what order the original 3 would split.

Barnes helped out by going just before 2 months, so I stated at the time that Bullmoose was considered to be filling the regular vacancy rather than a special vacancy.

4 months from creation is around 20th April, and either Meeker or I could go at that time (and potentially be renominated). I've had no discussions at all with anybody over which of us would go first, though we'll have to eventually cross that bridge.

I suppose you and Meeker could decide between yourselves, if nothing else.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on March 22, 2010, 05:48:14 PM

Yes.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HappyWarrior on March 22, 2010, 06:06:16 PM

For what actual reason?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on March 23, 2010, 04:17:54 AM

     Because it's none of the government's business if somebody wants to use cocaine.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on March 27, 2010, 05:17:42 PM
Quote
Regional Senate Partnership Amendment
   
1. Any region may enter into a Senate Partnership with any other region, or regions, which must be approved by all regions in question by referendum. Each region in question must vote at least 60% in favor.
   
2. In these Senate Partnerships regional governments shall combine their regional senate elections, creating a number of positions equal to the amount of regions in the Senate Partnership, electing them simultaneously.
   
3. The amount of regions involved in the partnership will be the amount of Senators they will elect. (Ex: 2 regions, Top 2 candidates; 3 regions, Top 3 candidates)
   
4. Partnered regions will count votes using the PR-STV system.

Does it look familiar? That's because it was a bill that was discussed and heavily debated a few sessions ago. It passed the Senate vote, but failed the public vote.
Some key differences between this version and the other version:
- This version is, overall, more specific than the other version.
- This version requires the voting ot be done in STV, while I believe the other didn't specify.
- On this version, all regions part of the possible deal have to vote 60% in favor. In the other version, it only needed a simple majority.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 27, 2010, 06:25:42 PM
Me love you long time, tmth.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on March 27, 2010, 06:26:55 PM
Should I be pleased, or scared?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 27, 2010, 06:28:33 PM

Eh, take it how you like. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 27, 2010, 11:49:46 PM
Quote
Regional Senate Partnership Amendment
   
1. Any region may enter into a Senate Partnership with any other region, or regions, which must be approved by all regions in question by referendum. Each region in question must vote at least 60% in favor.
   
2. In these Senate Partnerships regional governments shall combine their regional senate elections, creating a number of positions equal to the amount of regions in the Senate Partnership, electing them simultaneously.
   
3. The amount of regions involved in the partnership will be the amount of Senators they will elect. (Ex: 2 regions, Top 2 candidates; 3 regions, Top 3 candidates)
   
4. Partnered regions will count votes using the PR-STV system.

Does it look familiar? That's because it was a bill that was discussed and heavily debated a few sessions ago. It passed the Senate vote, but failed the public vote.
Some key differences between this version and the other version:
- This version is, overall, more specific than the other version.
- This version requires the voting ot be done in STV, while I believe the other didn't specify.
- On this version, all regions part of the possible deal have to vote 60% in favor. In the other version, it only needed a simple majority.

This sounds like an excellent idea that will make Senatorial elections more interesting.

Plus the partnerships are entirely voluntary, so regions themselves can decide whether to participate.

Endorsed by this Atlasian citizen.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bacon King on March 28, 2010, 05:20:42 PM
The only problem is that there needs to be a method for a region to leave the partnership if it changes its mind.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on March 28, 2010, 06:34:31 PM
The only problem is that there needs to be a method for a region to leave the partnership if it changes its mind.
Yes, I read that in the previous thread's discussion after posting this. ;) I'm extremely open to any amendment adding that.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on April 02, 2010, 02:26:47 AM
One of ya'll needs to read this (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=113707.msg2430270#msg2430270) and write a constitutional amendment fixing it.

Whoever says that someone with under 100 posts can't contribute, think again. ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: President Mitt on April 04, 2010, 08:00:42 PM
Quote
Regional Senate Partnership Amendment
   
1. Any region may enter into a Senate Partnership with any other region, or regions, which must be approved by all regions in question by referendum. Each region in question must vote at least 60% in favor.
   
2. In these Senate Partnerships regional governments shall combine their regional senate elections, creating a number of positions equal to the amount of regions in the Senate Partnership, electing them simultaneously.
   
3. The amount of regions involved in the partnership will be the amount of Senators they will elect. (Ex: 2 regions, Top 2 candidates; 3 regions, Top 3 candidates)
   
4. Partnered regions will count votes using the PR-STV system.

Does it look familiar? That's because it was a bill that was discussed and heavily debated a few sessions ago. It passed the Senate vote, but failed the public vote.
Some key differences between this version and the other version:
- This version is, overall, more specific than the other version.
- This version requires the voting ot be done in STV, while I believe the other didn't specify.
- On this version, all regions part of the possible deal have to vote 60% in favor. In the other version, it only needed a simple majority.

Interesting, but might I ask why?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on April 04, 2010, 08:13:46 PM
Quote
Regional Senate Partnership Amendment
   
1. Any region may enter into a Senate Partnership with any other region, or regions, which must be approved by all regions in question by referendum. Each region in question must vote at least 60% in favor.
   
2. In these Senate Partnerships regional governments shall combine their regional senate elections, creating a number of positions equal to the amount of regions in the Senate Partnership, electing them simultaneously.
   
3. The amount of regions involved in the partnership will be the amount of Senators they will elect. (Ex: 2 regions, Top 2 candidates; 3 regions, Top 3 candidates)
   
4. Partnered regions will count votes using the PR-STV system.

Does it look familiar? That's because it was a bill that was discussed and heavily debated a few sessions ago. It passed the Senate vote, but failed the public vote.
Some key differences between this version and the other version:
- This version is, overall, more specific than the other version.
- This version requires the voting ot be done in STV, while I believe the other didn't specify.
- On this version, all regions part of the possible deal have to vote 60% in favor. In the other version, it only needed a simple majority.

Interesting, but might I ask why?
Recently, Regional Senate elections have gotten rather boring, with only one "close" result in February, which was the Northeast. This could possibly bring back some spice to Regional Senate seats, without taking them away. I guess you could call this an alternative to abolishing regional seats, a much better alternative that will actually give even more power to the regions, while making the elections even more exciting.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: President Mitt on April 04, 2010, 08:17:47 PM
Quote
Regional Senate Partnership Amendment
   
1. Any region may enter into a Senate Partnership with any other region, or regions, which must be approved by all regions in question by referendum. Each region in question must vote at least 60% in favor.
   
2. In these Senate Partnerships regional governments shall combine their regional senate elections, creating a number of positions equal to the amount of regions in the Senate Partnership, electing them simultaneously.
   
3. The amount of regions involved in the partnership will be the amount of Senators they will elect. (Ex: 2 regions, Top 2 candidates; 3 regions, Top 3 candidates)
   
4. Partnered regions will count votes using the PR-STV system.

Does it look familiar? That's because it was a bill that was discussed and heavily debated a few sessions ago. It passed the Senate vote, but failed the public vote.
Some key differences between this version and the other version:
- This version is, overall, more specific than the other version.
- This version requires the voting ot be done in STV, while I believe the other didn't specify.
- On this version, all regions part of the possible deal have to vote 60% in favor. In the other version, it only needed a simple majority.

Interesting, but might I ask why?
Recently, Regional Senate elections have gotten rather boring, with only one "close" result in February, which was the Northeast. This could possibly bring back some spice to Regional Senate seats, without taking them away.

Interesting, but I don't have a lot of hope that many people in the regions would be incredibly excited about entering a 'partnership,' It would be nice to 'diversify' the regions however, considering the somewhat lagging elections. I do hope this passes however, simply to switch around things in the game.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on April 04, 2010, 08:19:14 PM
Quote
Regional Senate Partnership Amendment
   
1. Any region may enter into a Senate Partnership with any other region, or regions, which must be approved by all regions in question by referendum. Each region in question must vote at least 60% in favor.
   
2. In these Senate Partnerships regional governments shall combine their regional senate elections, creating a number of positions equal to the amount of regions in the Senate Partnership, electing them simultaneously.
   
3. The amount of regions involved in the partnership will be the amount of Senators they will elect. (Ex: 2 regions, Top 2 candidates; 3 regions, Top 3 candidates)
   
4. Partnered regions will count votes using the PR-STV system.

Does it look familiar? That's because it was a bill that was discussed and heavily debated a few sessions ago. It passed the Senate vote, but failed the public vote.
Some key differences between this version and the other version:
- This version is, overall, more specific than the other version.
- This version requires the voting ot be done in STV, while I believe the other didn't specify.
- On this version, all regions part of the possible deal have to vote 60% in favor. In the other version, it only needed a simple majority.

Interesting, but might I ask why?
Recently, Regional Senate elections have gotten rather boring, with only one "close" result in February, which was the Northeast. This could possibly bring back some spice to Regional Senate seats, without taking them away.

Interesting, but I don't have a lot of hope that many people in the regions would be incredibly excited about entering a 'partnership,' It would be nice to 'diversify' the regions however, considering the somewhat lagging elections. I do hope this passes however, simply to switch around things in the game.

What did you have in mind when saying "'diversify' the regions"? Because honestly, I'm desperate right now, and I know others are, for a boost in Atlasia, and anyone's imput would be greatly appreciated.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bacon King on April 07, 2010, 04:36:44 PM
Repeal the HAEV Act

The High Authority for Ethics in Voting Act is hereby repealed.







Ahem.  What is the holdup in this being opened on the Senate floor?  Bacon King, I sent you a PM yesterday about this.



There was no space on the floor for the bill then. There isn't really now even, but I'm allowing it in the PPT slot for prudency's sake since slot three will be empty tomorrow anyway and your bill's the next in line. I like to keep the PPT slot open for big emergencies since the "Forum Affairs/Emergency" slot is mostly taken up by the huge amount of Forum Affairs legislation we have.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on April 13, 2010, 07:04:50 PM
My recent role in the HAEV and a review of the Statute thread with Barnes has revealed that the following acts relating to the conduct of elections are in force:

Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act (14-2)

Federal Activity Requirements Revision Act (16-4)

Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act (Amendment) Act (21-1)

Proportional Representation Act (21-2)

The Eastern Standard Time Act (21-3)

Proportional Representation (By-Elections) Act (25-4)

Proportional Representation (Class A seats) Act (never enterred force) (27-3)

Restoration of CESRA Act (27-6)

Secret Ballot Bill  (never enterred force) (28-12)

Third Amendment to the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act (31-23)

The Absentee Voting Act (32-8)

Fourth Amendment to the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act (34-8)

Amendment to the Absentee Voting Act (35-10)

Fifth Amendment to the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act (36-7)

Its far too many for any person to be able to understand without devoting several hours. I would like to suggest a consolidation exercise. I'm quite happy to participate in this process as I've done it before, but I need some direction from those with an actual mandate.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Barnes on April 13, 2010, 10:30:17 PM
^ I'll be perfectly willing to come to the table representing the Justice Department. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Badger on April 14, 2010, 08:02:51 AM
If the Senate consents, I'll come to to the table representing that chamber.

We should probably have a second representative. Although these are reletively non-partisan technocratic issues, at least one Senate rep should be a veteran representive of the conservative wing. Interested Yank? Duke?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on April 17, 2010, 02:50:18 PM
Given the number of Cabinet positions being created and the fact that they very greatly in the amount of work required to discharge the duties of the office, perhaps a constitutional amendment could be passed allowing a person to hold multiple Cabinet positions simultaneously. Would someone like to introduce this?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on April 17, 2010, 02:56:50 PM
If the Senate consents, I'll come to to the table representing that chamber.

We should probably have a second representative. Although these are reletively non-partisan technocratic issues, at least one Senate rep should be a veteran representive of the conservative wing. Interested Yank? Duke?

I might be interested, but I will warn that between school at day, and my brother taking an "online" course, getting on everyday is difficult.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on April 20, 2010, 09:12:37 AM
Quote
The Death Penalty Abolition Amendment

Section One: Capital Punishment, as a federal conviction, is hereby outlawed in the Republic of Atlasia.

Section Two: After the adoption of this Amendment, the President pro tempore of the Senate shall transmit this Amendment to the governors of the respective regions of Atlasia, so that they might consider a review of their existing capital punishment laws.

Section Three: When a case that has the conviction of capital punishment is appealed to the Atlasian Supreme Court, Section One of this Amendment may be wavered at the discretion of the court.



Yep, here we go again.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on April 20, 2010, 01:54:27 PM
     Isn't capital punishment already outlawed on the federal level, making this amendment largely pointless?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 03, 2010, 08:42:23 PM
I have a proposition for the Senate... an annual day of National Celebration on the anniversary of Phil ceasing to be President. It could be called 'Keystone Shill' day.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on May 04, 2010, 01:06:04 AM
I have a proposition for the Senate... an annual day of National Celebration on the anniversary of Phil ceasing to be President. It could be called 'Keystone Shill' day.

If the Senate doesn't take up this task I shall make it a campaign pledge.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bacon King on May 05, 2010, 12:33:40 PM
Quote
Fifth Line of Succession Act
Section 1: Line of Succession
In the event of the absence or incapacitation of the President of the Republic of Atlasia, the following shall serve as the line of succession:
1. Vice-President of the Republic of Atlasia
2. President Pro Tempore of the Senate
3. Attorney General
4. Secretary of Federal Elections
5. Registrar General
6. Secretary of External Affairs
7. Secretary of Internal Affairs
8. Moderator General
9. Dean of the Senate
10. Each Senator in order of longest continuous service
11. Chief Justice of Supreme Court of Atlasia
12. Senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Atlasia
13. Junior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Atlasia
14. Each Governor in order of longest continuous service

Section 2
The following acts are repealed:
1. Line of Succession (Amendment No 2) Act (15-7)
2. Cleaning up the Line of Succession Act (32-2), Section 2

 
 
Introduced on behalf of the Renaissance Caucus and Peter.

BK, do you think we can ram this through by the Friday?


Sorry for not responding earlier, but no; giving it the minimum debate time would have given it less than a day's leeway before the new Senate. If it was even friendlily amended it would be pushed into the new session. Best to wait, I think. I'll gladly reintroduce it myself, even :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 05, 2010, 04:07:34 PM
Quote
Fifth Line of Succession Act
Section 1: Line of Succession
In the event of the absence or incapacitation of the President of the Republic of Atlasia, the following shall serve as the line of succession:
1. Vice-President of the Republic of Atlasia
2. President Pro Tempore of the Senate
3. Attorney General
4. Secretary of Federal Elections
5. Registrar General
6. Secretary of External Affairs
7. Secretary of Internal Affairs
8. Moderator General
9. Dean of the Senate
10. Each Senator in order of longest continuous service
11. Chief Justice of Supreme Court of Atlasia
12. Senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Atlasia
13. Junior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Atlasia
14. Each Governor in order of longest continuous service

Section 2
The following acts are repealed:
1. Line of Succession (Amendment No 2) Act (15-7)
2. Cleaning up the Line of Succession Act (32-2), Section 2

 
 
Introduced on behalf of the Renaissance Caucus and Peter.

BK, do you think we can ram this through by the Friday?


Sorry for not responding earlier, but no; giving it the minimum debate time would have given it less than a day's leeway before the new Senate. If it was even friendlily amended it would be pushed into the new session. Best to wait, I think. I'll gladly reintroduce it myself, even :)

Yea, I will withraw it untill then.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 23, 2010, 06:59:13 PM
Due to Bgwah's amendment to the CCJA last month, isn't Clause one of Section one about impersonation reduntant with Clause 7 of section one?




Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fritz on June 04, 2010, 11:16:15 PM
Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment

If some Senator could take up this cause for me, I would appreciate it. 

The 16th amendment dictates that registered voters be removed after failing to vote for 8 months (4 elections).  This amends the original rule of removal after not voting for 4 months (2 elections).  I have no idea why this amendment was added.  As the RG, it is my feeling that this lengthy requirement unnecessarily clutters the voting rolls with registrants who have clearly left, and are not coming back.  Besides, if someone is removed by a shorter time frame who did not wish to be, that person can easily fix the problem by simply registering again.

Thank you,
Fritz


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on June 05, 2010, 08:54:16 PM
Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment

If some Senator could take up this cause for me, I would appreciate it. 

The 16th amendment dictates that registered voters be removed after failing to vote for 8 months (4 elections).  This amends the original rule of removal after not voting for 4 months (2 elections).  I have no idea why this amendment was added.  As the RG, it is my feeling that this lengthy requirement unnecessarily clutters the voting rolls with registrants who have clearly left, and are not coming back.  Besides, if someone is removed by a shorter time frame who did not wish to be, that person can easily fix the problem by simply registering again.

Thank you,
Fritz

I'll take it up for you.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fritz on June 05, 2010, 09:19:00 PM
Thanks Inks!!!

I did some digging into the history behind this, here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=50416.0) is the original debate.  Peter, Ernest, and Jas all participated in it.  Perhaps they could speak up in the current amendment's debate as well.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on June 06, 2010, 01:18:54 AM
     For what it's worth, the argument of wanting to avoid the list continually shrinking seems quite weak. As far as I can see, there's no meaningful difference between having someone on the list who has left the forum & not having that person on there.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on June 06, 2010, 12:12:17 PM
     For what it's worth, the argument of wanting to avoid the list continually shrinking seems quite weak. As far as I can see, there's no meaningful difference between having someone on the list who has left the forum & not having that person on there.

It affects the size of the Northeast Assembly and the GM population and budget numbers. Not sure if that is a strong enough reason, but those are reasons.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Peter on June 06, 2010, 12:55:59 PM
I would have to say that I never favoured the extension to 8 months - I didn't really say much about it in 2006 because I was not an active participant, though I continued to watch and vote whilst posting in the International boards, so my post there was simply commentary to give historical context.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Јas on June 06, 2010, 06:38:02 PM
Thanks Inks!!!

I did some digging into the history behind this, here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=50416.0) is the original debate.  Peter, Ernest, and Jas all participated in it.  Perhaps they could speak up in the current amendment's debate as well.

IIRC, Dave Hawk and others wanted the voting requirement removed altogether - asserting that once on the voter rolls, citizens should remain on the voter rolls regardless of activity. I, and others, felt it better to maintain a regular purging of the rolls to remove inactive voters. The 4 election rule was a compromise.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on June 06, 2010, 11:13:44 PM
     For what it's worth, the argument of wanting to avoid the list continually shrinking seems quite weak. As far as I can see, there's no meaningful difference between having someone on the list who has left the forum & not having that person on there.

It affects the size of the Northeast Assembly and the GM population and budget numbers. Not sure if that is a strong enough reason, but those are reasons.

     The Northeast Assembly issue is actually a good reason to repeal it. The bloated registration numbers mean that the Northeast gets more Representatives, which reduces the competitiveness of the elections since it is harder to recruit more candidates than there are seats so there can be a contested election.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bgwah on June 16, 2010, 11:59:55 PM
I'm just posting this here since I don't want to propose anything right now, but what would you guys think about introducing fusion voting to Atlasia? The most difficult part would of course be primaries, but I think it might be fun...


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Badger on June 17, 2010, 07:35:03 AM
I'm just posting this here since I don't want to propose anything right now, but what would you guys think about introducing fusion voting to Atlasia? The most difficult part would of course be primaries, but I think it might be fun...

Define "fusion voting".

Didn't we recently reject a measure proposing some sort of fusion voting?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Hash on June 17, 2010, 06:20:35 PM
I would just like to alert my, uhm, 'esteemed colleagues' that Atlasian legislation requires that the Senate read and approve the SoEA's latest Foreign Policy Review, which was completed over a month ago. Nudge nudge wink wink, pals.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 17, 2010, 06:52:19 PM
Nationalisation of the Petroleum Industry Act

Recognising the failure of the petroleum industry in it's duties of supplying oil at affordable prices

And recognising that there is a need for petroleum to be organised as a social service rather than for profit, and that there is a need for all profits to be divested in further increasing efficiency.

BE IT HEREBY ENACTED THAT: All oil and petroleum companies will be hereby taken into public ownership as the Atlaspetrol Corporation and shall be run as a subsidary of the Department of the Interior on behalf on the people of Atlasia.

lol Nationalization is not the answer to this problem. A prime example would be the failure that has been Pemex in Mexico. The job of the oil companies is not to provide oil at the prices my newly minted Communist friend's views as "affordable". Their job is to supply a demand for energy and make a profit by doing it. The global market dictates the oil prices and it is clear that with the exception of short term speculation the long term upward trends in oil prices are driven by the strength/weakness of the dollar and the most of all by rising global demand, especially in India and China. Consider also that Corporate profits on oil are 8 cents on the dollar. A good but not extreme rate of return. There is no evidence of widespread price gouging. What there is evidence of it, is gov't regulations restricting the production and refining capacities and thus raising the prices. If you want to lower prices and maybe even  create some jobs, why not lesson some of the environmental restrictions and ease the red tape and allow the building of a 50 our so new refineries with up to date technology which would be 1) more efficient, and 2) much safer, then the aging overworked refineries currently in service. Let us also remember that oil reached the lowest prices in the history of the industry when the evil monopolist John D. Rockefeller was working that detestable black magic known as free market capitalism.

You want to lower oil prices, well lets follow the rules of the market. Supply goes up and the prices drop. To create more supply you have to hire thousands of new workers. Another way is to reduce demand, lets diversify the energy and transportation system, get airplanes running on coal to liquid, get car fleet running on 3 or 4 different fuels (like gas, diesel, Natural gas, electricity, and hydrogen). Get the Busses running on Natural gas. Switch people over from heating oil to Natural gas. Thats called innovation, and competition, the prime movers of the free market. I will take that any day over some bureaucrat in DC dictating the prices and causing long lines and fuel shortages in the process. Some gov't intervention may be required but nothing as destructive and counterproductive as this.

I agree, what happened to old freedom fighter?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 17, 2010, 07:02:31 PM
I would just like to alert my, uhm, 'esteemed colleagues' that Atlasian legislation requires that the Senate read and approve the SoEA's latest Foreign Policy Review, which was completed over a month ago. Nudge nudge wink wink, pals.

I would suggest a direct PM to a specific Senator with instructions of what to do would be more effective. This is why I kind of hoped HW would have been elected to the Senate because there currently is no one who really digs foreign policies. Maybe we should deligate certain responsibilities to a specific Senator whose job is to handle business with the SoEA as opposed to just putting the stuff out there and hope a Senator passes by. Whenever I found myself in situation to get the ball rolling, I take the initiative but in this case, I haven't the slightest idea how that particular process works. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on June 18, 2010, 03:02:39 AM
Nationalisation of the Petroleum Industry Act

Recognising the failure of the petroleum industry in it's duties of supplying oil at affordable prices

And recognising that there is a need for petroleum to be organised as a social service rather than for profit, and that there is a need for all profits to be divested in further increasing efficiency.

BE IT HEREBY ENACTED THAT: All oil and petroleum companies will be hereby taken into public ownership as the Atlaspetrol Corporation and shall be run as a subsidary of the Department of the Interior on behalf on the people of Atlasia.

lol Nationalization is not the answer to this problem. A prime example would be the failure that has been Pemex in Mexico. The job of the oil companies is not to provide oil at the prices my newly minted Communist friend's views as "affordable". Their job is to supply a demand for energy and make a profit by doing it. The global market dictates the oil prices and it is clear that with the exception of short term speculation the long term upward trends in oil prices are driven by the strength/weakness of the dollar and the most of all by rising global demand, especially in India and China. Consider also that Corporate profits on oil are 8 cents on the dollar. A good but not extreme rate of return. There is no evidence of widespread price gouging. What there is evidence of it, is gov't regulations restricting the production and refining capacities and thus raising the prices. If you want to lower prices and maybe even  create some jobs, why not lesson some of the environmental restrictions and ease the red tape and allow the building of a 50 our so new refineries with up to date technology which would be 1) more efficient, and 2) much safer, then the aging overworked refineries currently in service. Let us also remember that oil reached the lowest prices in the history of the industry when the evil monopolist John D. Rockefeller was working that detestable black magic known as free market capitalism.

You want to lower oil prices, well lets follow the rules of the market. Supply goes up and the prices drop. To create more supply you have to hire thousands of new workers. Another way is to reduce demand, lets diversify the energy and transportation system, get airplanes running on coal to liquid, get car fleet running on 3 or 4 different fuels (like gas, diesel, Natural gas, electricity, and hydrogen). Get the Busses running on Natural gas. Switch people over from heating oil to Natural gas. Thats called innovation, and competition, the prime movers of the free market. I will take that any day over some bureaucrat in DC dictating the prices and causing long lines and fuel shortages in the process. Some gov't intervention may be required but nothing as destructive and counterproductive as this.

I agree, what happened to old freedom fighter?


I don't believe in the 'free market'. I believe in supplying people's needs. Cheap oil is, until we can develop alternate sources of energy, needed. Otherwise, we will have the long lines and fuel shortages of which you speak anyway. Believe it or not, nationalization is supported by alot of conservatives for pragmatic reasons. Only the new right and their free market fundamentalist friends oppose it truly.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on June 18, 2010, 03:08:03 AM
Nationalisation of the Petroleum Industry Act

Recognising the failure of the petroleum industry in it's duties of supplying oil at affordable prices

And recognising that there is a need for petroleum to be organised as a social service rather than for profit, and that there is a need for all profits to be divested in further increasing efficiency.

BE IT HEREBY ENACTED THAT: All oil and petroleum companies will be hereby taken into public ownership as the Atlaspetrol Corporation and shall be run as a subsidary of the Department of the Interior on behalf on the people of Atlasia.

lol Nationalization is not the answer to this problem. A prime example would be the failure that has been Pemex in Mexico. The job of the oil companies is not to provide oil at the prices my newly minted Communist friend's views as "affordable". Their job is to supply a demand for energy and make a profit by doing it. The global market dictates the oil prices and it is clear that with the exception of short term speculation the long term upward trends in oil prices are driven by the strength/weakness of the dollar and the most of all by rising global demand, especially in India and China. Consider also that Corporate profits on oil are 8 cents on the dollar. A good but not extreme rate of return. There is no evidence of widespread price gouging. What there is evidence of it, is gov't regulations restricting the production and refining capacities and thus raising the prices. If you want to lower prices and maybe even  create some jobs, why not lesson some of the environmental restrictions and ease the red tape and allow the building of a 50 our so new refineries with up to date technology which would be 1) more efficient, and 2) much safer, then the aging overworked refineries currently in service. Let us also remember that oil reached the lowest prices in the history of the industry when the evil monopolist John D. Rockefeller was working that detestable black magic known as free market capitalism.

You want to lower oil prices, well lets follow the rules of the market. Supply goes up and the prices drop. To create more supply you have to hire thousands of new workers. Another way is to reduce demand, lets diversify the energy and transportation system, get airplanes running on coal to liquid, get car fleet running on 3 or 4 different fuels (like gas, diesel, Natural gas, electricity, and hydrogen). Get the Busses running on Natural gas. Switch people over from heating oil to Natural gas. Thats called innovation, and competition, the prime movers of the free market. I will take that any day over some bureaucrat in DC dictating the prices and causing long lines and fuel shortages in the process. Some gov't intervention may be required but nothing as destructive and counterproductive as this.

I agree, what happened to old freedom fighter?


I don't believe in the 'free market'. I believe in supplying people's needs. Cheap oil is, until we can develop alternate sources of energy, needed. Otherwise, we will have the long lines and fuel shortages of which you speak anyway. Believe it or not, nationalization is supported by alot of conservatives for pragmatic reasons. Only the new right and their free market fundamentalist friends oppose it truly.

Saying you "don't believe in the free market" is like saying you don't believe in evolution or gravity.

The laws of economics cannot be repealed by any action of the state. Nationalization of the oil industry is a bad idea.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on June 18, 2010, 03:11:13 AM
It's more like saying you don't believe in creation.

Are you going to anything other than write platitudes?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on June 18, 2010, 03:19:50 AM
It's more like saying you don't believe in creation.

Are you going to anything other than write platitudes?

Your entire proposal is based on meaningless platitudes. It would not produce cheap oil, but rather result in inefficient, expensive oil production.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on June 18, 2010, 06:48:54 AM
It's more like saying you don't believe in creation.

Are you going to anything other than write platitudes?

Your entire proposal is based on meaningless platitudes. It would not produce cheap oil, but rather result in inefficient, expensive oil production.

I'm afraid you are wrong. But what's the point in arguing this with the man who believes free markets are always right and everyone will be miraculously rich as long as the government doesn't exist?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on June 18, 2010, 11:39:34 AM
It's more like saying you don't believe in creation.

Are you going to anything other than write platitudes?

Your entire proposal is based on meaningless platitudes. It would not produce cheap oil, but rather result in inefficient, expensive oil production.

I'm afraid you are wrong. But what's the point in arguing this with the man who believes free markets are always right and everyone will be miraculously rich as long as the government doesn't exist?

Stop being ridiculous.

Your proposal doesn't even put forward an actual plan as to how you would go about "nationalising" the oil industry.

It's just more of your usual grandstanding.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on June 18, 2010, 12:40:20 PM
It's more like saying you don't believe in creation.

Are you going to anything other than write platitudes?

Your entire proposal is based on meaningless platitudes. It would not produce cheap oil, but rather result in inefficient, expensive oil production.

I'm afraid you are wrong. But what's the point in arguing this with the man who believes free markets are always right and everyone will be miraculously rich as long as the government doesn't exist?

Stop being ridiculous.

Your proposal doesn't even put forward an actual plan as to how you would go about "nationalising" the oil industry.

It's just more of your usual grandstanding.

The consolidation of all oil companies into one publicly owned corporation, owned on behalf of the people, rather than owned by, you know, people who rip us off for profit.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on June 18, 2010, 01:13:14 PM
It's more like saying you don't believe in creation.

Are you going to anything other than write platitudes?

Your entire proposal is based on meaningless platitudes. It would not produce cheap oil, but rather result in inefficient, expensive oil production.

I'm afraid you are wrong. But what's the point in arguing this with the man who believes free markets are always right and everyone will be miraculously rich as long as the government doesn't exist?

Stop being ridiculous.

Your proposal doesn't even put forward an actual plan as to how you would go about "nationalising" the oil industry.

It's just more of your usual grandstanding.

The consolidation of all oil companies into one publicly owned corporation, owned on behalf of the people, rather than owned by, you know, people who rip us off for profit.

Yeah, that's still not a real plan as to how you would accomplish this 'consolidation'.

And I don't see what great benefit there is to gain from this. Replacing big business with big government is like replacing Mussolini with Hitler.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 21, 2010, 01:06:27 AM
Break the Chains Act

1. Companies or individuals which possess 2 to 3 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 1% on their annual profits.

2. Companies or individuals which possess 4 to 9 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 4% on their annual profits.

3. Companies or individuals which possess 10 or more retail outlets or stores shall be assessed a differential tax of 7% on their annual profits.

4. Funds collected from these taxes shall be deposited in what will be established as a Small Business Protection Fund.

5. Companies or individuals which possess only 1 retail outlet shall be eligible to apply for a credit to be paid from this Fund.

6. Based on the total number of businesses which apply each year, credits issued to each business should be an equal share of the total fund, except that no business may receive a credit equivalent to more than 100% of its total annual tax burden.

7. The Fund may not be used for any other purpose, unless specifically allocated by future laws.

A fine and noble law if one's goal is to add 2% to the unemployement line.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on June 21, 2010, 04:37:54 AM
Ludlow Amendment

Except in the event of an invasion of the Republic of Atlasia or attack upon its citizens residing therein, the authority of the Senate to declare war shall not become effective until confirmed by a majority of all votes cast thereon in a nationwide referendum. The Senate, when it deems a national crisis to exist, may by concurrent resolution refer the question of war or peace to the citizens of the Regions, the question to be voted on being, 'Shall Atlasia declare war on ________?' The Senate may otherwise by law provide for the enforcement of this section.

I like referenda, but this seems just a step too far..


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on June 21, 2010, 12:44:44 PM
Break the Chains Act

1. Companies or individuals which possess 2 to 3 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 1% on their annual profits.

2. Companies or individuals which possess 4 to 9 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 4% on their annual profits.

3. Companies or individuals which possess 10 or more retail outlets or stores shall be assessed a differential tax of 7% on their annual profits.

4. Funds collected from these taxes shall be deposited in what will be established as a Small Business Protection Fund.

5. Companies or individuals which possess only 1 retail outlet shall be eligible to apply for a credit to be paid from this Fund.

6. Based on the total number of businesses which apply each year, credits issued to each business should be an equal share of the total fund, except that no business may receive a credit equivalent to more than 100% of its total annual tax burden.

7. The Fund may not be used for any other purpose, unless specifically allocated by future laws.

A fine and noble law if one's goal is to add 2% to the unemployement line.

Any loss of jobs on the part of big business would be more than offset by the success of small businesses which will be able to hire more employees- and stay in business in the first place.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 21, 2010, 06:59:13 PM
Break the Chains Act

1. Companies or individuals which possess 2 to 3 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 1% on their annual profits.

2. Companies or individuals which possess 4 to 9 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 4% on their annual profits.

3. Companies or individuals which possess 10 or more retail outlets or stores shall be assessed a differential tax of 7% on their annual profits.

4. Funds collected from these taxes shall be deposited in what will be established as a Small Business Protection Fund.

5. Companies or individuals which possess only 1 retail outlet shall be eligible to apply for a credit to be paid from this Fund.

6. Based on the total number of businesses which apply each year, credits issued to each business should be an equal share of the total fund, except that no business may receive a credit equivalent to more than 100% of its total annual tax burden.

7. The Fund may not be used for any other purpose, unless specifically allocated by future laws.

A fine and noble law if one's goal is to add 2% to the unemployement line.

Any loss of jobs on the part of big business would be more than offset by the success of small businesses which will be able to hire more employees- and stay in business in the first place.

In certain areas yes but not in all where the small stores have gone out of business already. Its an unnecessary move in a time in which we can ill afford to do so.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on June 21, 2010, 07:08:49 PM
Break the Chains Act

1. Companies or individuals which possess 2 to 3 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 1% on their annual profits.

2. Companies or individuals which possess 4 to 9 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 4% on their annual profits.

3. Companies or individuals which possess 10 or more retail outlets or stores shall be assessed a differential tax of 7% on their annual profits.

4. Funds collected from these taxes shall be deposited in what will be established as a Small Business Protection Fund.

5. Companies or individuals which possess only 1 retail outlet shall be eligible to apply for a credit to be paid from this Fund.

6. Based on the total number of businesses which apply each year, credits issued to each business should be an equal share of the total fund, except that no business may receive a credit equivalent to more than 100% of its total annual tax burden.

7. The Fund may not be used for any other purpose, unless specifically allocated by future laws.

A fine and noble law if one's goal is to add 2% to the unemployement line.

Any loss of jobs on the part of big business would be more than offset by the success of small businesses which will be able to hire more employees- and stay in business in the first place.

In certain areas yes but not in all where the small stores have gone out of business already. Its an unnecessary move in a time in which we can ill afford to do so.

So when would be a good time for something like this then? After all the small businesses have gone out of business already?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 21, 2010, 07:17:10 PM
Break the Chains Act

1. Companies or individuals which possess 2 to 3 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 1% on their annual profits.

2. Companies or individuals which possess 4 to 9 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 4% on their annual profits.

3. Companies or individuals which possess 10 or more retail outlets or stores shall be assessed a differential tax of 7% on their annual profits.

4. Funds collected from these taxes shall be deposited in what will be established as a Small Business Protection Fund.

5. Companies or individuals which possess only 1 retail outlet shall be eligible to apply for a credit to be paid from this Fund.

6. Based on the total number of businesses which apply each year, credits issued to each business should be an equal share of the total fund, except that no business may receive a credit equivalent to more than 100% of its total annual tax burden.

7. The Fund may not be used for any other purpose, unless specifically allocated by future laws.

A fine and noble law if one's goal is to add 2% to the unemployement line.

Any loss of jobs on the part of big business would be more than offset by the success of small businesses which will be able to hire more employees- and stay in business in the first place.

In certain areas yes but not in all where the small stores have gone out of business already. Its an unnecessary move in a time in which we can ill afford to do so.

So when would be a good time for something like this then? After all the small businesses have gone out of business already?

When unemployement is lower, then we might be able to "consider" it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 21, 2010, 07:18:13 PM
Our maybe all those campaign donations from Wal-Mart executives are clouding my judgment.

Nah, that couldn't be.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on June 21, 2010, 07:21:22 PM
That's not a poor idea in theory, although I do share Senator Yankee's concerns that it would raise unemployment (at least temporarily).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on June 21, 2010, 07:46:13 PM
That's not a poor idea in theory, although I do share Senator Yankee's concerns that it would raise unemployment (at least temporarily).

Perhaps, but it would indeed be short-term as the workers found better jobs in the greater number of thriving individual small businesses.

Remember also that this is a tax on profits, not income. If a company is being affected by this bill, they will still be making a profit with their current workforce after the tax is deducted.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on June 21, 2010, 07:47:16 PM
Our maybe all those campaign donations from Wal-Mart executives are clouding my judgment.

Nah, that couldn't be.

I think from now on I'll call you Blanche Lincoln. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on June 21, 2010, 08:07:49 PM
That's not a poor idea in theory, although I do share Senator Yankee's concerns that it would raise unemployment (at least temporarily).

Perhaps, but it would indeed be short-term as the workers found better jobs in the greater number of thriving individual small businesses.

Remember also that this is a tax on profits, not income. If a company is being affected by this bill, they will still be making a profit with their current workforce after the tax is deducted.

True, a chain already making profits is unlikely to be forced to lay off people, as opposed to the effects of big minimum wage increases or higher corporate taxation in general.

I think this is worth looking into.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 21, 2010, 08:51:55 PM
That's not a poor idea in theory, although I do share Senator Yankee's concerns that it would raise unemployment (at least temporarily).

Perhaps, but it would indeed be short-term as the workers found better jobs in the greater number of thriving individual small businesses.

Remember also that this is a tax on profits, not income. If a company is being affected by this bill, they will still be making a profit with their current workforce after the tax is deducted.

True, a chain already making profits is unlikely to be forced to lay off people, as opposed to the effects of big minimum wage increases or higher corporate taxation in general.

I think this is worth looking into.

In that case yes it would be.

Our maybe all those campaign donations from Wal-Mart executives are clouding my judgment.

Nah, that couldn't be.

I think from now on I'll call you Blanche Lincoln. :P

I would strongly encourage you to refrain from doing that.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Vepres on June 25, 2010, 11:09:19 AM
I, on behalf of the Midwest region, am requesting aid for the areas of the state of happiness (oh, the irony!) that were damaged by last weeks tornadoes and thunderstorms. I currently estimate that upwards of $30 million is required.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on June 29, 2010, 04:16:35 AM
Alas, thus dies my attempt at public ownership. Though I did expect it to fail :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Badger on June 29, 2010, 11:23:22 AM
Alas, thus dies my attempt at public ownership. Though I did expect it to fail :P

But hey, you finally got some activity kicked back into the Senate. ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 29, 2010, 09:00:35 PM
Actually it's not dead yet. You've got 15 minutes to get 4 Senators to change their vote. Good luck! :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Badger on July 16, 2010, 04:00:33 PM
Immigration Reform Act of 2010:
1) Immigration from the following countries is hereby banned:
-Afghanistan
-Albania
-Algeria
-Azerbaijan
-Bahrain
-Bangladesh
-Brunei
-Burkina Faso
-Chad
-Comoros
-Djibouti
-Egypt
-Guinea
-Indonesia
-Iran
-Iraq
-Jordan
-Kazakhstan
-Kuwait
-Kyrgyzstan
-Lebanon
-Libya
-Malaysia
-Maldives
-Mali
-Mauritania
-Morocco
-Niger
-Nigeria
-Oman
-Pakistan
-Qatar
-Saudi Arabia
-Senegal
-Sierra Leone
-Somalia
-Sudan
-Syria
-Tajikistan
-The Gambia
-Tunisia
-Turkey
-Turkmenistan
-United Arab Emirates
-Uzbekistan
-Yemen
2) Immigrants from these countries who are already legally in the Republic of Atlasia shall not be affected by this legislation.

Is this a joke?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 16, 2010, 06:18:50 PM
Immigration Reform Act of 2010:
1) Immigration from the following countries is hereby banned:
-Afghanistan
-Albania
-Algeria
-Azerbaijan
-Bahrain
-Bangladesh
-Brunei
-Burkina Faso
-Chad
-Comoros
-Djibouti
-Egypt
-Guinea
-Indonesia
-Iran
-Iraq
-Jordan
-Kazakhstan
-Kuwait
-Kyrgyzstan
-Lebanon
-Libya
-Malaysia
-Maldives
-Mali
-Mauritania
-Morocco
-Niger
-Nigeria
-Oman
-Pakistan
-Qatar
-Saudi Arabia
-Senegal
-Sierra Leone
-Somalia
-Sudan
-Syria
-Tajikistan
-The Gambia
-Tunisia
-Turkey
-Turkmenistan
-United Arab Emirates
-Uzbekistan
-Yemen
2) Immigrants from these countries who are already legally in the Republic of Atlasia shall not be affected by this legislation.

Is this a joke?

You never can tell with him.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Junkie on July 18, 2010, 09:37:13 AM
I just finished briefing Bono V. Atlasia II, 2005 Atl. S.C. 2nd 2 (2005).  With all the economic related bills going through the senate lately, it might be prudent to take a look at the Court's decision in Part II.  It greatly restricted the Senate's power in terms of tax law.  Unless abrogated by a later case or constitutional amendment (and I am not seeing one right now), Part II would make several of these bills unconstitutional.  Here is how I see it:

Social & Economic Development Zone Improvement Act -- Section 3, sub 2 would be unconstitional clearly under both holdings of Part II; I think every other part of the Act would survive

Break the Chains Act -- could be fine, although fine under the second holding in Part II, could run into problems depending on how one interprets the "uniformity" ruling in Part II

Make Internet Sales Fair Act -- Clearly constitutional under Part II

Hiring Incentives Act -- also could run into trouble under the "uniformity" ruling, again depending on how it is interpreted.

I have recently broken down every ruling from that case in the Law Journal if that helps.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on July 18, 2010, 03:55:30 PM
What on earth is bgwah's immigration act about?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on July 18, 2010, 04:03:57 PM
What on earth is bgwah's immigration act about?

I will be vetoing it if it passes in any form remotely similar to what it is currently.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bgwah on July 18, 2010, 09:59:41 PM
What on earth is bgwah's immigration act about?

I will be vetoing it if it passes in any form remotely similar to what it is currently.

Why?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on July 19, 2010, 12:20:26 AM
What on earth is bgwah's immigration act about?

I will be vetoing it if it passes in any form remotely similar to what it is currently.

Why?

I believe it harms us as a practical matter - many people from the countries listed have much to offer in the advancement of science, technology, art, literature, etc.

What is your reason for creating a blanket ban on immigrants from those countries?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bgwah on July 19, 2010, 01:33:36 AM
What on earth is bgwah's immigration act about?

I will be vetoing it if it passes in any form remotely similar to what it is currently.

Why?

I believe it harms us as a practical matter - many people from the countries listed have much to offer in the advancement of science, technology, art, literature, etc.

What is your reason for creating a blanket ban on immigrants from those countries?

I would be willing to accept an amendment to exempt those with college degrees.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 19, 2010, 01:42:38 AM
What on earth is bgwah's immigration act about?

I will be vetoing it if it passes in any form remotely similar to what it is currently.

Why?

I believe it harms us as a practical matter - many people from the countries listed have much to offer in the advancement of science, technology, art, literature, etc.

What is your reason for creating a blanket ban on immigrants from those countries?

I would be willing to accept an amendment to exempt those with college degrees.

In that case, it would fail in its goal of keeping those people out.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bgwah on July 19, 2010, 01:45:16 AM
Those people?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 19, 2010, 01:46:14 AM
Yes, those people.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bgwah on July 19, 2010, 01:47:05 AM

May I ask who these people are?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 19, 2010, 01:50:48 AM
You're helping nobody by being deliberately obtuse.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bgwah on July 19, 2010, 01:52:41 AM
You're helping nobody by being deliberately obtuse.

Congratulations describing almost your entire posting history. Actually, that's not quite true, as that would suggest you actually know what you're talking about most of the time.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 19, 2010, 01:58:09 AM
Ah, the tested-and-true Libertas school of retorts.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on July 19, 2010, 02:02:12 AM
Ah, the tested-and-true Libertas school of retorts.

Now, now, Xahar and bgwah, as founder of the Peace Caucus I feel obligated to invite the two of you to make peace. There's no need to drag me into this senseless quarrel.



(Worth a try...:P)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 19, 2010, 08:04:22 PM
I see a picture of Libertas, bgwah and Xahar having a "kegger".



I wonder if they will be serving coffin varnish, vintage 1924. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: k-onmmunist on July 24, 2010, 12:35:21 PM
Let's call an Atlasian presidential election right now and see who wins :P Xahar, Libertas or bgwah? :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on August 13, 2010, 07:30:35 PM
Not sure where else to post this, but I beg leave of the Senate to encourage them to introduce an act to allow political parties to de-register themselves and dissolve.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fritz on August 14, 2010, 09:36:20 PM
Not sure where else to post this, but I beg leave of the Senate to encourage them to introduce an act to allow political parties to de-register themselves and dissolve.

Great idea!!!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on August 19, 2010, 02:39:58 PM
I posted this in the White House thread but no one has picked it up yet. Could a senator please sponsor this legislation on my behalf:

Quote
Game Moderator Duty Clarification Act

Whereas, confusion exists as to the exact nature of events in Atlasia as they relate to events in the real word, and

Whereas, it is impossible for even a reasonably active Game Moderator to provide story lines for most events that occur in the real world;

Therefore be it resolved that:

1. F.L. 16-1: GM Act and F.L. 31-4: Game Moderator Replacement Act are hereby repealed.

2. The following categories of real world events be deemed Atlasian events as though dictated by the GM: natural disasters, scientific discoveries, foreign events.

3. A real world event shall not be considered to have occurred in Atlasia if it is a result of other real world events that did not occur in Atlasia or if the GM has expressly stated that such an event did not occur.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 19, 2010, 02:41:53 PM
I posted this in the White House thread but no one has picked it up yet. Could a senator please sponsor this legislation on my behalf:

Quote
Game Moderator Duty Clarification Act

Whereas, confusion exists as to the exact nature of events in Atlasia as they relate to events in the real word, and

Whereas, it is impossible for even a reasonably active Game Moderator to provide story lines for most events that occur in the real world;

Therefore be it resolved that:

1. F.L. 16-1: GM Act and F.L. 31-4: Game Moderator Replacement Act are hereby repealed.

2. The following categories of real world events be deemed Atlasian events as though dictated by the GM: natural disasters, scientific discoveries, foreign events.

3. A real world event shall not be considered to have occurred in Atlasia if it is a result of other real world events that did not occur in Atlasia or if the GM has expressly stated that such an event did not occur.

Sure.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on August 19, 2010, 11:10:03 PM
Many thanks sir.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 22, 2010, 09:24:33 PM

A PM would have gotten it done sooner, you know? :P



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on August 22, 2010, 09:44:40 PM

I expect the Senate to read my White House thread religiously of course. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 22, 2010, 09:46:30 PM

I expect the Senate to read my White House thread religiously of course. :P

You know I still haven't read your last post you made as GM back in May I think it was. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Vepres on September 04, 2010, 11:26:09 PM
Goddammit, do something controversial!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 04, 2010, 11:32:12 PM
Goddammit, do something controversial!

I doubt it would do much. A lot of Senators seem to be having difficulty understanding the purpose of the bills, and as such a bill to ban gay marriage even would likely get lost in translation, if you know what I mean. ;) :P.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 08, 2010, 07:39:31 PM
I'd love to see such an act introduced:

Atlasian Day of Happines Act.

The anniversary of a day when Kyle Mercado, 19 aka Alexander Hamilton, a former poster originally of Bakersfield, California, a student of Redlands University, who's a confirmed sociopath, lifeless even for an internet standards and presumably, due to lack of time, a virgin, has been banned in a shame for sockpuppeting, trolling and other juvenile stuff, shall be hereby declared an Atlasian Day of Happiness.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Badger on September 09, 2010, 07:36:31 AM
I'd love to see such an act introduced:

Atlasian Day of Happines Act.

The anniversary of a day when Kyle Mercado, 19 aka Alexander Hamilton, a former poster originally of Bakersfield, California, a student of Redlands University, who's a confirmed sociopath, lifeless even for an internet standards and presumably, due to lack of time, a virgin, has been banned in a shame for sockpuppeting, trolling and other juvenile stuff, shall be hereby declared an Atlasian Day of Happiness.

Anyone know the exact date?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 09, 2010, 09:13:51 AM
I'd love to see such an act introduced:

Atlasian Day of Happines Act.

The anniversary of a day when Kyle Mercado, 19 aka Alexander Hamilton, a former poster originally of Bakersfield, California, a student of Redlands University, who's a confirmed sociopath, lifeless even for an internet standards and presumably, due to lack of time, a virgin, has been banned in a shame for sockpuppeting, trolling and other juvenile stuff, shall be hereby declared an Atlasian Day of Happiness.

Anyone know the exact date?

All I remember it's January 2010. Must check out.

EDIT: I believe January 13, 2010


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: CatoMinor on September 09, 2010, 11:37:21 AM
I'd love to see such an act introduced:

Atlasian Day of Happines Act.

The anniversary of a day when Kyle Mercado, 19 aka Alexander Hamilton, a former poster originally of Bakersfield, California, a student of Redlands University, who's a confirmed sociopath, lifeless even for an internet standards and presumably, due to lack of time, a virgin, has been banned in a shame for sockpuppeting, trolling and other juvenile stuff, shall be hereby declared an Atlasian Day of Happiness.

Anyone know the exact date?

All I remember it's January 2010. Must check out.

EDIT: I believe January 13, 2010

The IDS has already declared it a holiday, Aaron Burr Day


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on September 10, 2010, 01:44:19 PM
I wish to uurge Senators to reject this date, and reject acting like a bunch of high school bullies


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Badger on September 10, 2010, 05:16:33 PM
I wish to uurge Senators to reject this date, and reject acting like a bunch of high school bullies

Meh, I think of it more as commemorating the expulsion of a bully.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 10, 2010, 05:23:59 PM
I'd love to see such an act introduced:

Atlasian Day of Happines Act.

The anniversary of a day when Kyle Mercado, 19 aka Alexander Hamilton, a former poster originally of Bakersfield, California, a student of Redlands University, who's a confirmed sociopath, lifeless even for an internet standards and presumably, due to lack of time, a virgin, has been banned in a shame for sockpuppeting, trolling and other juvenile stuff, shall be hereby declared an Atlasian Day of Happiness.

Anyone know the exact date?

All I remember it's January 2010. Must check out.

EDIT: I believe January 13, 2010

The IDS has already declared it a holiday, Aaron Burr Day

:D

We need to fellow the IDS wisdom!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on September 10, 2010, 05:28:28 PM
I wish to uurge Senators to reject this date, and reject acting like a bunch of high school bullies

Meh, I think of it more as commemorating the expulsion of a bully.
I never viewed Hammy as a bully; and I see people who I consider bigger troublemakers who are still active in Atlasia.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 13, 2010, 02:48:07 PM
I have another, Hamilton-free, suggestion.

We're all stuck with our usernames, but some posters are already known under other, than the originally registered, like Fritz (JLD), Sewer Socialist (SpaceCommunistMutant) etc.

Why not to introduce an act that would allow us to officially change our principal name for Atlasia purpouses (as NiK tried to adopt "Willkie")?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 13, 2010, 08:05:01 PM
I have another, Hamilton-free, suggestion.

We're all stuck with our usernames, but some posters are already known under other, than the originally registered, like Fritz (JLD), Sewer Socialist (SpaceCommunistMutant) etc.

Why not to introduce an act that would allow us to officially change our principal name for Atlasia purpouses (as NiK tried to adopt "Willkie")?

You can do that already in the Registration thread.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 13, 2010, 08:07:32 PM
I have another, Hamilton-free, suggestion.

We're all stuck with our usernames, but some posters are already known under other, than the originally registered, like Fritz (JLD), Sewer Socialist (SpaceCommunistMutant) etc.

Why not to introduce an act that would allow us to officially change our principal name for Atlasia purpouses (as NiK tried to adopt "Willkie")?

You can do that already in the Registration thread.

"Name change?"


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 13, 2010, 08:15:16 PM
I have another, Hamilton-free, suggestion.

We're all stuck with our usernames, but some posters are already known under other, than the originally registered, like Fritz (JLD), Sewer Socialist (SpaceCommunistMutant) etc.

Why not to introduce an act that would allow us to officially change our principal name for Atlasia purpouses (as NiK tried to adopt "Willkie")?

You can do that already in the Registration thread.

"Name change?"

Yes, I do beleive so. I have seen people modify their registrations just for the purposes of a "name change".


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Badger on September 13, 2010, 08:44:22 PM
I wish to uurge Senators to reject this date, and reject acting like a bunch of high school bullies

Meh, I think of it more as commemorating the expulsion of a bully.
I never viewed Hammy as a bully; and I see people who I consider bigger troublemakers who are still active in Atlasia.

A would-be bully then. The fact that there are troublemakers just as bad still active (which I agree with you fully) is no reason to minimize Hammy's altogether negative (and continuing) effect on the forum.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on September 14, 2010, 10:54:14 PM
I wish to uurge Senators to reject this date, and reject acting like a bunch of high school bullies

Meh, I think of it more as commemorating the expulsion of a bully.
I never viewed Hammy as a bully; and I see people who I consider bigger troublemakers who are still active in Atlasia.

A would-be bully then. The fact that there are troublemakers just as bad still active (which I agree with you fully) is no reason to minimize Hammy's altogether negative (and continuing) effect on the forum.
This is debatable at best.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Badger on September 15, 2010, 11:38:57 AM
I wish to uurge Senators to reject this date, and reject acting like a bunch of high school bullies

Meh, I think of it more as commemorating the expulsion of a bully.
I never viewed Hammy as a bully; and I see people who I consider bigger troublemakers who are still active in Atlasia.

A would-be bully then. The fact that there are troublemakers just as bad still active (which I agree with you fully) is no reason to minimize Hammy's altogether negative (and continuing) effect on the forum.
This is debatable at best.

Really? ???


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 15, 2010, 05:40:59 PM
I wish to uurge Senators to reject this date, and reject acting like a bunch of high school bullies

Meh, I think of it more as commemorating the expulsion of a bully.
I never viewed Hammy as a bully; and I see people who I consider bigger troublemakers who are still active in Atlasia.

A would-be bully then. The fact that there are troublemakers just as bad still active (which I agree with you fully) is no reason to minimize Hammy's altogether negative (and continuing) effect on the forum.
This is debatable at best.

Really? ???

Teddy, could you elaborate?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on September 16, 2010, 08:03:40 PM
Dear Senators,

In a light of the recent affair with, as I believe improper, Mideast ballot, I'd like to strongly suggest to you to pass a constitutional amendment like this (instead of just federal bill) and them give Regions to ratify



Thirty Amendment to the Second Constitution

1. All candidates on federal or regional ballots shall appear under their registered usernames, as listed by the Bureau of Census
2. However, if the candidate is known under other name than registered (with census providing an appropriate note, like "a.k.a. xxx"), then the candidate shall appear under this name on the any federal or regional ballot
3. Officeholders responsible for maintaining a voting booth shall follow these instructions.



So (sorry Fritz for using your example, but that's good example :P) is a candidate is registered as JLD, but is known and is noted by RG as "Fritz", therefore the candidate must appear on ballot as "Fritz", not "JLD (Fritz)" or simply "JLD".

Thank you for your time

Kalwejt
Attorney General


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fritz on September 22, 2010, 07:03:54 AM
For the record, it has been my practice to include an aka name when a person REGISTERS TO VOTE with a name other than the official user name.  I also update aka names based on more recent registrations.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Badger on September 22, 2010, 07:40:36 AM
For the record, it has been my practice to include an aka name when a person REGISTERS TO VOTE with a name other than the official user name.  I also update aka names based on more recent registrations.

And a darn wise practice that is, Fritz. Thank you!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fritz on September 22, 2010, 08:02:59 AM
I mention this because of Kalwejt's proposed amendment, which makes reference to how names are listed by the Census Bureau.  Voter registrations contain three pieces of information- name, party, and state.  All of these are recorded in the Voter List, and can be changed by re-registering (iwth some restrictions regarding state changes, of course).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 23, 2010, 05:45:48 PM
Its nice too see an effort being made to reform stuff but it would help if it wasn't a reform to do something that 1) is already being done, 2) can be done if a certain action is taken by the individual.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 05, 2010, 12:24:55 AM
Constitutional Convention Request

It has come to my attention that per the Rules of Order and Procedure of the Constitutional Convention, statutory approval is required for an extension of our mission. I ask that the Senate consider legislation extending the date of final approval until October 17, at which time the Convention shall be statutorily required to approve a final document.

~PS


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 05, 2010, 05:08:53 PM
Constitutional Convention Request

It has come to my attention that per the Rules of Order and Procedure of the Constitutional Convention, statutory approval is required for an extension of our mission. I ask that the Senate consider legislation extending the date of final approval until October 17, at which time the Convention shall be statutorily required to approve a final document.

~PS

Could you give us a date and preferably a format on how to do this. I would assume an amendment would suffice but unless you stabbing in the dark and potential inconsistencies between the amendment and the law froming the Consitutional Convention, I would suggest the formulation of a tentative amendment with your prefered date by yourself or someone else who is part of the convention or the administration.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 05, 2010, 08:31:51 PM
Resolution permitting a brief extension of the Constitutional Convention

Whereas, the Constitutional Convention continues to diligently amend and streamline the Atlasian Constitution; and,

Whereas, the Convention requires the approval of the Senate to submit a final document after September 30, 2010;

Be it therefore resolved, that the Constitutional Convention shall receive an extension until October 17, 2010 at 12:00pm EDT to complete and submit a final document to the regions for the approval of the people.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 11, 2010, 11:43:43 PM
Constitutional Convention Consideration

At this time, I recommend that the Senate begin consideration of legislation (see outline below) to append to the final document of the Constitutional Convention in the event of a legislative restart. The current Convention document refreshes the statute, but allows the Senate to attach a document preserving certain key pieces of legislation necessary for the stability of the game.

While nothing is set in stone, this contingency plan is recommended.

Here is what the legislation would look like:

Quote
Maintaining Critical Law for the Third Atlasian Constitution Act

Whereas, the final document of the Constitutional Convention for the creation of a Third Atlasian Constitution states:
Quote
All Legislation and Judicial Rulings passed prior to the Adoption of this Constitution, save those specified by legislation in an appended document by the Senate, shall be considered void.

1. The following critical statutes be appended to the Third Atlasian Constitution upon proposal to the regions for ratification:

For the record, such a law would require presidential approval.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on October 25, 2010, 07:01:19 PM
Would a senator be so kind as to humor a lame-duck president?

Legislative Proposal

I offer the following piece of legislation for consideration by the Senate:

Federal-Regional Relations Act of 2010

1. Upon approval by the Senate of federal funds to be apportioned to any region of Atlasia, the Senate shall submit a directive to the appropriate regional legislature requesting a document approved by the legislature and governor of the region outlining the use of the funds.

2. In the event that a region fails to comply with the directive within 30 days, the apportioned funds shall be returned to the Department of Internal Affairs to be reapportioned by the federal government as needed through appropriate legislation or executive orders.

3. If a state of emergency exists within a region, as determined by the President through an executive order, the Senate may waive the provisions of this Act through a two-thirds vote in favor of the funding in question on the final vote, without additional action needed.

~PS


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 28, 2010, 08:35:25 PM
Libertas' new wiki proposal is a bit convoluted and subjective. Also amusing considering some of the edits from him I've seen on the Wiki.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on November 12, 2010, 05:56:16 PM
On a behalf of the Administration, it would be awesome if one of you, Senators, would introduce this project :)

Foreign Policy Reform Act of 2010

1. Game Moderator shall be required to cover at least one foreign policy-related event per two weeks, that would allow the President and Secretary of External Affairs to deal with
2. Secretary of External Affairs shall be required to maintain official paper on Forum Elections board, he shall use as a regular way to inform the general public about foreign policy subjects he is dealing with
3. A position of Atlasian Ambassador to the GTO shall be created within Department of External Affairs.
4. An Ambassador to the GTO shall serve as Atlasian Representative in GTO and Secretary principal assistant; Ambassador shall be nominated by President on the recommendation of Secretary of External Affairs and be a subject of a Senate confirmation vote


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fritz on November 14, 2010, 12:26:42 PM
I would appreciate a Senator introducing this for me.

Pre-Registration Act

A poster on the Atlas Forum may register to vote prior to meeting the constitutional requirements for age of account and number of posts.  Such registration will be deemed valid once these requirements are met.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Badger on November 16, 2010, 08:19:08 PM
I am against government-issued monopolies as a matter of principle. Individuals should not be forced to shell out their hard-earned money to the State for a government "license" to do what they do.

Hence I am wholeheartedly opposed to this bill.

Are you for people without any medical training taking advantage of people?

No, private medical associations/guilds run by actual physicians can do a better job of certifying and regulating than government bureaucrats.

EXCEPT without the uniformity of certification brought about by law--y,know, as in created by a mean old government--the associations and  "guilds" (what, it's 1280 now?) have zero uniformity or power to certify or regulate anything.

Suppose some doctor--an opthomologist perhaps--doesn't like the current certifying board and their harping on about "standards" "training" and "professional expertise", yadda-yadda, and goes and forms his own opthomologist "guild" which then "certifies" himself and every quack willing to fork over some dough? Under Libertas's theory what's to uphold the NECESSARY standards of competence?

Even if theoretically the AMA held on to being the central respected authority of the medical profession. If some quack declares themselves a doctor, what can the AMA our any other "guild" do to "regulate" or stop the fool? Sue him with an injunction? Sorry, no more laws requiring certification. Hope the miracle of no AMA endorsement will ruin the quack's practice? Yeah, great---the legally mandated competence over daily decisions affecting life and death being reduced to a Craig's list endorsement. That'll sure keep the quacks away. ::)

There's at least one good prospect of this proposal: If passed there's always the chance an unlicensed quack could operate on Libby. >:D


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 16, 2010, 10:45:48 PM
I am against government-issued monopolies as a matter of principle. Individuals should not be forced to shell out their hard-earned money to the State for a government "license" to do what they do.

Hence I am wholeheartedly opposed to this bill.

Are you for people without any medical training taking advantage of people?

No, private medical associations/guilds run by actual physicians can do a better job of certifying and regulating than government bureaucrats.

EXCEPT without the uniformity of certification brought about by law--y,know, as in created by a mean old government--the associations and  "guilds" (what, it's 1280 now?) have zero uniformity or power to certify or regulate anything.

Suppose some doctor--an opthomologist perhaps--doesn't like the current certifying board and their harping on about "standards" "training" and "professional expertise", yadda-yadda, and goes and forms his own opthomologist "guild" which then "certifies" himself and every quack willing to fork over some dough? Under Libertas's theory what's to uphold the NECESSARY standards of competence?

Even if theoretically the AMA held on to being the central respected authority of the medical profession. If some quack declares themselves a doctor, what can the AMA our any other "guild" do to "regulate" or stop the fool? Sue him with an injunction? Sorry, no more laws requiring certification. Hope the miracle of no AMA endorsement will ruin the quack's practice? Yeah, great---the legally mandated competence over daily decisions affecting life and death being reduced to a Craig's list endorsement. That'll sure keep the quacks away. ::)

There's at least one good prospect of this proposal: If passed there's always the chance an unlicensed quack could operate on Libby. >:D

I wonder if he likes William the Conqueror more the he does William III?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Badger on November 17, 2010, 09:27:54 PM
Notice to the Senate:

The Budget Process Committee has finished its work. The current federal budget is posted here and avilable for comment.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=125947.msg2724833#msg2724833


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Badger on November 22, 2010, 09:02:41 AM
On "Fix Yo Face" final vote:


???


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 02, 2010, 03:58:26 PM
Given that Libertas is gone, it would seem a good idea for the Senate to expel him.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 03, 2010, 02:01:38 AM
Given that Libertas is gone, it would seem a good idea for the Senate to expel him.

Gone for a day, and damn. Looks like he won't be answering that procedural question on the TSA bill. ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 03, 2010, 02:33:25 AM
If we have come to the point where we actually have to hold a vote to expell someone who has been banned then it is long past time that the bitter fruits reaped from the harvest of Purple's ridiculous doctrine be forever thrown out and replaced with superior and much more ripe produce.



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on December 04, 2010, 10:01:43 PM
If we have come to the point where we actually have to hold a vote to expell someone who has been banned then it is long past time that the bitter fruits reaped from the harvest of Purple's ridiculous doctrine be forever thrown out and replaced with superior and much more ripe produce.



From my understanding, by law Libertas is no longer registered in Atlasia and so constitutionally can no longer be a senator. So no vote is required.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 04, 2010, 11:09:13 PM
Does someone want to pursue the bills Libby introduced but weren't brought to floor before his ban?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fritz on December 08, 2010, 06:23:27 PM
I'm just saying...

STOCK MARKET FALLS SHARPLY

(AMPG) After gradually dropping most of the previous two weeks, the ANSE Index declined heavily on Friday to 742.30. This is a drop of almost 90 points, or more than 10% of the Index's value, in just under two weeks. 37.23 points were lost on the Index on Friday alone before the closing bell ended what traders were calling "Black Friday". When pointed out that Black Friday already referred to the start of the 1929 Stock Market Crash, traders amended their description of the event to "a really sh$%ty day".

Comments from market leaders were unavailable, as the persons contacted by the AMPG were either crying to hard to understand, incomprehensibly drunk, or were reported by secretaries to have thrown themselves from their office windows.

BREAKING NEWS: STOCK MARKET IN FREEFALL MONDAY.

(AMPG) Stocks suffered an historic single day declines as the ANSE Index dropped 53.12 points Monday before closing at 689.18. The loss of over 7% comes on the heels of a decline of more than 37 points on Friday, resulting in a two day cumulative loss of over 11.5% of the market's value.

Initial reports do not indicate any specific transaction or weak sector of the market, as losses were largely uniform. Nervous investors are awaiting the ANSE opening on Wednesday.

The federal government hasn't even acknowledged this issue. Sure, there has been gradual discussion of a possible new stimulus, but those discussions started before the latest weakness and have gone not far not fast.

So...Bueller?...Bueller?...

Former President Purple State is right.  This national crisis demands our IMMEDIATE and UNDIVIDED attention.

I direct the Senate to produce economic stimulus legislation, and to have it on my desk before the 41st Senate takes office.  Hold emergency sessions if needed.

The Department of Internal Affairs is directed to advise the Senate regarding what this legislation should contain.

The GM's office is directed to provide as much information as is possible regarding the causes of this catastrophe.

All right folks, lets get to work!



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on December 13, 2010, 09:35:13 PM
Would the Senate mind repealing this (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Repeal_of_Privacy_Protection_Act)?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on December 13, 2010, 09:38:42 PM
Would the Senate mind repealing this (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Repeal_of_Privacy_Protection_Act)?
Just for clarification, I introduced the repeal of the Privacy Protection Act on behalf of a constituent. I personally voted against the repeal. Ironically, I said...

Nay
This would be terrible, and create much more uneeded drama on Atlasia. You all will regret your "Aye" vote in a few weeks...

Change weeks to months, and "you all" to "many of you", and I nailed it. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 13, 2010, 09:41:53 PM
I'm fine with the current state of things, as I have nothing to hide. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 14, 2010, 02:57:58 AM
Not this time, PS. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on December 14, 2010, 08:16:28 AM
Oh, c'mon. It was a mess over on the elections board, for no real reason other than people got carried away posting private correspondences.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bgwah on December 14, 2010, 11:21:59 PM
Would the Senate mind repealing this (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Repeal_of_Privacy_Protection_Act)?

If someone isn't in office or running for office...Is there actually any punishment?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Purple State on December 15, 2010, 03:58:16 PM
Would the Senate mind repealing this (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Repeal_of_Privacy_Protection_Act)?

If someone isn't in office or running for office...Is there actually any punishment?

No. Feel free to fix that if you would like.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 15, 2010, 04:17:43 PM
I'm fine with the current state of things, as I have nothing to hide. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 16, 2010, 10:04:32 PM
Hey guys, do we want to recess like we did last year? If so I would suggest not introducing much more legislation. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bgwah on December 16, 2010, 10:05:47 PM
Hey guys, do we want to recess like we did last year? If so I would suggest not introducing much more legislation. :P

I have nothing else to do for the Holidays, so... no. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 16, 2010, 10:09:00 PM
Hey guys, do we want to recess like we did last year? If so I would suggest not introducing much more legislation. :P

I have nothing else to do for the Holidays, so... no. :P

You better hope your collegues also don't have a life. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on January 07, 2011, 12:20:18 PM
Methinks it would be freaking awesome if some of you introduce this:

Thanks Andrew Resolution

The Senate is hereby thanking Honorable AndrewCT, on an occasion of his retirement, for his longtime, distinguished service for Atlasia on various positions, especially as the Senator of the Republic.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on January 13, 2011, 11:45:22 PM
Just saying... the title of this bill is just a little bit creepy sounding:

Freedom to Enjoy Oneself in Public Bill


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on January 16, 2011, 05:31:48 AM
Just saying... the title of this bill is just a little bit creepy sounding:

Freedom to Enjoy Oneself in Public Bill

Perhaps we can switch the title to "Relieve" instead of Enjoy? :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on January 16, 2011, 05:39:42 AM
Just saying... the title of this bill is just a little bit creepy sounding:

Freedom to Enjoy Oneself in Public Bill

Perhaps we can switch the title to "Relieve" instead of Enjoy? :P

"But officer, I thought it was ok to piss on the tree!"


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bacon King on February 27, 2011, 09:35:37 PM
I don't know if I have to do anything formally, but I've resigned from the Senate:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=132615.0


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 01, 2011, 09:59:07 AM
People should really use swearing thread :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on March 10, 2011, 05:24:37 PM
anyone else find it strange that a bill could be passed or a nominee confirmed with votes by only 4 Senators in favor?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 10, 2011, 08:41:36 PM
anyone else find it strange that a bill could be passed or a nominee confirmed with votes by only 4 Senators in favor?

The Senate only has 7 members now. So 4 is a majority. Its very rare that such a situation occurs.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on March 14, 2011, 08:58:43 PM
In the event that shua's lawsuit succeeds, a fix will be needed.  I have a proposed one, but it would be a pain for the SoFE to administer, so you might want to consult with Franzl to see if he has any better ideas.

Improvement of Election Certification Act

The Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act is amended by inserting the following as Clause 2a of Section 10 of that Act:

    2a. In certifying the result the voting booth administrator shall provide a copy of each ballot that is in the voting booth.  Said copy may be in the form of a quote of the ballot, a screenshot of one or more ballots, or such other form that will provide a complete and accurate record of voter intent. This shall be done for all ballots, including any that are discounted under Clause 3 of this Section. In any lawsuit challenging the validity of certified election results, said copy shall be considered prima facie evidence of the state of the voting booth at the time of certification.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bgwah on March 14, 2011, 09:03:40 PM
It shouldn't be too difficult to go File > Save page as on every page of the voting booth, just to have a backup.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on March 14, 2011, 09:04:53 PM
In the event that shua's lawsuit succeeds, a fix will be needed.  I have a proposed one, but it would be a pain for the SoFE to administer, so you might want to consult with Franzl to see if he has any better ideas.

Improvement of Election Certification Act

The Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act is amended by inserting the following as Clause 2a of Section 10 of that Act:

    2a. In certifying the result the voting booth administrator shall provide a copy of each ballot that is in the voting booth.  Said copy may be in the form of a quote of the ballot, a screenshot of one or more ballots, or such other form that will provide a complete and accurate record of voter intent. This shall be done for all ballots, including any that are discounted under Clause 3 of this Section. In any lawsuit challenging the validity of certified election results, said copy shall be considered prima facie evidence of the state of the voting booth at the time of certification.

i am not challenging this matter on the basis of the consolidated electoral system reform act. i am challenging it on the basis of our constitution. that is the thing that would have to be amended.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on March 14, 2011, 09:25:49 PM
i am not challenging this matter on the basis of the consolidated electoral system reform act. i am challenging it on the basis of our constitution. that is the thing that would have to be amended.

I do not believe you have any chance of persuading the court to apply Article V Section 2 Clause 8 to a ballot deleted after the vote has been certified.

You might have a chance of persuading the court that there is insufficient evidence that gporter's ballot existed to be counted and that therefore it should not be used to determine who won the election. (For that matter even if you succeed in your constitutional claim, and the Constitution needs amending so that it would not apply, I can easily see a future case where the reliability of what votes had been certified would come up, and my proposed bill would help establish a standard of evidence in such cases.)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on March 14, 2011, 11:49:38 PM
i am not challenging this matter on the basis of the consolidated electoral system reform act. i am challenging it on the basis of our constitution. that is the thing that would have to be amended.

I do not believe you have any chance of persuading the court to apply Article V Section 2 Clause 8 to a ballot deleted after the vote has been certified.

You might have a chance of persuading the court that there is insufficient evidence that gporter's ballot existed to be counted and that therefore it should not be used to determine who won the election. (For that matter even if you succeed in your constitutional claim, and the Constitution needs amending so that it would not apply, I can easily see a future case where the reliability of what votes had been certified would come up, and my proposed bill would help establish a standard of evidence in such cases.)
i am curious as to whether you see anything in the constitution that would limit the applicability of that clause.  you do make a good point about the need to improve reliability in election certification process that would extend beyond this particular issue.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on March 15, 2011, 01:14:03 PM
I'll admit that the relevant clause in the constitution is ambiguously worded, but it makes absolutely no sense for a change done after the conclusion of the election to affect the results of the election.  Hence, if a lawsuit is to be successful, it will be because the change creates doubt as to what the ballot contained at the conclusion of the election, not because said change requires the ballot to be thrown out.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on April 11, 2011, 07:29:04 PM
Since Rowan once complained on seniority rules:

Make Rowan Happy Act

1. The following Act shall establish factors considered in calculating seniority for all incoming Senators. The Act shall not affect already established seniority of an incumbent Senators moment of passing.
2. For Senators, who are taking an office the same day, regardless on an exact time of swearing-in, following factors shall be used in determining a seniority:
a. Former Senators (length of time served in previous non-consecutive terms)
b. Former Presidents (in order of their terms)
c. Former Vice Presidents (
- In order of the office's place in presidential line of succession
- In order of their terms
e. Former Governors
- In order of Region's population
- In order of their terms
f. Former Lieutenant Governors
- In order of Region's population
- In order of their terms
g. By Region's population
h. By alfabethical order of a registered username
3. Section 3 is not required, but cool


(Probably needs multiple grammar/speeling corrections anyway)
I feel H. is extremely unfair. We weren't told when we signed up that the first letter of our username would have an effect on the game.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on April 13, 2011, 04:24:29 AM
Honestly, who cares about the order of seniority ?

And even more, who cares about making Rowan happy ? ;D


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on April 13, 2011, 02:19:04 PM
I oppose that entirely. I like the current set up. Order of swearing in, its fairest and it ensures that someone who joined more recently can achieve the position of Dean. Otherwise the minute that someone like BK, or Afleitch,  or even me got elected to a future non-consecutive term would instantly go to top of the totem pole based on past service.




Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on April 14, 2011, 03:25:13 PM
I oppose that entirely. I like the current set up. Order of swearing in, its fairest and it ensures that someone who joined more recently can achieve the position of Dean. Otherwise the minute that someone like BK, or Afleitch,  or even me got elected to a future non-consecutive term would instantly go to top of the totem pole based on past service.

Yeah, I 100% agree with NCY.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on April 14, 2011, 03:54:21 PM
Looks like nothing I propose is ever going to have any support. So what's the point of my service here?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on April 15, 2011, 02:57:27 AM
Apparently I support one of your bills more than yourself do. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on April 16, 2011, 12:32:03 AM
Looks like nothing I propose is ever going to have any support. So what's the point of my service here?

you've been proposing plenty of legislation, so please don't be upset if a couple bills don't go anywhere.  you are still one of the more active and hence influential Senators in the debates.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on April 16, 2011, 12:44:28 AM
Looks like nothing I propose is ever going to have any support. So what's the point of my service here?

you've been proposing plenty of legislation, so please don't be upset if a couple bills don't go anywhere.  you are still one of the more active and hence influential Senators in the debates.

     Indeed. When I was Senator, I suspect that a majority of the bills I proposed were defeated in the Senate, some by large margins. Setbacks are inevitable, especially when you aren't exactly "middle-of-the-road". ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on April 18, 2011, 11:22:17 AM
Yankee anb Tony made good points (thanks to this system I'm more senior than Rowan :P), so I hereby withdraw this proposal.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on April 18, 2011, 05:06:05 PM
Ask The Power Act

1. The President is required to create an official, permanent questioning thread
2. Game Moderator is required to stick this topic
3. Any Senator or Regional Governor shall be allowed to submitt an official question here for President, Vice President, Game Moderator or any cabinet members, regarding Government business
4. President, Vice President, Game Moderator or Cabinet member, to whom question was addressed, shall be required to provide an official answer within three days
We could also just sticky the President's official thread, as we already have answered several questions there. :) At the rate we're going, the entire first page of the Election Board will be stickied boards before we know it!

Also, if you do stick with this, I'd strongly recommend adding a clause at the end excusing the three day timeline if the cabinet-member has posted a LOA.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on April 18, 2011, 05:24:36 PM
Ask The Power Act

1. The President is required to create an official, permanent questioning thread
2. Game Moderator is required to stick this topic
3. Any Senator or Regional Governor shall be allowed to submitt an official question here for President, Vice President, Game Moderator or any cabinet members, regarding Government business
4. President, Vice President, Game Moderator or Cabinet member, to whom question was addressed, shall be required to provide an official answer within three days
We could also just sticky the President's official thread, as we already have answered several questions there. :) At the rate we're going, the entire first page of the Election Board will be stickied boards before we know it!

Also, if you do stick with this, I'd strongly recommend adding a clause at the end excusing the three day timeline if the cabinet-member has posted a LOA.

Tmthforu, I don't doubt your wiligness to answer questions, but I want to set a nice precedent for all your successors as well :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on April 18, 2011, 05:30:40 PM
How about this?

Ask The Power Act

1. Moderator General shall be required to stick current official White House thread
2. Any Senator or Regional Governor shall be allowed to submitt an official question here for President, Vice President or any cabinet members, regarding Government business
3. President, Vice President or Cabinet member, to whom question was addressed, shall be required to provide an official answer within three days, barring leave of absence before


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on April 18, 2011, 05:52:14 PM
How about this?

Ask The Power Act

1. Game Moderator shall be required to stick current official White House thread
2. Any Senator or Regional Governor shall be allowed to submitt an official question here for President, Vice President, Game Moderator or any cabinet members, regarding Government business
3. President, Vice President, Game Moderator or Cabinet member, to whom question was addressed, shall be required to provide an official answer within three days, unless they posted leave of absence before
GM's don't have moderator rights. Do you mean the Moderator General?

Why can only Senator's and Regional Governor's submit questions? Why can't anyone?

Also, the GM is a cabinet position, so you wouldn't need to put it separately in Section 3.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on April 18, 2011, 05:54:14 PM
How about this?

Ask The Power Act

1. Game Moderator shall be required to stick current official White House thread
2. Any Senator or Regional Governor shall be allowed to submitt an official question here for President, Vice President, Game Moderator or any cabinet members, regarding Government business
3. President, Vice President, Game Moderator or Cabinet member, to whom question was addressed, shall be required to provide an official answer within three days, unless they posted leave of absence before
GM's don't have moderator rights. Do you mean the Moderator General?

Why can only Senator's and Regional Governor's submit questions? Why can't anyone?

Also, the GM is a cabinet position, so you wouldn't need to put it separately in Section 3.

1. Yes, that's my bad.

2. Practicality. I figured it's better to limit it now to key officials, because otherwise you'd have to answer all over and all over again.

3. I'll fix it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on April 18, 2011, 06:02:43 PM
How about this?

Ask The Power Act

1. Game Moderator shall be required to stick current official White House thread
2. Any Senator or Regional Governor shall be allowed to submitt an official question here for President, Vice President, Game Moderator or any cabinet members, regarding Government business
3. President, Vice President, Game Moderator or Cabinet member, to whom question was addressed, shall be required to provide an official answer within three days, unless they posted leave of absence before
GM's don't have moderator rights. Do you mean the Moderator General?

Why can only Senator's and Regional Governor's submit questions? Why can't anyone?

Also, the GM is a cabinet position, so you wouldn't need to put it separately in Section 3.

1. Yes, that's my bad.

2. Practicality. I figured it's better to limit it now to key officials, because otherwise you'd have to answer all over and all over again.

3. I'll fix it.
A nice start. :)

My concern is how effective and useful this will be, tbh. I have a real concern that Governor's and Senator's will actually take the time to ask questions.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on April 18, 2011, 06:37:50 PM
How about this?

Ask The Power Act

1. Game Moderator shall be required to stick current official White House thread
2. Any Senator or Regional Governor shall be allowed to submitt an official question here for President, Vice President, Game Moderator or any cabinet members, regarding Government business
3. President, Vice President, Game Moderator or Cabinet member, to whom question was addressed, shall be required to provide an official answer within three days, unless they posted leave of absence before
GM's don't have moderator rights. Do you mean the Moderator General?

Why can only Senator's and Regional Governor's submit questions? Why can't anyone?

Also, the GM is a cabinet position, so you wouldn't need to put it separately in Section 3.

1. Yes, that's my bad.

2. Practicality. I figured it's better to limit it now to key officials, because otherwise you'd have to answer all over and all over again.

3. I'll fix it.
A nice start. :)

My concern is how effective and useful this will be, tbh. I have a real concern that Governor's and Senator's will actually take the time to ask questions.

Well, we can at least give it a chance.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on April 26, 2011, 07:18:23 PM
Should I restore the stupid PM's? It's not enough but atleast it would speed up the votes. We are taking to long to deliberate on bills. We can't keep having discussions that take a day for each person to respond. It seems that very rarely are Senators ever online at one point in time. I realize that would be difficult to insist on trying to have everyone one during a specific set of hours.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on April 27, 2011, 10:34:16 PM
WHAT THE HELL DO WE PAY YOU PEOPLE FOR?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >:(


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on April 28, 2011, 04:31:34 PM
SPEAK TO ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Ah yes, Goldeneye, such a great Bond film. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Rowan on April 29, 2011, 06:10:04 PM
I didn't even know this thread existed.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on April 29, 2011, 11:21:23 PM
Should I restore the stupid PM's? It's not enough but atleast it would speed up the votes. We are taking to long to deliberate on bills. We can't keep having discussions that take a day for each person to respond. It seems that very rarely are Senators ever online at one point in time. I realize that would be difficult to insist on trying to have everyone one during a specific set of hours.

sorry I guess you wanted to discuss this. I don't really know how it worked in the past, but I would be okay with receiving PMs when there is a vote.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on April 29, 2011, 11:49:46 PM
There weren't anything crazy, you just stuff like this:

Subject Line: woooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My dear Cadaverous Senate collegues,


Do please take care to haunt the Senate chambers for the sake of voting on the Freedom of Consumption Act.

NC Yankee,
The PPT with dead bodies in his sig.



This subject line was inspired by the movie Gettysburg, when the bring in the Muntineers for Chamberlain to "deal with".

Subject Line: ATTENTION DETAIL!!!!
SENATORZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!


The amendment to the Haiti Rebuilding act is at final vote and the wiki somethin or other bill has a cloture motion at vote. There are other bills with business on going, I would advise you lazy peeps check them all. :P


NC Yankee,
PPT


Subject Line: Hey dingbats!!!!!
There is a Constitutional Amendment at final vote.




NC Yankee,
Punk Pro-Tempore


Subject Line: Okay Turkeys (since Libertas doesn't like Sheep)
There is an amendment to a bill currently at vote.



Those who don't vote reasonably fast enough, end up in the oven.


NC Yankee,
America's Best Poultry,
Chairman and CEO

Subject Line: OH NO! HE'S BAACCKKKKK!!!!!!!
Yes, back for more blood and tears. >:D


The Fix Yo Face act is at final vote.

NC Yankee,
The Grim Reaper's Hand Maiden


This one was inspired by George Carlin's 2005 performance in which he constructed a "suicide note" The attention grabber was the subject line below

Subject Line: HEY GUYS!!!! Guess What?
Keep on Reading!!!


The "Foriegn Policy Reform Act of 2010"is at final vote.



North Carolina Yankee,
Atlasian Senator.
President Pro-Tempore  
 


Subject Line: Senate business
Pre-Registration Act is at final vote


NC Yankee,
PPT



Yes, go find which ones and do your jobs. And yes Andrew, that includes you too, or I might withold your Senate pension. >:D :P


NC Yankee,
President Pro-Tempore


So Not Crazy!!! :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on May 01, 2011, 06:54:59 PM
can't... stand... your... anger...

*on the way to the Cayman Islands*


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 01, 2011, 07:04:49 PM
Your Too Late, PMs have been restored. >:D >:D


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on May 01, 2011, 07:05:29 PM
Sorry, Cayman Islands, you'll have to wait :(


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 01, 2011, 07:28:30 PM
If I were a Senator, I would neither want nor need annoying PMs. Imagine having to remind your real life Senator that they have to go vote!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on May 01, 2011, 07:51:05 PM
If I were a Senator, I would neither want nor need annoying PMs. Imagine having to remind your real life Senator that they have to go vote!

they too have people who tell them when the vote is. and they paid a lot more than we do. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 01, 2011, 07:58:42 PM
If I were a Senator, I would neither want nor need annoying PMs. Imagine having to remind your real life Senator that they have to go vote!

they too have people who tell them when the vote is. and they paid a lot more than we do. :P


They have a staff but they seem to place a higher importance on making the vote than our Senators do. There is no reason for complacency when improvements can be made. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on May 01, 2011, 08:03:50 PM
If I were a Senator, I would neither want nor need annoying PMs. Imagine having to remind your real life Senator that they have to go vote!

they too have people who tell them when the vote is. and they paid a lot more than we do. :P


They have a staff but they seem to place a higher importance on making the vote than our Senators do. There is no reason for complacency when improvements can be made. :)

I agree, but I think the PMs helpful so Senators don't miss a vote without knowing it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on May 02, 2011, 02:09:39 PM
Why PMing me? I never missed a damn vote!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 02, 2011, 02:14:43 PM
I am going to die. I have just posted the next bill THREE ING times. Is it there? You bet your sweet ass it isn't.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 02, 2011, 02:34:11 PM
A Visual aid to illustrate my torment:

()


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 02, 2011, 09:47:43 PM
In an attempt to fix some of my internet problems, I think I spent two hours and succeeded only so far as to scramble my AOL software even more. Now I have too dialable versions on my computer (9.5 and Security Edition).


I did managed to isolate the scrolling issue. I logged on as a guest with a different AOL account and the scrolling issue vanished. So that means it isn't IE, its a setting related to my AOL account, which I expected all along, I just had the wrong starting point of the problem.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Rowan on May 03, 2011, 05:46:11 PM
I like the PM's by the way. If I forgot to sign in on the site a day, the e-mail that I get is nice to remind me.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on May 03, 2011, 08:38:38 PM
Don't PM me. PM lazy bastards, not me: a model Senator who never missed a vote. Don't, or I'll sue you for harassment.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Yelnoc on June 10, 2011, 07:06:43 AM
So, you guys might want to consider passing constitutional amendments to fix the dates of the elections, ban citizens from running for office in regions they do not reside, and post their registration in the registration thread.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on June 10, 2011, 09:02:18 AM
So, you guys might want to consider passing constitutional amendments to fix the dates of the elections, ban citizens from running for office in regions they do not reside, and post their registration in the registration thread.

I introduced an amendment to change the election calendar.  The Constitution, as I read it, gives the power of determining declaration procedures to the Senate for Federal offices, so that can be done by a statute/amendment to election law.  I don't think the registration issue would require an amendment either.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 11, 2011, 04:35:50 AM
Much appreciated, Shua and Bgwah.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on June 11, 2011, 09:45:51 AM
Does it have to be a Constitutional Amendment? That would take more time, I would think. A simple law was implemented to require people to register in the "New Register Thread", and I don't see why we shouldn't do the same thing for the others.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bgwah on June 11, 2011, 12:28:02 PM
The elections times are currently set by the Constitution and thus require an amendment to be altered.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on June 11, 2011, 01:00:31 PM
The elections times are currently set by the Constitution and thus require an amendment to be altered.
I know that, I'm referring to the amendments requiring that you post in certain threads. I bill has already passed requiring you have to register in "New Register Thread", so that one's moot.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Barnes on June 29, 2011, 12:29:41 PM
Question to the PPT:

Does the Constitution specifically state that ONLY Senators are able to introduce legislation.  I was just thinking it would be very nice to amend the Senate' rules and allow Cabinet members to easily introduce bills, of course, they wouldn't be allowed to vote on them. ;D


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 29, 2011, 12:34:09 PM
Why not just ask a Senator?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Barnes on June 29, 2011, 12:42:48 PM

Ah, you misunderstand. I don't have any at the moment to introduce, and I have always been able to find a helping Senator in the past to do so.

I just think it would be interesting to the game to let the Cabinet almost transform into a Cabinet out of a Parliamentary system.

This is just my opinion, no problem if it can't be done. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 29, 2011, 12:48:28 PM
I would not support the executive forcing bills for consideration, sorry. There is too much potential for abuse by flooding us with legislation to consider.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 29, 2011, 12:50:42 PM
Ah, nope. (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Current_Senate_Rules,_Regulations,_and_Procedures#Section_1:__Rules_on_Legislation_Introduction)

Quote
Section 1: Rules on Legislation Introduction
1. The PPT shall establish and maintain a thread for Senators to introduce legislation, to be further known in this document as the Legislation Introduction Thread. Only Senators who presently hold elected office may be allowed to post in this thread. Any Citizens or Individuals who post in this thread may be subject to legal action pursuant to the relevant clauses in federal Criminal Law legislation so passed by the Senate.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 29, 2011, 12:55:53 PM
I think the current system is best because it encourages the administration to establish relationships with certain or even all of the Senators as well as increases activity of the Senators as well. Granted, I better than anyone know there is a big different between sponsoring and supporting legislation and they aren't always occuring together. In spite of this, I think it is generally a good system because it forces interaction between two organs of the gov't, and I beleive such interaction is a key aspect of activity in Atlasia.



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on June 29, 2011, 01:58:56 PM

Ah, you misunderstand. I don't have any at the moment to introduce, and I have always been able to find a helping Senator in the past to do so.

I just think it would be interesting to the game to let the Cabinet almost transform into a Cabinet out of a Parliamentary system.

This is just my opinion, no problem if it can't be done. :)
I actually think this is a very good idea, Barnes.

 During my administration, there were several instances where myself or another cabinetmember wanted to introduce something, but we had to get a Senator to do it for us. The bill is going to be introduced regardless, so I don't see any problem with "cutting out the middleman". ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on June 30, 2011, 01:02:31 AM

     This has come up before & that has always been my reservation. It is also the reason that, even though I am empowered by the IDS Constitution to introduce bills for consideration by our Legislature, I never do so. If you cannot find a member of the actual body who is willing to introduce the bill for you, then it obviously won't succeed. If you cannot find a member who is active enough to be corralled into introducing it, then the Senate has far more serious issues than people having to wait an extra day or so for a bill to hit the queue.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 30, 2011, 01:07:15 AM
Personally I see absolutely nothing wrong with members of the executive being able to introduce bills on their own, and have proposed that very thing multiple times in the last year, but for some reason this makes certain people get all fussy over "separation of powers" in a forum game.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 30, 2011, 06:19:54 AM
The problem is that middleman also has to in the end vote for your bill in order to get passed, and as PiT said, if you can't get someone to introduce it, how could you ever pass it?

And as Marokai generously reminded me, it is indeed a violation of separation of powers. :P 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on June 30, 2011, 05:27:41 PM
And as Marokai generously reminded me, it is indeed a violation of separation of powers. :P 

Only until we say it's not a violation of separation of powers anymore. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 26, 2011, 03:41:52 PM
OSPR Amendment

Quote
Section 5: Rules on Motions to Table
1. Any Senator can, during a period of debate, introduce a motion to table the legislation.

2. The PPT shall open a vote on the motion to table. This vote shall last for a maximum of two (2) days during which time the Senators must vote. Voting may be declared final at any time if the motion to table has been approved or rejected.

3. For the motion to table to pass, two thirds of those voting (excluding abstentions) must support the motion.

4. Tabled legislation shall be taken off the Senate floor
[/quote]


Instead of excluding absentions, the best way to improve the tabling process would be to require 2/3rd's approval of the entire Senate rather then "those voting", and if necessary then increase the length of time to 72 hours rather then two days. It's also more in line with the rest of the OSPR to use increments of time (hours) rather then potentially imply the use of a block day (Also known as BK's Salvation :P).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 26, 2011, 05:04:19 PM
I tried my best to mirror the original text if you want to propose changes feel free.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 29, 2011, 08:23:08 PM
Great proposal Snowguy I would have done something similar but the Northeast already had it in place :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Frodo on August 03, 2011, 11:13:29 PM
Transportation Infrastructure Investment Act

Section 1: Appropriations

1. $10 billion shall be appropriated for the construction of a high speed rail line connecting the cities of Bridgeport, New Haven, and Hartford, CT and Springfield, Worcester, and Boston, MA.

2. $5 billion shall be appropriated for the construction of a high speed rail line connecting the cities of Portland, OR and Tacoma and Seattle, WA.

3. $5 billion shall be appropriated for the construction of a high speed rail line connecting the cities of Raleigh, Durham, Greensboro, and Charlotte, NC.

Section 2: Completion

1. The rail lines are to be completed by 2016.

2. The construction of the rail lines should significantly affect as few private properties as reasonably possible.

3. Existing lines should be updated when it is reasonably possible.

Section 3: Operation

1. These rail lines shall be operated under Section 3 of the High Speed Rail Act.

Great bill, though I think it is a bit too weighted towards high speed rail.  I would like at least some emphasis on expanding mass public transit in urban metropolises throughout Atlasia. 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on August 04, 2011, 09:48:11 PM
I, uh, know what current law is. I made this specific to health care as to override the "doctors" in the Mideast trying to determine what is a valid medical treatments. The federal government guarantees health care.

Kudos to you.  I did was not sure exactly what the law was.  It was in 2006, I think.  Very good research.

As far as you argument...I see you are fan of Marokai's interpretation of a the word "demonstration" in Clause 13, Section 5, Article 1 of the Third Constitution.  I myself respectfully disagree with it.  I just don't see it that way, but then again I am a strict constructionist.

However, an argument could be made that the amendment to the above bill gives the region the right you are trying to take away from them.

As far as "doctors" (your quotes) and "valid medical treatments" (my sarcastic quotes, not at you but rather based on my experience), I have a friend who got a prescription for marijuana for headaches (probably due to the fact he was hung over) while his girlfriend got them for PMS.  I do question a lot of the "doctors" (this time my quotes, because the guy who gave the prescription was not an MD or anything medical related).  Thus, returning to my opinion that we should just legalize it and do away with the facade.

Just my opinion.  While I was typing, I saw Tmth's post.  he is right.  I just wanted to respond in a way that I know someone would see the whole discussion.  I will now depart.

Not my research, it was pointed out to me a few months ago. Though the article of the month touches on it.

Anyway, this bill was written to protect patients from reactionary conservatives. We have a national health care system in place so it makes sense that we hold each region to the same health care standard. It is also pretty obvious that the Mideast government is clueless about marijuana so it is sad IMO to see them discuss it as if serious. The idea that marijuana leads to child abuse almost made me choke from laughter. Good grief.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Junkie on August 04, 2011, 09:56:32 PM
I, uh, know what current law is. I made this specific to health care as to override the "doctors" in the Mideast trying to determine what is a valid medical treatments. The federal government guarantees health care.

Kudos to you.  I did was not sure exactly what the law was.  It was in 2006, I think.  Very good research.

As far as you argument...I see you are fan of Marokai's interpretation of a the word "demonstration" in Clause 13, Section 5, Article 1 of the Third Constitution.  I myself respectfully disagree with it.  I just don't see it that way, but then again I am a strict constructionist.

However, an argument could be made that the amendment to the above bill gives the region the right you are trying to take away from them.

As far as "doctors" (your quotes) and "valid medical treatments" (my sarcastic quotes, not at you but rather based on my experience), I have a friend who got a prescription for marijuana for headaches (probably due to the fact he was hung over) while his girlfriend got them for PMS.  I do question a lot of the "doctors" (this time my quotes, because the guy who gave the prescription was not an MD or anything medical related).  Thus, returning to my opinion that we should just legalize it and do away with the facade.

Just my opinion.  While I was typing, I saw Tmth's post.  he is right.  I just wanted to respond in a way that I know someone would see the whole discussion.  I will now depart.

Not my research, it was pointed out to me a few months ago. Though the article of the month touches on it.

Anyway, this bill was written to protect patients from reactionary conservatives. We have a national health care system in place so it makes sense that we hold each region to the same health care standard. It is also pretty obvious that the Mideast government is clueless about marijuana so it is sad IMO to see them discuss it as if serious. The idea that marijuana leads to child abuse almost made me choke from laughter. Good grief.

True about the national health care system, although I believe a real argument could be made that it is unconstitutional.  Only Marokai's decision on the Court makes it even close to legal, in my humble opinion.  For a little while Marokai and I debated this...until he kicked my butt in front of the Supreme Court.

As far as the the child abuse, it does seem a little out there...but I have seen a few cases of it.  Also homcide.  But way more cases where alcohol was the reason. 

To be clear, I would just legalize it -- medicial or not.  But, I am a regionalist.   I also think, based on my reading of the court that you might win.  I disagree but then again they are the law of the land.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on September 04, 2011, 11:10:33 PM
It's a shame that the regional elections amendment went to a vote without an agreement on the details. I counted 6 votes in favor of the general principle, which would be enough with only 8-9 sworn in Senators.
It seems like if you had the SoFE distribute the Presidential election section of the ballot to the various regions (to vote alongside the region administered Senate race), which would then be returned to the SoFE for counting and certifying, that might have worked as a good compromise.

So basically, if this fails, it's not a reason to give up on the idea.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on September 05, 2011, 04:26:44 AM
Great point shua and thank you for taking my rather lengthy report into consideration. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fritz on September 24, 2011, 02:27:01 PM
Is the Senate going to address the secessionist movements currently running rampant?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 03, 2011, 05:01:15 PM
Privacy Protection Act

FL 36-11 is hereby repealed.

Yeah! It's about time someone stood up in defense of the privacy of drunk drivers!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on October 03, 2011, 05:06:30 PM
Privacy Protection Act

FL 36-11 is hereby repealed.

Yeah! It's about time someone stood up in defense of the privacy of drunk drivers!

The breath test has proven to be inaccurate and more often than not gives an inflated result. If an officer suspects a driver of being drunk there are many options for field sobreity tests that should be videotaped when performing and admissable as evidence. Further, if one feels that an officer has wrongfully determined them to be intoxicated through field tests they should retain the option to submit a blood sample test that is much more accurate than a breath test.

And to top it off, this is a coercive law that jeapordizes a region's ability to enforce its laws.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 03, 2011, 05:18:53 PM
Your concerns over accuracy of tests are justifiable, but a clean repeal of that law has absolutely nothing to do with what you're trying to accomplish. You're not proposing a modification to the statute to make the law more fair, you're proposing the repeal of a law that makes it illegal to refuse sobriety tests and punishes individuals more severely if they have committed the same offense in the past.

That has approximately.. let's see.. carry the one.. 0% to do with what you just argued it was for.

Also, I happen to remember when that law was passed. It does not restrict the lawmaking capacity of regions to do anything. There are several exceptions for regional law and all the Act does is make a minimum level of criminality in the default, with an automatic deference to regional law if a regional law is actually in place. Explain to me how that is "coercive" and "jeopardizes" anything in regions beyond your empty rhetoric.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on October 03, 2011, 05:21:43 PM
When the Senate gets to this bill, we will all provide opinions and come together for a solution. As you may have noticed, I like to propose these things simply to spark debate. Once people are paying attention, we can improve our Statute collectively. You're making a way bigger deal about this than it needs to be.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 03, 2011, 05:22:41 PM
I merely using the Senate Protest and Analysis thread to protest something that you are trying to pass under entirely false pretenses.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 03, 2011, 07:48:19 PM
I'm going to be blunt. Repealing of the Privacy Protection Act was sensless. Law in Atlasia is directly contradicting forum rules.

Beside, I'm opposing violating or private conversations as a principle.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on October 03, 2011, 09:45:08 PM
I'm going to be blunt. Repealing of the Privacy Protection Act was sensless. Law in Atlasia is directly contradicting forum rules.

Beside, I'm opposing violating or private conversations as a principle.

I've always agreed with you on this Kal.

Napoleon, I think you need to change the name of your bill. There is a Privacy Protection Act that was passed before (and then repealed), and calling an unrelated bill by the same name would be very confusing.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on October 03, 2011, 09:46:47 PM
Thank you. I was wondering why some were confused. Ill think of a more appropriate title.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 04, 2011, 06:48:55 AM
Thank you. I was wondering why some were confused. Ill think of a more appropriate title.

You know, something like "Repeal of the Repeal" ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on October 07, 2011, 08:58:15 PM
I want to remind Senators that the important Libya Aid Bill is still awaiting passage :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on October 16, 2011, 02:28:48 PM
I want to remind Senators that the important Libya Aid Bill is still awaiting passage :)

As is the most recent FPR.  Let's not totally ignore foreign policy, guys.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bgwah on October 16, 2011, 02:30:29 PM
It's next in the queue.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on October 16, 2011, 02:43:02 PM

Excellent!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bgwah on October 18, 2011, 01:45:41 PM
And we should have a slot specifically for foreign affairs soon anyway, as it looks like the OSPR amendment will pass.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on November 05, 2011, 08:31:40 PM
...and Marokai just proved that he should have been in the Senate even earlier.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on November 07, 2011, 11:04:37 PM
I can't confirm myself you know :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 08, 2011, 01:02:43 AM
Email the Vice President. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Frodo on December 03, 2011, 05:38:52 PM
Comprehensive Protection of Nuclear Power Act

1. The Nuclear Safety Act of 2011 (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Nuclear_Safety_Act_of_2011) is hereby repealed and shall be moved to the Repealed Statute wiki page.

2. Before permission from the federal government, or granting of any federal funds toward the construction of a new nuclear power plant, a full and comprehensive environment safety evaluation must be made from geological surveyors.

3. Any area that has been deemed geologically unsafe may have a nuclear power built on or near it.

4. All nuclear power plants in current operation must receive complete safety evaluation from regulators every four months (or roughly 120 days) and may not withhold any requested information from examiners.

5. Every existing nuclear power plant, as well as all nuclear power plants built in the future, must be fitted with a generator capable of producing power to the main portions of the facility for at least 72 hours in the event of catastrophic failure or natural disaster.

6. $2.5 billion shall be appropriated for the development of more advanced equipment capable of cleaning up and/or containing potential nuclear disasters, as well as safety equipment to prevent such disasters.

Co-sponsor: Senator Duke

I have no particular objections to the rest of the bill, but Senator Duke might want to take a closer look at section 3.  :P

 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on December 08, 2011, 09:41:36 PM
I need to find out the answer to something as I work on calculating the budget:

Were all prior welfare programs repealed by the CSSRA, or just those with analogues in the final bill?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on January 20, 2012, 01:25:25 AM
I need to find out the answer to something as I work on calculating the budget:

Were all prior welfare programs repealed by the CSSRA, or just those with analogues in the final bill?
I'm going to just assume the latter.

Not a single Senate post on Thursday! ( not complaining, just interesting.)
Did the Senate have the day off?  Or was everyone just too distracted by Newt?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on January 20, 2012, 02:14:55 AM
Not a single Senate post on Thursday! ( not complaining, just interesting.)
Did the Senate have the day off?  Or was everyone just too distracted by Newt?

Was a bit interesting! I was distracted by home stuff and it seems like everyone else also had their own priorities. :P Most things are tied up in votes at the moment, which probably had something to do with it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Mopsus on January 20, 2012, 11:20:05 AM
I need to find out the answer to something as I work on calculating the budget:

Were all prior welfare programs repealed by the CSSRA, or just those with analogues in the final bill?
I'm going to just assume the latter.

Not a single Senate post on Thursday! ( not complaining, just interesting.)
Did the Senate have the day off?  Or was everyone just too distracted by Newt?
I have drama practice from noon to five every Thursday, so that explains at least some of my absence. Of course, it doesn't explain why I didn't post after I came home :P.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on January 20, 2012, 07:22:31 PM
I spent hours on this new machine just trying to get it to open the Atlas Forum, at all. I couldn't get on AFE/AFG, or the 2012 boards for hours after that. They just wouldn't load.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Frodo on January 28, 2012, 11:54:17 AM
Oil Spill Protection Act

Section 1: Oil Profits Tax

1. Any oil company that does business within Atlasia and earns a larger quarterly profit than one billion dollars shall be subject to a 5% tax on all profits above one billion dollars in that quarter.

2. Revenue from the oil profits tax shall be diverted into a newly created Oil Spill Protection Fund which shall be used to promote research and development of new technologies to prevent environmental damages in the event of an oil spill or similar disaster, as well as to fund emergency clean-up and rebuilding measures in the aftermath of such an event.

Section 2: Regulatory Effectiveness

1. All oil rigs and drilling platforms operating within Atlasian land and waters, regardless of their supposed nationality, shall be subject to Atlasian regulatory rules and will be inspected regularly by personnel from the Department of Internal Affairs.

2. All oil drilling platforms are required to install and regularly test each month 'emergency blow-out preventers' and evacuation drills.

3. Companies operating any oil drilling platforms that do not meet Atlasian safety regulations may be required, at the discretion of the Department of Internal Affairs, to pay additional taxes into the Oil Spill Protection Fund.

Section 3: Responsibility

1. In the event of an oil spill or another oil-related disaster, the oil and drilling companies in question shall be entirely responsible for cleanup measures. If deemed necessary by the Secretary of Internal Affairs, the financial resources of the Oil Spill Protection Fund will be made available to ensure a swift and full cleanup process.

2. No monetary cap shall be put in place for oil spill cleanup and compensation for damages.

Co-sponsor: Senator Duke

I strongly support this act, but we need an equivalent for coal cleanup as well, so we can avoid any repeat of what happened in Tennessee back in 2008. (http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/12/23/coal-slurry-disaster-in-tennessee-is-largest-ever/)  Also, an act guaranteeing the safety of coal miners might also be called for -this sort of thing happens too regularly (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/05/west-virginia-coal-mine-e_n_526151.html) in a country as supposedly developed and advanced as ours.  


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 01, 2012, 07:18:53 PM
I strongly urge our senators to support the Constitutional anti-conscription amendment and reject the recently proposed amendment to the bill.  Conscription gives government permission to shape how a person pilots their own life and personal freedom should never, in my view, be sacrificed in peacetime or war time.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 01, 2012, 07:24:56 PM
I strongly urge our senators to support the Constitutional anti-conscription amendment and reject the recently proposed amendment to the bill.  Conscription gives government permission to shape how a person pilots their own life and personal freedom should never, in my view, be sacrificed in peacetime or war time.

Mr Speaker,

I completely and utterly understand your position... but I cannot completely throw out the idea of conscription being used in a time of dire need.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 01, 2012, 07:38:15 PM
Personally, I am uncomfortable with the notion that the People are to defend the State.....as a progressive, I believe the State should defend The People.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 01, 2012, 07:43:13 PM
I strongly urge our senators to support the Constitutional anti-conscription amendment and reject the recently proposed amendment to the bill.  Conscription gives government permission to shape how a person pilots their own life and personal freedom should never, in my view, be sacrificed in peacetime or war time.

Personally, I am uncomfortable with the notion that the People are to defend the State.....as a progressive, I believe the State should defend The People.

^


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 01, 2012, 07:45:27 PM
Precisely.  A government that coerces people into entering danger zones and risking their own lives can justly be compared to, quite simply, fascism.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 01, 2012, 07:54:48 PM
Precisely.  A government that coerces people into entering danger zones and risking their own lives can justly be compared to, quite simply, fascism.

I think that's a touch melodramatic.

I just don't think it's right to rule out that there will ever, ever need to be a time to institute such measures. What I think as a progressive can't always win out over sheer practicality.

Make it next to impossible for the Senate to authorise it... but I can't responsibly consider the outside chance that it might be required in an extreme case.

Mind you, there's always the likelihood that if the country were attacked, the Senate would invoke some kind of emergency power.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 01, 2012, 07:59:15 PM
This is only my personal view, but I would be more likely to defend a country that allows me the freedom not to do so. I have a stronger moral objection to a war if its fought through conscription.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 01, 2012, 08:04:27 PM
This is only my personal view, but I would be more likely to defend a country that allows me the freedom not to do so. I have a stronger moral objection to a war if its fought through conscription.

This.

It is also in my personal view that the military is better off having soldiers who want to fight purely for voluntary reasons like patriotism, and not just because the government will penalize them if they refuse to risk their lives or object to the war.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 01, 2012, 08:06:47 PM
I'm not really sold on the philosophical arguments... but if my vote is a deciding one - I will re-assess.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 01, 2012, 09:06:20 PM
I feel it's necessary to ask this question to those who believe conscription should be an option: if there was an attack on your soil and your country went to war without conscripting citizens, would you volunteer to enlist?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 01, 2012, 09:07:28 PM
I feel it's necessary to ask this question to those who believe conscription should be an option: if an attack happened on your soil and your country went to war without conscripting citizens, would you volunteer to enlist?

As Napoleon said, if we get attacked on our own soil and no one is willing to fight, we deserve to lose.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on February 01, 2012, 09:09:35 PM
I feel it's necessary to ask this question to those who believe conscription should be an option: if an attack happened on your soil and your country went to war without conscripting citizens, would you volunteer to enlist?

As Napoleon said, if we get attacked on our own soil and no one is willing to fight, we deserve to lose.

And that's probably true, but as lovely a romantic notion that that is, Polnut and Junkie are right, unfortunately. This has to be viewed realistically and pragmatically, and if we're getting invaded, the government should probably have the right to band us up.

And to Scott's question, yes, I would.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 01, 2012, 09:09:52 PM
Well not only that but it's a patently ridiculous scenario; if one thinks there is an imminent threat of being attacked on one's own soil by a power which would require conscription to defeat, kindly do explain what you believe said power to be.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on February 01, 2012, 09:11:41 PM
Well not only that but it's a patently ridiculous scenario; if one thinks there is an imminent threat of being attacked on one's own soil by a power which would require conscription to defeat, kindly do explain what you believe said power to be.

I don't think it will happen, but such hypotheticals are irrelevent to the point itself.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 01, 2012, 09:14:13 PM
Putting the rights of a government before the rights of its people is a hideously disturbing concept.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 01, 2012, 09:14:37 PM
Well not only that but it's a patently ridiculous scenario; if one thinks there is an imminent threat of being attacked on one's own soil by a power which would require conscription to defeat, kindly do explain what you believe said power to be.

I don't think it will happen, but such hypotheticals are irrelevent to the point itself.

Uh no, if you are advocating things based on obviously ridiculous hypotheticals you have to provide evidence that your hypotheticals are not, in fact, ridiculous.  It's essentially the equivalent of claiming gay marriage will turn children gay.  Not a valid argument unless you can provide evidence that the hypothetical has the potential of being real.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 01, 2012, 09:15:36 PM
Putting the rights of a government before the rights of its people is a hideously disturbing concept.

This.

I think, if we're going to conscript our own citizens, we're first. And by "we," I mean all Senators, the President, Vice-President, etc.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on February 01, 2012, 09:17:14 PM
Putting the rights of a government before the rights of its people is a hideously disturbing concept.

The way you approach this issue is incredibly childish; I loathe these silly romantic notions. Stop being so hyperbolic over everything. I've changed my vote to Abstain. TJ's amendment is poorly worded.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 01, 2012, 09:18:26 PM
The philosophy and morality of every government action should be examined, especially when it comes to restraining or coercing people into doing something.  I fail to see what's pragmatic about forcing people to work for the state and sacrifice not only the direction they want their lives to take, but potentially life itself.  If we neglect to examine the morality of government action and only stick to what appears "ideal," then we sacrifice freedom.  The government's job is to protect people from oppressors, not to become the oppressors.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 01, 2012, 09:19:01 PM
Putting the rights of a government before the rights of its people is a hideously disturbing concept.

The way you approach this issue is incredibly childish; I loathe these silly romantic notions. Stop being so hyperbolic over everything. I've changed my vote to Abstain. TJ's amendment is poorly worded.

Usually when you and Napoleon fight, I stay out because generally, you're both wrong. But in this case, Napoleon is right. He's not being childish or hyperbolic. The people should indeed come before the rights of the Government. Just my two sense.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: TJ in Oregon on February 01, 2012, 09:19:51 PM
Putting the rights of a government before the rights of its people is a hideously disturbing concept.

The way you approach this issue is incredibly childish; I loathe these silly romantic notions. Stop being so hyperbolic over everything. I've changed my vote to Abstain. TJ's amendment is poorly worded.

How would you like it worded?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 01, 2012, 09:20:04 PM
The philosophy and morality of every government action should be examined, especially when it comes to restraining or coercing people into doing something.  I fail to see what's pragmatic about forcing people to work for the state and sacrifice not only the direction they want their lives to take, but potentially life itself.  If we neglect to examine the morality of government action and only stick to what appears "ideal," then we sacrifice freedom.  The government's job is to protect people from oppressors, not to become the oppressors.

Sigging this.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 01, 2012, 09:21:35 PM
The philosophy and morality of every government action should be examined, especially when it comes to restraining or coercing people into doing something.  I fail to see what's pragmatic about forcing people to work for the state and sacrifice not only the direction they want their lives to take, but potentially life itself.  If we neglect to examine the morality of government action and only stick to what appears "ideal," then we sacrifice freedom.  The government's job is to protect people from oppressors, not to become the oppressors.

Sigging this.

Vote for Scott if you want the NE to retain a Senator that stands up for our region's values. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on February 01, 2012, 09:21:52 PM
Putting the rights of a government before the rights of its people is a hideously disturbing concept.

The way you approach this issue is incredibly childish; I loathe these silly romantic notions. Stop being so hyperbolic over everything. I've changed my vote to Abstain. TJ's amendment is poorly worded.

How would you like it worded?

"Attack on Atlasian soil" is a bit too squirrelly for my taste, though I understand what you're going for. If there's some way to reasonably clarify we're referring to being outright invaded, I would support it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 01, 2012, 09:28:13 PM
The philosophy and morality of every government action should be examined, especially when it comes to restraining or coercing people into doing something.  I fail to see what's pragmatic about forcing people to work for the state and sacrifice not only the direction they want their lives to take, but potentially life itself.  If we neglect to examine the morality of government action and only stick to what appears "ideal," then we sacrifice freedom.  The government's job is to protect people from oppressors, not to become the oppressors.

Sigging this.

Thanks. :)

And thanks for making it look like a Ron Paul ad. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 01, 2012, 09:29:39 PM
The philosophy and morality of every government action should be examined, especially when it comes to restraining or coercing people into doing something.  I fail to see what's pragmatic about forcing people to work for the state and sacrifice not only the direction they want their lives to take, but potentially life itself.  If we neglect to examine the morality of government action and only stick to what appears "ideal," then we sacrifice freedom.  The government's job is to protect people from oppressors, not to become the oppressors.

Sigging this.

Thanks. :)

And thanks for making it look like a Ron Paul ad. :P

:P Freedom is popular! :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 01, 2012, 09:30:49 PM
The philosophy and morality of every government action should be examined, especially when it comes to restraining or coercing people into doing something.  I fail to see what's pragmatic about forcing people to work for the state and sacrifice not only the direction they want their lives to take, but potentially life itself.  If we neglect to examine the morality of government action and only stick to what appears "ideal," then we sacrifice freedom.  The government's job is to protect people from oppressors, not to become the oppressors.

Sigging this.

Thanks. :)

And thanks for making it look like a Ron Paul ad. :P

:P Freedom is popular! :P

I still think it's cute you think Ron Paul is actually about freedom...


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 01, 2012, 09:32:57 PM
The philosophy and morality of every government action should be examined, especially when it comes to restraining or coercing people into doing something.  I fail to see what's pragmatic about forcing people to work for the state and sacrifice not only the direction they want their lives to take, but potentially life itself.  If we neglect to examine the morality of government action and only stick to what appears "ideal," then we sacrifice freedom.  The government's job is to protect people from oppressors, not to become the oppressors.

Sigging this.

Thanks. :)

And thanks for making it look like a Ron Paul ad. :P

:P Freedom is popular! :P

I still think it's cute you think Ron Paul is actually about freedom...

If he weren't about freedom, he obviously wouldn't irritate the likes of certain individuals.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 01, 2012, 09:34:18 PM
The philosophy and morality of every government action should be examined, especially when it comes to restraining or coercing people into doing something.  I fail to see what's pragmatic about forcing people to work for the state and sacrifice not only the direction they want their lives to take, but potentially life itself.  If we neglect to examine the morality of government action and only stick to what appears "ideal," then we sacrifice freedom.  The government's job is to protect people from oppressors, not to become the oppressors.

Sigging this.

Thanks. :)

And thanks for making it look like a Ron Paul ad. :P

:P Freedom is popular! :P

I still think it's cute you think Ron Paul is actually about freedom...

If he weren't about freedom, he obviously wouldn't irritate the likes of certain individuals.

You really do think that's why he irritates people don't you?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tpfkaw on February 01, 2012, 09:35:41 PM
The philosophy and morality of every government action should be examined, especially when it comes to restraining or coercing people into doing something.  I fail to see what's pragmatic about forcing people to work for the state and sacrifice not only the direction they want their lives to take, but potentially life itself.  If we neglect to examine the morality of government action and only stick to what appears "ideal," then we sacrifice freedom.  The government's job is to protect people from oppressors, not to become the oppressors.

Sigging this.

Thanks. :)

And thanks for making it look like a Ron Paul ad. :P

:P Freedom is popular! :P

I still think it's cute you think Ron Paul is actually about freedom...

If he weren't about freedom, he obviously wouldn't irritate the likes of certain individuals.

You really do think that's why he irritates people don't you?

Obviously.  It's an extremely accurate rule of thumb that the more anti-freedom a person is, the more they dislike Ron Paul.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 01, 2012, 09:35:49 PM
Enough Ron Paul crap. This is Atlasia, let's talk about the threats to Atlasians' freedoms. Coughzuwocampaign


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on February 01, 2012, 09:42:04 PM
I posted tis in the other board but saw this one...

The anti-conscription bill in the Senate is not based in reality... every one spouts this sh**t about how the draft means lower quality men in the service- if they don't make the cut, they don't serve in uniform...period! Some one who is drafted goes thru basic training and training for their ocupational specialty and if they dont meet standards they are out of that speciality.

This bill ignores the fact that we may need the draft again at a certain point... not for something like Afgahnistan or Iraq (or- I hate to say even Vietnam) but for something like WWII. It is very interesting to see some one like you 20RP12 opposing the draft but wanting defense cuts...if we cut our military with out any sort of additional reserve component- which the population at large is- we will be weak and we will be defeated in a conflict. This isn't a health care mandate or the government forcing regulations down your throat- this is you being called to serve your country if she needs you most...more serious but far more justified

I am not in the SEnate but would love to discuss this with Napoleon and 20RP12 and others beucase I believe this is a dangerous bill...

clarence


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 01, 2012, 09:58:38 PM
I posted tis in the other board but saw this one...

The anti-conscription bill in the Senate is not based in reality... every one spouts this sh**t about how the draft means lower quality men in the service- if they don't make the cut, they don't serve in uniform...period! Some one who is drafted goes thru basic training and training for their ocupational specialty and if they dont meet standards they are out of that speciality.

This bill ignores the fact that we may need the draft again at a certain point... not for something like Afgahnistan or Iraq (or- I hate to say even Vietnam) but for something like WWII. It is very interesting to see some one like you 20RP12 opposing the draft but wanting defense cuts...if we cut our military with out any sort of additional reserve component- which the population at large is- we will be weak and we will be defeated in a conflict. This isn't a health care mandate or the government forcing regulations down your throat- this is you being called to serve your country if she needs you most...more serious but far more justified

I am not in the SEnate but would love to discuss this with Napoleon and 20RP12 and others beucase I believe this is a dangerous bill...

clarence

I don't personally think that the draft means lower quality men, but only that it's better to have a purely volunteer-based military instead of a coercion-based military.

As someone who is endorsing this bill, I don't think we need a draft because I think drafts are unjust for reasons that were already stated.  And people who oppose the draft aren't necessarily against having a defense- we just feel that people should be able to decide if they enlist in the military or not.  I don't think it's fair to make that connection.  Military cuts is another issue, but I will just say that the reason why people want those cuts is because our presence is in countries that it shouldn't be.  Furthermore, conscription very much constitutes as a mandate because it involves coercing people into doing something; whether it's a good mandate or a bad mandate, it's a mandate- because if you refuse to answer that call to join, you end up in prison.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on February 01, 2012, 10:01:49 PM
I posted tis in the other board but saw this one...

The anti-conscription bill in the Senate is not based in reality... every one spouts this sh**t about how the draft means lower quality men in the service- if they don't make the cut, they don't serve in uniform...period! Some one who is drafted goes thru basic training and training for their ocupational specialty and if they dont meet standards they are out of that speciality.

This bill ignores the fact that we may need the draft again at a certain point... not for something like Afgahnistan or Iraq (or- I hate to say even Vietnam) but for something like WWII. It is very interesting to see some one like you 20RP12 opposing the draft but wanting defense cuts...if we cut our military with out any sort of additional reserve component- which the population at large is- we will be weak and we will be defeated in a conflict. This isn't a health care mandate or the government forcing regulations down your throat- this is you being called to serve your country if she needs you most...more serious but far more justified

I am not in the SEnate but would love to discuss this with Napoleon and 20RP12 and others beucase I believe this is a dangerous bill...

clarence

I don't personally think that the draft means lower quality men, but only that it's better to have a purely volunteer-based military instead of a coercion-based military.

As someone who is endorsing this bill, I don't think we need a draft because I think drafts are unjust for reasons that were already stated.  And people who oppose the draft aren't necessarily against having a defense- we just feel that people should be able to decide if they enlist in the military or not.  I don't think it's fair to make that connection.  Military cuts is another issue, but I will just say that the reason why people want those cuts is because our presence is in countries that it shouldn't be.  Furthermore, conscription very much constitutes as a mandate because it involves coercing people into doing something; whether it's a good mandate or a bad mandate, it's a mandate- because if you refuse to answer that call to join, you end up in prison.

I see your point Scott and I do not think any one wants to have a weak defense... conscription is a mandate and a better amendment would be to use it in only a formal declaration of war. The defense cuts issue is related because if we cut the number of service members and cant draft then how the hell will we have the numbers we need during wartime?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 01, 2012, 10:10:56 PM
I posted tis in the other board but saw this one...

The anti-conscription bill in the Senate is not based in reality... every one spouts this sh**t about how the draft means lower quality men in the service- if they don't make the cut, they don't serve in uniform...period! Some one who is drafted goes thru basic training and training for their ocupational specialty and if they dont meet standards they are out of that speciality.

This bill ignores the fact that we may need the draft again at a certain point... not for something like Afgahnistan or Iraq (or- I hate to say even Vietnam) but for something like WWII. It is very interesting to see some one like you 20RP12 opposing the draft but wanting defense cuts...if we cut our military with out any sort of additional reserve component- which the population at large is- we will be weak and we will be defeated in a conflict. This isn't a health care mandate or the government forcing regulations down your throat- this is you being called to serve your country if she needs you most...more serious but far more justified

I am not in the SEnate but would love to discuss this with Napoleon and 20RP12 and others beucase I believe this is a dangerous bill...

clarence

I don't personally think that the draft means lower quality men, but only that it's better to have a purely volunteer-based military instead of a coercion-based military.

As someone who is endorsing this bill, I don't think we need a draft because I think drafts are unjust for reasons that were already stated.  And people who oppose the draft aren't necessarily against having a defense- we just feel that people should be able to decide if they enlist in the military or not.  I don't think it's fair to make that connection.  Military cuts is another issue, but I will just say that the reason why people want those cuts is because our presence is in countries that it shouldn't be.  Furthermore, conscription very much constitutes as a mandate because it involves coercing people into doing something; whether it's a good mandate or a bad mandate, it's a mandate- because if you refuse to answer that call to join, you end up in prison.

I see your point Scott and I do not think any one wants to have a weak defense... conscription is a mandate and a better amendment would be to use it in only a formal declaration of war. The defense cuts issue is related because if we cut the number of service members and cant draft then how the hell will we have the numbers we need during wartime?

Personally, I don't think we wouldn't have the numbers we would need during wartime (at least in the real USA), but there is little evidence to support or refute that.  Defense spending always increases when a country goes into war, but when a country is not at war with anyone, it should be able to cut spending back and remove troops from areas that they are no longer needed.  All the resources could be used for when the nation ever is in imminent danger, if necessary.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on February 01, 2012, 10:12:07 PM
Obviously.  It's an extremely accurate rule of thumb that the more anti-freedom a person is, the more they dislike Ron Paul.

There really isn't much room for nuance in your worldview, is there?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 01, 2012, 10:13:24 PM
Obviously.  It's an extremely accurate rule of thumb that the more anti-freedom a person is, the more they dislike Ron Paul.

There really isn't much room for nuance in your worldview, is there?

Did you really need to revive a dead, off-topic discussion just to spread negativity?

:(


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on February 01, 2012, 10:14:05 PM
Scott- the time conscription should be used would be in the face of an existential threat...in which case people may be fleeing rather then fighting. The draft needs to be a last resort option...any defense cuts only make it more so


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 01, 2012, 10:22:54 PM
Scott- the time conscription should be used would be in the face of an existential threat...in which case people may be fleeing rather then fighting. The draft needs to be a last resort option...any defense cuts only make it more so

People flee to Canada during drafts all the time.  As for defense spending, I don't object to increasing that if the country is in imminent danger.  But as I said, however, countries should cut that spending when they aren't fighting any wars.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: homelycooking on February 06, 2012, 12:24:27 PM
I do not think that Atlasia should go much longer without having a Secretary of Federal Elections. You may wish to find a new SoFE or shuffle some positions around, but if you are so inclined, I would be quite willing to serve in both capacities with one title should the RG and SoFE roles be combined due to constitutional amendment.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 06, 2012, 04:53:08 PM
I do not think that Atlasia should go much longer without having a Secretary of Federal Elections. You may wish to find a new SoFE or shuffle some positions around, but if you are so inclined, I would be quite willing to serve in both capacities with one title should the RG and SoFE roles be combined due to constitutional amendment.

This is something that I'm certainly supportive of.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 06, 2012, 07:05:35 PM
Funny how many of my June ideas have came about despite the attacks I had to endure.

Elect Napoleon, for a true visionary :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on February 06, 2012, 10:42:41 PM
There are a few bills that have passed but have not been signed, and the thread title statuses have not been updated. They probably need to be put in the WH thread or else a PM to the Prez.  Also, the wiki could use some updating - whoever's job it is to do that since we don't have an AG.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Cincinnatus on February 06, 2012, 10:46:45 PM
There are a few bills that have passed but have not been signed, and the thread title statuses have not been updated. They probably need to be put in the WH thread or else a PM to the Prez.  Also, the wiki could use some updating - whoever's job it is to do that since we don't have an AG.

It's the VP's job I believe.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: homelycooking on February 09, 2012, 08:52:10 AM
I do not think that Atlasia should go much longer without having a Secretary of Federal Elections. You may wish to find a new SoFE or shuffle some positions around, but if you are so inclined, I would be quite willing to serve in both capacities with one title should the RG and SoFE roles be combined due to constitutional amendment.

Is no one else willing to correct this problem? I can draft a constitutional amendment if so.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 09, 2012, 10:48:32 PM
I do not think that Atlasia should go much longer without having a Secretary of Federal Elections. You may wish to find a new SoFE or shuffle some positions around, but if you are so inclined, I would be quite willing to serve in both capacities with one title should the RG and SoFE roles be combined due to constitutional amendment.

Is no one else willing to correct this problem? I can draft a constitutional amendment if so.

I discussed this as something I wanted to target if elected as president, a constitutional amendment won't be settled in time for this election, but I think we'd all be interested in a draft amendment.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bgwah on February 09, 2012, 11:32:13 PM
I do not think that Atlasia should go much longer without having a Secretary of Federal Elections. You may wish to find a new SoFE or shuffle some positions around, but if you are so inclined, I would be quite willing to serve in both capacities with one title should the RG and SoFE roles be combined due to constitutional amendment.

Is no one else willing to correct this problem? I can draft a constitutional amendment if so.

I already wrote one a while ago: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_Third_Constitution


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: homelycooking on February 10, 2012, 08:39:56 AM
I do not think that Atlasia should go much longer without having a Secretary of Federal Elections. You may wish to find a new SoFE or shuffle some positions around, but if you are so inclined, I would be quite willing to serve in both capacities with one title should the RG and SoFE roles be combined due to constitutional amendment.

Is no one else willing to correct this problem? I can draft a constitutional amendment if so.

I already wrote one a while ago: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_Third_Constitution

sounds good to me


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on February 13, 2012, 11:52:05 AM
There's a problem in the Trim the Fat Act that was also in the Health Spending Adjustment Act.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is absolutely no way to reduce the costs of Atlasian National Healthcare without changing the way the program works. Either the Atlasian government is responsible for the full cost of it or it isn't.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 13, 2012, 04:58:30 PM
There's a problem in the Trim the Fat Act that was also in the Health Spending Adjustment Act.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is absolutely no way to reduce the costs of Atlasian National Healthcare without changing the way the program works. Either the Atlasian government is responsible for the full cost of it or it isn't.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing...I'm thinking about writing a bill to repeal the healthcare law.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on February 14, 2012, 07:40:46 AM
There's a problem in the Trim the Fat Act that was also in the Health Spending Adjustment Act.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is absolutely no way to reduce the costs of Atlasian National Healthcare without changing the way the program works. Either the Atlasian government is responsible for the full cost of it or it isn't.

I still fail to understand how we're falling so short of paying for it. With our tax rates and our simplified welfare structure there should be few problems with dealing with our healthcare spending.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing...I'm thinking about writing a bill to repeal the healthcare law.

That's quite a leap. Hell, even Napoleon's bill on health care is gross. Our current system should have no problems, and this arbitrary right-wing tilt some of the Senate have on these issues should concern anybody paying attention..


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 14, 2012, 09:09:26 AM
It has no problems...other than the fact that it makes up for a majority of our budget and without the gigantic system, we wouldn't have a deficit...


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on February 14, 2012, 06:50:41 PM
There's a problem in the Trim the Fat Act that was also in the Health Spending Adjustment Act.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is absolutely no way to reduce the costs of Atlasian National Healthcare without changing the way the program works. Either the Atlasian government is responsible for the full cost of it or it isn't.

I still fail to understand how we're falling so short of paying for it. With our tax rates and our simplified welfare structure there should be few problems with dealing with our healthcare spending.

If you don't think the cost of the program is a problem, why did you write a bill reducing doctors' reimbursement for providing mandated care?   

I think some people don't like the idea of having such a huge payroll tax.   And considering the ANHA provides free of charge more coverage than any private insurance plan in existence, I think we can expect that people will continue to move into the program, thus increasing costs.

What do you mean by "simplified welfare structure"?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 14, 2012, 07:11:57 PM
It has no problems...other than the fact that it makes up for a majority of our budget and without the gigantic system, we wouldn't have a deficit...

That's a very simplistic position to take on something so complex my friend.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 14, 2012, 07:41:54 PM
It has no problems...other than the fact that it makes up for a majority of our budget and without the gigantic system, we wouldn't have a deficit...

That's a very simplistic position to take on something so complex my friend.

I prefer to view it as an nutshell summary ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on February 15, 2012, 12:18:15 AM
There's a problem in the Trim the Fat Act that was also in the Health Spending Adjustment Act.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is absolutely no way to reduce the costs of Atlasian National Healthcare without changing the way the program works. Either the Atlasian government is responsible for the full cost of it or it isn't.

I still fail to understand how we're falling so short of paying for it. With our tax rates and our simplified welfare structure there should be few problems with dealing with our healthcare spending.

If you don't think the cost of the program is a problem, why did you write a bill reducing doctors' reimbursement for providing mandated care?   

I think some people don't like the idea of having such a huge payroll tax.   And considering the ANHA provides free of charge more coverage than any private insurance plan in existence, I think we can expect that people will continue to move into the program, thus increasing costs.

What do you mean by "simplified welfare structure"?

I think we can reduce costs with the program, but I just take issue with your overall revenue numbers. The idea that we're making only a small amount more in income tax revenue than the actual United States, despite taxing more people and having them be significantly higher and more progressive, seems especially insane to me.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on February 15, 2012, 01:37:47 AM

I think we can reduce costs with the program, but I just take issue with your overall revenue numbers. The idea that we're making only a small amount more in income tax revenue than the actual United States, despite taxing more people and having them be significantly higher and more progressive, seems especially insane to me.
Try as I might, I don't see any way those tax rates come up with more than about 200 Billion over RL. I applied the change in rates as best I could to tax revenue data, and tended to err on the side of higher revenue.
We raise taxes on what amounts to about half the US tax base, by a good deal less than half for most of those taxpayers. These are marginal rates, so even the richest aren't paying that full 60%.  Some people may have expected half a trillion from it, but I haven't a clue why. It's not as though we have that much more income equality than the US.
Note I was quite generous in those corporate income tax figures. Sometimes individual and corporate income tax figures are combined when income tax revenues are cited, so I don't know if that's throwing you off.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 15, 2012, 08:02:58 PM
Even "taxing the rich" has its limits. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on February 16, 2012, 01:45:01 AM

Blah blah blah. We should be raking in significantly more in income tax revenue than we do. If we have a blue avatar GM running wild with his own philosophy on how he wants things work, as opposed to how things actually work, then whatever. I suppose we're burdened by him being Game God either way.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on February 16, 2012, 02:26:04 AM

Blah blah blah. We should be raking in significantly more in income tax revenue than we do. If we have a blue avatar GM running wild with his own philosophy on how he wants things work, as opposed to how things actually work, then whatever. I suppose we're burdened by him being Game God either way.
Oh man, imagine what you'd be saying if I'd actually assumed the existence of Laffer curve effects! Maybe I should have assumed the existence of a million trillionaire overlords to tax for whatever castles in the clouds we dream up, instead of using silly things like math and IRS data tables.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 16, 2012, 03:58:55 AM
Shua is a great GM, how come all I see from you is posts bitching about this or whining about? You really have nothing positive to say and it is such a turn off.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on February 16, 2012, 04:16:05 AM
Shua is a great GM, how come all I see from you is posts bitching about this or whining about? You really have nothing positive to say and it is such a turn off.

Please take your demagoguery elsewhere. It is beyond transparent at this point.

Shua has been "okay" at best. He hasn't been as active as I was, or even as Badger was. He's only praised because of no one elses willingness to do the job at all. I also dislike his tendency to completely disregard all previous GM stats right back to Purple State.

If all of your criticism of me didn't exude willful dishonesty, I might take it seriously. In the meantime, I will continue freely speaking my mind on these issues, even if you enjoy jumping on every other word I say and winding up your faux-outrage.

If you're going to pop in here to pretend to be nice, though, then at least pop into the three ongoing votes I started hours ago. It's the least you could do.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on February 16, 2012, 04:33:06 AM
Shua is a great GM, how come all I see from you is posts bitching about this or whining about? You really have nothing positive to say and it is such a turn off.

Please take your demagoguery elsewhere. It is beyond transparent at this point.

Shua has been "okay" at best. He hasn't been as active as I was, or even as Badger was. He's only praised because of no one elses willingness to do the job at all. I also dislike his tendency to completely disregard all previous GM stats right back to Purple State.

If all of your criticism of me didn't exude willful dishonesty, I might take it seriously. In the meantime, I will continue freely speaking my mind on these issues, even if you enjoy jumping on every other word I say and winding up your faux-outrage.

If you're going to pop in here to pretend to be nice, though, then at least pop into the three ongoing votes I started hours ago. It's the least you could do.
I really wish you wouldn't be so cryptic about these things. I wasn't around when Purple Sate was GM so I haven't a clue what you're talking about.  The unemployment numbers at least are completely continuous with your numbers. My office has always been open. It's hard for me to improve if I'm not getting any feedback. And it's discouraging when the Senate outright ignores my analysis nearly unanimously without explanation.

I never claimed I was as good a GM as you or Badger, and I believe I said as much when Snowguy recruited me. But I did a revenue analysis, so people know where the revenue is coming from, which no one ever bothered to do before. I admit that took up a lot of my focus as GM, but I think it was worth it. But Hell, if you think I'm not doing a good job, call for a vote for my removal. I'd welcome the trial.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on February 16, 2012, 04:51:53 AM

In fact, what you just said here is a checkable thing. So let's check how "great" Shua has been in this job by way of his activity and number of updates.

Shua has been on the job for three months, and his GM update thread started on November 14th, 2011. He's been in charge of a GM update thread for 94 days. In that time, he has made 12 GM updates, and one budget update. (The latter is supposed to be done monthly.)

During Badger's first 94 days as GM, he made roughly 30 dedicated GM updates, and the GM thread was several times larger than Shua's, and Badger took interest in more individual concerns people had than Shua.

During Purple State's first 94 days as GM, he made 152 separate GM posts, and the GM thread was several times larger than Shuas, and Purple State took more interest than even I did in individual legislative discussions.

During my mere 70 days of updates as GM, I made 45 dedicated GM posts (not taking into account my habit for combining stories instead of separating them all), and I posted 2 budgetary updates in less time as GM than Shua's posting of one.

By what metric, then, are you determining Shua's status as a "great GM" aside from the fact that I dislike him? Since you seem to assured of it, I'm positive there must be a great explanation.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 16, 2012, 06:22:58 AM
This is what's wrong with this game. Maybe shua doesn't have the time that you or Badger or Purple State had. That's okay. I think shua's a great GM and he's a great person. We're becoming so much like the United States in the sense that we just go off on these ideologically-fueled rants with bias hid behind rhetoric. It's ridiculous. We vote for people based on ideology, we say we disapprove of them and then don't tell them why when they ask, we exile them from politics and then we rinse and repeat. I just can't comprehend this. At all.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on February 16, 2012, 09:56:07 AM
This is what's wrong with this game. Maybe shua doesn't have the time that you or Badger or Purple State had. That's okay. I think shua's a great GM and he's a great person.

What's been wrong with this game at several instances in the last couple of years has been everyone's tendency to just sort of shuffle someone's shortcomings under the rug because of what party they belong to, or what friends they have in Atlasia. In many ways we have become too personal, and in many ways we have become too partisan, but we certainly haven't been very ideological, even now.

Shua is a delightful person personally, I'm sure. Napoleon is friendly with him, and also wants to maintain a spectrum of support right to left. (It's what the Liberal Party is all about, in general.) But we can't suddenly stop critically evaluating people just because of how nice they are, in the same way that we can't continue denying people their accomplishments because of what clique they've belonged to.

Shua is a good GM in the absence of all other options. On any sort of objective level he has been mediocre. This is not an attack, it is simply a reality. A conclusion based on what is empirical. We can't be so caught up in trying to be nice that we make excuses for people or stop doing good jobs. Just because I am the one saying something, doesn't mean it's wrong. The actions (or lack thereof) speak for themselves.

(Note that I'm not saying it's awful and wrong and Shua is a nasty terrible person for not doing his job. If he's not able to, he's just not able to. If he doesn't have the time, he doesn't have the time. But if someone doesn't have that time, they shouldn't have the job that requires that time.)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on February 16, 2012, 05:25:17 PM

one budget update. (The latter is supposed to be done monthly.)

I decided I wanted to get the budget complete and on the right track the first time I posted it.   I'm not aware of any laws I broke by not putting one out monthly.

Quote
and Badger took interest in more individual concerns people had than Shua.
and the individual concerns I haven't addressed are . . . ?

Quote
Purple State took more interest than even I did in individual legislative discussions.
right, because the Senate is so interested in what I have to say! 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 16, 2012, 05:31:25 PM
This is what's wrong with this game. Maybe shua doesn't have the time that you or Badger or Purple State had. That's okay. I think shua's a great GM and he's a great person. We're becoming so much like the United States in the sense that we just go off on these ideologically-fueled rants with bias hid behind rhetoric. It's ridiculous. We vote for people based on ideology, we say we disapprove of them and then don't tell them why when they ask, we exile them from politics and then we rinse and repeat. I just can't comprehend this. At all.

Amen.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on February 16, 2012, 08:24:47 PM
This is what's wrong with this game. Maybe shua doesn't have the time that you or Badger or Purple State had. That's okay. I think shua's a great GM and he's a great person. We're becoming so much like the United States in the sense that we just go off on these ideologically-fueled rants with bias hid behind rhetoric. It's ridiculous. We vote for people based on ideology, we say we disapprove of them and then don't tell them why when they ask, we exile them from politics and then we rinse and repeat. I just can't comprehend this. At all.

Amen.

Explain how Shua is a great GM.

There is absolutely no way that you can except for stupid populist niceties that are completely fake. By no metric has he been good, but you only stick to that because I dislike him and you like him.

You can say he's been okay. But calling him "great" is preposterous. Objectively so. This is not something that is up to an opinion. He has made barely any updates in almost three months. He has done only one of the three budget updates scheduled of him. He has updated less than all previous Game Moderators for the last two and ahalf years aside from those that were only GM for a hot minute before getting replaced.

Stop willfully ignoring reality just to appear fake-nice. The idea that anyone can sit here and call him one of the greats blows my mind, and can only be done by people that clearly do not care about his performance at all and just want to maintain an appearance of being a "good guy."


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 16, 2012, 09:16:04 PM
Nobody ever called him "one of the greats", Marokai...


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 16, 2012, 09:29:57 PM
This is just patently ridiculous here. ::)


Instead of trying to argue with Napoleon over a subjective rating of shua's performance, why not instead pursue the original line of complain with an inquiry into just how shua orginated those numbers? He mentioned IRS data tables and such, why not ask for them and for how he translated that into his numbers. All the current line of arguement is going to achieve is pissing somebody off, for no benefit to yourself or your position at all.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on February 16, 2012, 11:46:40 PM
I really do appreciate people trying to defend me, but there's no need for it here.  It's just giving our esteemed PPT an opportunity to criticize me while ignoring my posts.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on February 17, 2012, 12:05:14 AM
I really do appreciate people trying to defend me, but there's no need for it here.  It's just giving our esteemed PPT an opportunity to criticize me while ignoring my posts.

The only thing that's sticking with me here and irritating me is the raping of the word "great" to the point that it apparently means nothing, anymore. Whatever problems I have with your numbers, I'll deal with them because you are still GM and what you say goes, regardless.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 17, 2012, 01:24:47 AM
I really do appreciate people trying to defend me, but there's no need for it here.  It's just giving our esteemed PPT an opportunity to criticize me while ignoring my posts.

By "esteemed", do you mean "bitter, sloth, and creepy"?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on February 17, 2012, 01:31:31 AM
I really do appreciate people trying to defend me, but there's no need for it here.  It's just giving our esteemed PPT an opportunity to criticize me while ignoring my posts.

The only thing that's sticking with me here and irritating me is the raping of the word "great" to the point that it apparently means nothing, anymore. Whatever problems I have with your numbers, I'll deal with them because you are still GM and what you say goes, regardless.
Nothings in stone here. I have no problem receiving constructive input to incorporate into future updates, or even to correct things I've already posted in case of an obvious error. If at some point you have a specific suggestion that doesn't involve being dismissive of the work I've put into something, I'll be glad to hear it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 20, 2012, 11:45:16 PM
The biggest drop off in jobperformance has been in the PPT position. Bgwah was great and active, Marokai is inactiveand here only to troll. Yet, Marokai wants to bitch about GM Shua. Cute.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: ZuWo on February 21, 2012, 10:07:07 AM
The biggest drop off in jobperformance has been in the PPT position. Bgwah was great and active, Marokai is inactiveand here only to troll. Yet, Marokai wants to bitch about GM Shua. Cute.

Please explain (I'm referring to the part in bold print).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 21, 2012, 11:36:39 AM
The biggest drop off in jobperformance has been in the PPT position. Bgwah was great and active, Marokai is inactiveand here only to troll. Yet, Marokai wants to bitch about GM Shua. Cute.

Please explain (I'm referring to the part in bold print).

Bills sit on the floorway too long with no debate, mostly his own bad ideas.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on February 24, 2012, 09:45:44 AM
The biggest drop off in jobperformance has been in the PPT position. Bgwah was great and active, Marokai is inactiveand here only to troll. Yet, Marokai wants to bitch about GM Shua. Cute.

Please explain (I'm referring to the part in bold print).

Bills sit on the floorway too long with no debate, mostly his own bad ideas.

Until today, I had spent the last two and ahalf days in bed incredibly sick (at one point I slept a solid, uninterrupted, 14 hours), and with my moments of actually being here, I had no desire to deal with whatever trouble I knew you would predictably be stirring because I took even a single day off. Because I was sick, and knowing the Senate needed to continue moving, I asked BK to take over for me, and he declined to do so.

I am a human being with human frailties, and as such, my immune system isn't always super awesome, but we have a President that has basically done nothing here and taken the last few weeks of his term off entirely, and a Vice President who will not come to the aid of a PPT who requests his help. If you would like to bitch at someone, do it at the people you pander to and excuse, and not to me.

I have returned now and the Senate will begin to move again. Aside from this absence, I have been a very active PPT, something literally no one else aside from you would argue with. I'll take the vast majority's opinion over yours. Thanks.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: ZuWo on February 24, 2012, 10:48:26 AM
There is of course no justified reason to call the current PPT "inactive", and I would say 90% of the previous Senate (now it's probably 100%) disagree with the claim of inactivity. Such a statement is deliberately dishonest. Furthermore, it is outright hypocritical to attack Marokai for being "inactive" and to ignore the activity issues of the current administration.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 24, 2012, 03:30:05 PM
No excuses, and I think you are lying anyway.

You should have posted a LOA. You have been posting all over the rest of the forum. You willfully neglected your duties.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 24, 2012, 03:32:10 PM
No excuses, and I think you are lying anyway.

You should have posted a LOA. You have been posting all over the rest of the forum. You willfully neglected your duties.

I think you just need a reason to bash Marokai.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 24, 2012, 03:33:37 PM
No excuses, and I think you are lying anyway.

You should have posted a LOA. You have been posting all over the rest of the forum. You willfully neglected your duties.

I think you just need a reason to bash Marokai.

I think you should look at the facts.

I think you should be as upset as I am that the most useless bill introduced during my whole time as senator sat on the floor for two whole weeks. Yeah, three days of flu did that. Please.

What prevented Marokai from posting publicly that he would be gone? Explain that.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on February 24, 2012, 03:48:31 PM
Napoleon loves finding reasons to bash Marokai, and then plays the victim.  It's his MO.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 24, 2012, 03:55:05 PM
Napoleon loves finding reasons to bash Marokai, and then plays the victim.  It's his MO.

I really don't; the two of you should do your jobs then I wouldn't have anything to complain about. Marokai once bashed me for being gone for two days with no internet access at all, this guy has been posting just fine the whole time. Two days vs. two weeks. Why weren't you pointing out that Marokai loves to bash me? Right, you also love to bash me. This is a legitimate criticism. A PPT who mysteriously goes inactive without the courtesy of a public LOA is a hindrance to the Senate and the game.

Marokai writes thousand word posts bashing shua and Snowguy and me, of whoever else, and when I point out something we should all be upset about, this is how you react?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 24, 2012, 03:59:19 PM
Because real life is more important than some game. If Marokai was sick, he is not mandated to post anything on this forum.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: ZuWo on February 24, 2012, 04:02:00 PM
No excuses, and I think you are lying anyway.

You should have posted a LOA. You have been posting all over the rest of the forum. You willfully neglected your duties.

I think you just need a reason to bash Marokai.

I think you should look at the facts.

I think you should be as upset as I am that the most useless bill introduced during my whole time as senator sat on the floor for two whole weeks. Yeah, three days of flu did that. Please.

What prevented Marokai from posting publicly that he would be gone? Explain that.

Facts are a very curious thing.

Fact 1: You claimed Marokai was an inactive PPT. Let's try to measure that objectively. Since he was elected to the position of PPT, Marokai has created 17 Senate threads and maintained a couple of other threads. Even if he has not been able to update certain threads for a very short time span, your statement is still objectively inaccurate.

Fact 2: You criticized Marokai for "willfully neglecting" his duties because he has not updated certain debate threads for one or two days. On the other hand, we have a President who has not posted in the White House thread which he created himself for weeks and who has not signed numerous bills for several days. But yet you ignore the President's inactivity or even defend the President against any justified claims of inactivity.

This makes me conclude that 20RP12 was right with his assertion that you only need a reason to bash Marokai - no matter how far-fetched that reason is.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 24, 2012, 04:04:15 PM
Because real life is more important than some game. If Marokai was sick, he is not mandated to post anything on this forum.

So, Marokai can criticize me for it and be hypocritical later on? No. I disagree. I also have already pointed out that this whole inactivity thing started back a while ago, not just these last couple days where he has ignored everything. Bgwah never would have let so many of these bills sit with no debate.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 24, 2012, 04:05:47 PM
Because real life is more important than some game. If Marokai was sick, he is not mandated to post anything on this forum.

So, Marokai can criticize me for it and be hypocritical later on? No. I disagree. I also have already pointed out that this whole inactivity thing started back a while ago, not just these last couple days where he has ignored everything. Bgwah never would have let so many of these bills sit with no debate.

I never took Marokai's side. If a Senator is sick, they're sick. They are not required to tell the forum, period. And no one can accuse that Senator of inactivity simply because they didn't post an LOA.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 24, 2012, 04:08:01 PM
No excuses, and I think you are lying anyway.

You should have posted a LOA. You have been posting all over the rest of the forum. You willfully neglected your duties.

I think you just need a reason to bash Marokai.

I think you should look at the facts.

I think you should be as upset as I am that the most useless bill introduced during my whole time as senator sat on the floor for two whole weeks. Yeah, three days of flu did that. Please.

What prevented Marokai from posting publicly that he would be gone? Explain that.

Facts are a very curious thing.

Fact 1: You claimed Marokai was an inactive PPT. Let's try to measure that objectively. Since he was elected to the position of PPT, Marokai has created 17 Senate threads and maintained a couple of other threads. Even if he has not been able to update certain threads for a very short time span, your statement is still objectively inaccurate.

Fact 2: You criticized Marokai for "willfully neglecting" his duties because he has not updated certain debate threads for one or two days. On the other hand, we have a President who has not posted in the White House thread which he created himself for weeks and who has not signed numerous bills for several days. But yet you ignore the President's inactivity or even defend the President against any justified claims of inactivity.

This makes me conclude that 20RP12 was right with his assertion that you only need a reason to bash Marokai - no matter how far-fetched that reason is.

1 - I really don't care how many threads are created.

2 - The President's inactivity should be discussed in a separate thread, not the "Senate Protest and Analysis" thread. Regardless, I am more concerned with legislation on the floor being dealt with. The President has little impact on that.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 24, 2012, 04:10:38 PM
Because real life is more important than some game. If Marokai was sick, he is not mandated to post anything on this forum.

So, Marokai can criticize me for it and be hypocritical later on? No. I disagree. I also have already pointed out that this whole inactivity thing started back a while ago, not just these last couple days where he has ignored everything. Bgwah never would have let so many of these bills sit with no debate.

I never took Marokai's side. If a Senator is sick, they're sick. They are not required to tell the forum, period. And no one can accuse that Senator of inactivity simply because they didn't post an LOA.

This argument makes no sense if he is posting just fine elsewhere. I can understand wanting to take a LOA when ill but if you're able to post completely fine as Marokai has, I expect the common courtesy of a public announcement. That you don't see this is a problem.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: ZuWo on February 24, 2012, 04:21:09 PM
No excuses, and I think you are lying anyway.

You should have posted a LOA. You have been posting all over the rest of the forum. You willfully neglected your duties.

I think you just need a reason to bash Marokai.

I think you should look at the facts.

I think you should be as upset as I am that the most useless bill introduced during my whole time as senator sat on the floor for two whole weeks. Yeah, three days of flu did that. Please.

What prevented Marokai from posting publicly that he would be gone? Explain that.

Facts are a very curious thing.

Fact 1: You claimed Marokai was an inactive PPT. Let's try to measure that objectively. Since he was elected to the position of PPT, Marokai has created 17 Senate threads and maintained a couple of other threads. Even if he has not been able to update certain threads for a very short time span, your statement is still objectively inaccurate.

Fact 2: You criticized Marokai for "willfully neglecting" his duties because he has not updated certain debate threads for one or two days. On the other hand, we have a President who has not posted in the White House thread which he created himself for weeks and who has not signed numerous bills for several days. But yet you ignore the President's inactivity or even defend the President against any justified claims of inactivity.

This makes me conclude that 20RP12 was right with his assertion that you only need a reason to bash Marokai - no matter how far-fetched that reason is.

1 - I really don't care how many threads are created.

2 - The President's inactivity should be discussed in a separate thread, not the "Senate Protest and Analysis" thread. Regardless, I am more concerned with legislation on the floor being dealt with. The President has little impact on that.

1 - That's a real pity because we should try to be objective. You were the one who made the bold claim that Marokai was "inactive" but who still didn't provide concrete evidence for his alleged inactivity. I mentioned the number of threads Marokai created and managed because this is an objective way to measure Marokai's level of activity. Likewise, we could have a look at the posts Marokai made as PPT, at the number of votes he oversaw etc. These are all objectively measurable actions. And they all show that Marokai has, in fact, been as active as his precedessors.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 24, 2012, 04:24:07 PM
As active? Hardly. I also doubt his predecessors would be so disrespectful to us citizens as to effectively deny them representation by not allowing the Dean to take over during a LOA. Threads created is totally irrelevant.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: ZuWo on February 24, 2012, 04:33:37 PM
As active? Hardly. I also doubt his predecessors would be so disrespectful to us citizens as to effectively deny them representation by not allowing the Dean to take over during a LOA. Threads created is totally irrelevant.

Only if we refuse to measure the PPT's activity objectively. "threads created" essentially equals "bills introduced to the Senate floor". Now if a PPT has introduced 17 bills to the Senate floor in a time span of a bit more than one month and has maintained the very same threads by opening votes on amendments and overseeing final votes etc., how does that qualify as "inactive"?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on February 24, 2012, 08:48:39 PM
Leave of absences are typically posted when, you know, I plan it. I asked BK to take over, and he declined to. If you were sick, I wouldn't criticize you or anyone else for taking time off to recover. No one in their right mind would do so.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 24, 2012, 08:50:48 PM
Im trying my best to understand this. You were too sick to allow the Dean to take over, but not sick enough to PM BK or post elsewhere? Yes?

I am glad you are no longer ill, Marokai, but I think this little situation is very disrespectful to Atlasia.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on February 24, 2012, 09:00:56 PM
Im trying my best to understand this. You were too sick to allow the Dean to take over, but not sick enough to PM BK or post elsewhere? Yes?

Yankee has repeatedly complained in the past that he is unable to serve as PPT due to at-home struggles and inadequate internet. I went to the Vice President because that is the person I am usually supposed to turn to. I PMed him, and then crashed in bed. Posting in public about it was not necessary by any stretch of the imagination, and anyone who knew me personally would tell you I was sick.

You're someone who is sitting here nearly accusing me of lying about being sick in the first place, for some reason. Am I supposed to actually take your complaints seriously? You're searching for any reason to attack me, when you should be criticizing people who failed to follow procedure in this case, but you wouldn't dare do so because they're your party members. For someone who cares about activity, you only seem to care about mine.

My real life situations come before this forum. If I feel like garbage because of any sort of illness, my recovery takes priority. No one around here is expected to ignore their own health for the sake of a fantasy government. That would be insane. If you want to go criticize people, please criticize the President who allows bills to sit on the floor for ages without giving his signature to them, clogging up the que like you supposedly hate so much, or the Vice President that refuses to take over the Senate from an ailing PPT.

This is the second or third time I have seen you dodge any sort of criticism about that, saying it's the "wrong place" for talking about this Administration. Would you care to point out there the right place would be for discussing this so I can actually get your opinion on it without some sort of excuse? You have either become twisted and distorted by personal and partisan grudges, or you really don't care about trying to be honest at all.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 24, 2012, 10:11:36 PM
I do not accuse you of lying about being sick, I simply distrust the notion that you were entirely unable to delegate your duties properly in the meantime. While it is disappointing that BK neglected his VP responsibilities, there were alternatives.  Where was the VP?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on February 24, 2012, 10:32:58 PM
No excuses, and I think you are lying anyway.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 24, 2012, 10:39:58 PM
When will this end?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 24, 2012, 10:47:14 PM
That comment was regarding your accusation of the Vice President declining. If he does not want to perform his duties he might want to consider resigning. What did he say?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 25, 2012, 08:23:26 PM
If contacted I probably could have done something to keep things moving along. However, there is a procedural problem with that. The Dean has far less authority to "take over" in such instances. There is a five day minimum innactivity requirement on the part of the PPT. Marokai would have needed BK and his patented OSPR infringement to allow me to take over. Of course the problem with that is the same as the problem with getting BK to do the job himself. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on February 25, 2012, 09:24:42 PM
In accordance with Article 3, Section 1, Clause 7 (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Current_Senate_Rules,_Regulations,_and_Procedures#Section_1:__Rules_on_Legislation_Introduction) of the Senate Rules, I am removing Napoleon's legislation from the Senate que, because he is no longer a Senator. His healthcare bill will now be, for the purposes of my work, considered an MOPolitico only sponsored bill, and his other proposal is no longer in the que for the Senate's consideration.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 27, 2012, 05:08:34 AM
I do have to give Marokai props for helping push cosponsorship in the Senate.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on February 27, 2012, 05:10:26 AM
I do have to give Marokai props for helping push cosponsorship in the Senate.

Thanks! It's not done nearly as often as it should be, IMO.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on February 27, 2012, 05:11:46 AM
I do have to give Marokai props for helping push cosponsorship in the Senate.

Thanks! It's not done nearly as often as it should be, IMO.

I agree. I also think it can go a long way in establishing friendlier relationships among Senators, improving the quality of debate.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on February 27, 2012, 05:13:34 AM
OH GOD WE'RE COMPLIMENTING EACH OTHER A BLACK HOLE IS FORMING OHG OGWDI NOOO-

()


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on February 27, 2012, 06:10:57 AM
I WAS JUST THINKING THE SAME THING THIS IS BEAUTIFUL PLEASE CONTINUE


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 27, 2012, 07:09:46 AM
OH GOD WE'RE COMPLIMENTING EACH OTHER A BLACK HOLE IS FORMING OHG OGWDI NOOO-

()

It's like a scene out of Dogma... "they'll unmake the world"


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 27, 2012, 10:27:29 PM
The Fair Compliance Amendment

Article I, Section VI of The Atlasian Constitution is amended to read:
The Senate shall make no law that applies to the citizens of Atlasia that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Regional officers; and, the Senate shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Regional officers that does not apply equally to the citizens of Atlasia.

I might reword this so that it provides an exception for laws affecting the rules of the Senate, which obviously are not suppose to apply to citizens.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 02, 2012, 02:55:01 AM
I just called some bills dead on the floor (since they were obviously legitimately rejected) but now that it's officially the first day of a new session, I'm pretty sure I now I have to step back and await a new election of a PPT and for everyone to swear in and start the next Senate. So.. yeah. Just wanted to say that. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 04, 2012, 07:34:43 PM
I am fairly certain that the Senate was supposed to start on March 2nd, not stop. Atleast that is how it was way back in the day. Senators these days. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on March 11, 2012, 07:43:48 PM
The New Atlasian Healthcare Act
Co-sponsored with Senator MOPolitico

Section 1- Eligibility and Benefits

    (a.) All individuals residing in Atlasia are eligible to be covered under the Atlasian National Health Care Program offering them a high quality standard of care.
    (b.) The health care benefits under this Act cover all medically necessary services, including at least the following:

            Primary care and prevention.
            Inpatient care.
            Outpatient care.
            Emergency care.
            Prescription drugs.
            Durable medical equipment.
            Long-term care.
            Palliative care.
            Mental health services.
            The full scope of dental services (other than cosmetic dentistry).
            Substance abuse treatment services.
            Chiropractic services.
            Basic vision care and vision correction (other than laser vision correction for cosmetic purposes).
            Hearing services, including coverage of hearing aids.
            Podiatric care.

    (c.) Such benefits are available through any licensed health care clinician anywhere in Atlasia that is legally qualified to provide the benefits.
    (d.) No deductibles, co-payments, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing shall be imposed with respect to covered benefits, but additional insurance from private sources is not forbidden.
    (e.) All private and public hospitals and doctors are required to be participating providers, and are not permitted to deny care on the basis of one's enrollment in the Atlasian National Health Care Program.
    (f.) All health insurance companies, public or private, shall be required to join the health insurance Exchange to be legally licensed to provide services. No company in the Exchange may deny coverage on the basis of previous health condition. The Exchange shall be governed by the Health Directorate, who shall be responsible for determining proper levels of reimbursement, management, administration and other related health industry needs.
(g.) Prescription drug companies shall not be allowed to advertise their products outside of certified medical journals.

Section 2- Finances

    (a.) The Atlasian Government, through the Atlasian National Health Care Program's regional offices, shall be financially obligated to cover: all costs from services and benefits provided to the enrolled by the participating providers for individuals below 250% the poverty level; 50% of the costs from services and benefits provided to the enrolled by the participating providers for individuals between 250% the poverty level and $250,000; and 10% of the costs from services and benefits provided to the enrolled by the participating providers for individuals above $250,000.
    (b.) Licensed health care clinicians who accept any payment from the Atlasian National Health Care Program may not bill any patient for any covered service.
    (c.) Funding for this proposal shall be drawn from the following sources:

            Cost reductions in other federal health programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, as a result of administrative and cost savings and shifts in funding priorities
            Taxes levied on health insurance benefits as follows: 0.5% for incomes below 250% the poverty level; 2% for incomes between 250% the poverty level and $250,000; 3.5% for incomes between $250,001 and $1,000,000; and 5.5% for incomes above $1,000,000.

Section 3- Administration

    (a.) This Act shall be administered by the Health Directorate, made up by a Chairman and the Executives of the regional CHP boards.
    (b.) Medicare and Medicaid shall be phased out, with all necessary personnel and services being transferred to the Atlasian National Health Care Program upon its establishment.

Section 4- Regional Administration

    (a.) The provision of healthcare and the administration of budgets and services shall be the responsibility of independent Community Health Partnerships (CHPs) congruent to the existing Regions These shall be established as public sector corporations. Each CHP shall be headed by a board consisting of one Executive and further non-executive members.
    (b.) CHP members shall be selected by the Health Directorate and shall be a non-partisan gathering of experts in the medical, pharmaceutical, and health insurance and administration industries.
    (c.) All boards shall be required to have an audit committee consisting only of non-executive members on which the chair may not sit. This committee shall be entrusted with the supervision of financial audit and of systems of corporate governance within the CHP.
    (d.) CHP's shall have responsibility for delivering primary and community services and commission them from other providers, and are involved in commissioning secondary care. Each CHP shall have their own budget and set their own priorities and shall directly provide a range of community health services including but not exclusive to;

            The provision of funding for general practitioners and medical prescriptions.
            The commission of hospital and mental health services from the private sector.

    (e.) All members, directors and associated bodies shall be accountable to the Health Directorate as outlined in Section 3 of this Act.

This is still being sponsored, correct?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on March 12, 2012, 03:05:25 PM
Is there a list of bills that have been passed- I know drugs are legal for example but I do not want to put forward a bill which is moot


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on March 12, 2012, 03:10:26 PM
Is there a list of bills that have been passed- I know drugs are legal for example but I do not want to put forward a bill which is moot

The wiki (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Main_Page) should have most- if not all- passed legislation listed.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Frodo on March 16, 2012, 05:22:44 PM
The New Atlasian Healthcare Act
Co-sponsored with Senator MOPolitico

Section 1- Eligibility and Benefits

    (a.) All individuals residing in Atlasia are eligible to be covered under the Atlasian National Health Care Program offering them a high quality standard of care.
    (b.) The health care benefits under this Act cover all medically necessary services, including at least the following:

            Primary care and prevention.
            Inpatient care.
            Outpatient care.
            Emergency care.
            Prescription drugs.
            Durable medical equipment.
            Long-term care.
            Palliative care.
            Mental health services.
            The full scope of dental services (other than cosmetic dentistry).
            Substance abuse treatment services.
            Chiropractic services.
            Basic vision care and vision correction (other than laser vision correction for cosmetic purposes).
            Hearing services, including coverage of hearing aids.
            Podiatric care.

    (c.) Such benefits are available through any licensed health care clinician anywhere in Atlasia that is legally qualified to provide the benefits.
    (d.) No deductibles, co-payments, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing shall be imposed with respect to covered benefits, but additional insurance from private sources is not forbidden.
    (e.) All private and public hospitals and doctors are required to be participating providers, and are not permitted to deny care on the basis of one's enrollment in the Atlasian National Health Care Program.
    (f.) All health insurance companies, public or private, shall be required to join the health insurance Exchange to be legally licensed to provide services. No company in the Exchange may deny coverage on the basis of previous health condition. The Exchange shall be governed by the Health Directorate, who shall be responsible for determining proper levels of reimbursement, management, administration and other related health industry needs.
(g.) Prescription drug companies shall not be allowed to advertise their products outside of certified medical journals.

Section 2- Finances

    (a.) The Atlasian Government, through the Atlasian National Health Care Program's regional offices, shall be financially obligated to cover: all costs from services and benefits provided to the enrolled by the participating providers for individuals below 250% the poverty level; 50% of the costs from services and benefits provided to the enrolled by the participating providers for individuals between 250% the poverty level and $250,000; and 10% of the costs from services and benefits provided to the enrolled by the participating providers for individuals above $250,000.
    (b.) Licensed health care clinicians who accept any payment from the Atlasian National Health Care Program may not bill any patient for any covered service.
    (c.) Funding for this proposal shall be drawn from the following sources:

            Cost reductions in other federal health programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, as a result of administrative and cost savings and shifts in funding priorities
            Taxes levied on health insurance benefits as follows: 0.5% for incomes below 250% the poverty level; 2% for incomes between 250% the poverty level and $250,000; 3.5% for incomes between $250,001 and $1,000,000; and 5.5% for incomes above $1,000,000.

Section 3- Administration

    (a.) This Act shall be administered by the Health Directorate, made up by a Chairman and the Executives of the regional CHP boards.
    (b.) Medicare and Medicaid shall be phased out, with all necessary personnel and services being transferred to the Atlasian National Health Care Program upon its establishment.

Section 4- Regional Administration

    (a.) The provision of healthcare and the administration of budgets and services shall be the responsibility of independent Community Health Partnerships (CHPs) congruent to the existing Regions These shall be established as public sector corporations. Each CHP shall be headed by a board consisting of one Executive and further non-executive members.
    (b.) CHP members shall be selected by the Health Directorate and shall be a non-partisan gathering of experts in the medical, pharmaceutical, and health insurance and administration industries.
    (c.) All boards shall be required to have an audit committee consisting only of non-executive members on which the chair may not sit. This committee shall be entrusted with the supervision of financial audit and of systems of corporate governance within the CHP.
    (d.) CHP's shall have responsibility for delivering primary and community services and commission them from other providers, and are involved in commissioning secondary care. Each CHP shall have their own budget and set their own priorities and shall directly provide a range of community health services including but not exclusive to;

            The provision of funding for general practitioners and medical prescriptions.
            The commission of hospital and mental health services from the private sector.

    (e.) All members, directors and associated bodies shall be accountable to the Health Directorate as outlined in Section 3 of this Act.

This is still being sponsored, correct?

No idea -I am having trouble seeing the differences between this bill and the law we already have, and why this should be considered an improvement.  For that matter, why go through the trouble of repealing the previous law when you could simply amend it if you're that dissatisfied with it but want to keep the overall structure in place?  


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 16, 2012, 05:44:25 PM
According to Marokai's post a few weeks ago, sponsorship would fall to the remaining co-sponsors. Someone could be added probably with the agreement of the remaining sponsor and such being properly moved within the procedures once the bill has reached the floor.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on March 26, 2012, 09:14:09 PM
When is the Senate going to start doing bills again?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 26, 2012, 10:32:33 PM
Probably whenever Marokai Blue gets replaced as PPT, the VP takes over the job on a permenent basis, or I am empowered to do so. 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on March 26, 2012, 10:34:27 PM
I contacted MB earlier today about his future as PPT. Expect action very soon.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 27, 2012, 08:41:55 AM
I contacted MB earlier today about his future as PPT. Expect action very soon.

By the way, did you ever publically transfer the authority of the President of the Senate to the PPT as required by the OSPR for the PPT to run the Senate?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on April 17, 2012, 09:30:09 PM
Is there somewhere I can find a list of other countries that Atlasia currently has trade agreements with?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 18, 2012, 03:45:53 PM
Is there somewhere I can find a list of other countries that Atlasia currently has trade agreements with?
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Omnibus_Trade_Reorganization_%26_Wiki_Consolidation_Act  (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Omnibus_Trade_Reorganization_%26_Wiki_Consolidation_Act)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on April 18, 2012, 06:39:25 PM
So glad we don't have an embargo on Cuba. Their coffee is freaking amazing.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on May 03, 2012, 12:57:43 AM
At this point, I don't plan on doing a budget update until someone makes the statute wiki page up to date.  It's really a bit much for me to dig through the forum to find the new spending and tax bills in addition to measuring their impact.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on May 05, 2012, 12:04:32 AM
At this point, I don't plan on doing a budget update until someone makes the statute wiki page up to date.  It's really a bit much for me to dig through the forum to find the new spending and tax bills in addition to measuring their impact.

so no ones gonna help me out here :(


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 05, 2012, 07:31:30 AM
At this point, I don't plan on doing a budget update until someone makes the statute wiki page up to date.  It's really a bit much for me to dig through the forum to find the new spending and tax bills in addition to measuring their impact.

so no ones gonna help me out here :(

You mean bills since the last update?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on May 05, 2012, 06:30:30 PM
At this point, I don't plan on doing a budget update until someone makes the statute wiki page up to date.  It's really a bit much for me to dig through the forum to find the new spending and tax bills in addition to measuring their impact.

so no ones gonna help me out here :(

You mean bills since the last update?
Yes, that would be good. Basically everything from 2012 so far.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 08, 2012, 04:07:48 PM
At this point, I don't plan on doing a budget update until someone makes the statute wiki page up to date.  It's really a bit much for me to dig through the forum to find the new spending and tax bills in addition to measuring their impact.

so no ones gonna help me out here :(

You mean bills since the last update?
Yes, that would be good. Basically everything from 2012 so far.

What about the Noticeboards, would they provide a clear reference as to what is relevant and what isn't?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on May 08, 2012, 08:03:24 PM
At this point, I don't plan on doing a budget update until someone makes the statute wiki page up to date.  It's really a bit much for me to dig through the forum to find the new spending and tax bills in addition to measuring their impact.

so no ones gonna help me out here :(

You mean bills since the last update?
Yes, that would be good. Basically everything from 2012 so far.

What about the Noticeboards, would they provide a clear reference as to what is relevant and what isn't?
Yeah, that'll work.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 08, 2012, 11:00:39 PM
At this point, I don't plan on doing a budget update until someone makes the statute wiki page up to date.  It's really a bit much for me to dig through the forum to find the new spending and tax bills in addition to measuring their impact.

so no ones gonna help me out here :(

You mean bills since the last update?
Yes, that would be good. Basically everything from 2012 so far.

What about the Noticeboards, would they provide a clear reference as to what is relevant and what isn't?
Yeah, that'll work.

46-48 should include all that has been done since the beginning of the year.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 21, 2012, 07:03:45 PM
There are many offices we should look at scrapping; Senate seats do not fall into that category.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on May 21, 2012, 07:31:47 PM
The State of Maryland shall be transfered to the Northeast Region, residents therein shall become citizens of and subject to the laws duly adopted in that region.

When this bill comes to the floor, I will amend for this to be taken out.

Quote
1.The Senate shall be composed of ten eight Senators, each with a term of four months

This is also completely ridiculous.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 21, 2012, 07:38:12 PM
The reduction of the Senate is unavoidable with this change. You are going from 5 regions to 4 regions. I removed 1 At-Large seat to keep it neutral as far as the balance between regions and popular interests so that it doesn't run afoul of the regional rights movement, which would kill it.

Whenever you try to do to many things with these big reforms you fail. If you break down the current balance in the Senate, you open a whole knew can of worms that this doesn't need, because it will be hard enough to do this as it is.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 21, 2012, 07:45:32 PM
Then your amendment is the very definition of counterproductive and should be defeated. The whole point of reducing the number of regions is to enhance competition and activity. It doesn't so much good if you go and remove the competitive aspects of the At-Large seats. There is no reason why there can't be six At Large seats and give parties a chance to compete for more seats.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on May 21, 2012, 07:49:17 PM
This is why I'm probably not going to vote for the bill even if the changes I'd like are made.  I remember someone came up with a proposal earlier about merging the Pacific and Midwest, but allowing the regions to retain their borders for representation purposes.  Putting a law like this in place would be preferable.  Reducing the number of Senate seats will hurt activity, not stimulate it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 21, 2012, 07:49:38 PM
Then your amendment is the very definition of counterproductive and should be defeated. The whole point of reducing the number of regions is to enhance competition and activity. It doesn't so much good if you go and remove the competitive aspects of the At-Large seats. There is no reason why there can't be six At Large seats and give parties a chance to compete for more seats.

This is not my amendment and I do not obligate myself to support it, either. It is up to the person who asked me to introduce it for them to make the case for this. I am neutral at present.

6 At-Large to 4 Regional seats is completely unacceptable. At that point it becomes the same as ILV's amendment.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 21, 2012, 07:52:42 PM
That is completely unacceptable. At that point it becomes the same as ILV's amendment.
What, how? Everyone else agrees that replacing regional seats with districts is a bad idea.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 21, 2012, 07:56:41 PM
That is completely unacceptable. At that point it becomes the same as ILV's amendment.
What, how? Everyone else agrees that replacing regional seats with districts is a bad idea.

Removing Regional Senate seats for any replacement reduces the influence of regions in the lawmaking process. Reducing them from their current state of parity with the At-Large seats has the same effect.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 21, 2012, 08:00:19 PM
I do not understand what you are trying to say. When ilikeverin remarked on how Northeastern voters are under-represented in the Senate due to population imbalance you applied Northeastern At Large Senators to our delegation to argue it was fair. Either your argument here is full of crap or your argument there was full of crap because it is contradictory to say regions can't be represented by At Large Senators now.

Additionally, I do not understand why I should care less about reducing the voting public's influence in the lawmaking process by reducing seats than reducing regions' influence by not having an exactly equal number of seats for each side. I care more about the game being able to function properly than I do anything else.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 21, 2012, 08:14:10 PM
I do not understand what you are trying to say. When ilikeverin remarked on how Northeastern voters are under-represented in the Senate due to population imbalance you applied Northeastern At Large Senators to our delegation to argue it was fair. Either your argument here is full of crap or your argument there was full of crap because it is contradictory to say regions can't be represented by At Large Senators now.

Additionally, I do not understand why I should care less about reducing the voting public's influence in the lawmaking process by reducing seats than reducing regions' influence by not having an exactly equal number of seats for each side. I care more about the game being able to function properly than I do anything else.

No that is not what I was doing. I was playing devil's advocate and that would have been clear had my second post not gotten lost in transmission and the internet refused to cooperate for the rest of that day. Now that bill already seems to be winding down and thus my full range of points that I would have made, won't get to be made most likely. But the primary thrust of my arguement was the same one I made here above. The necessity of maintaining regional seats and maintaining them in equal numbers to the At-Large seats.

That is your decision to make, not mine.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Yelnoc on May 22, 2012, 07:24:56 AM
I'll just go ahead and put what I said in the poll thread in here.

Quote
Wow, I really managed to get everyone's fur up, didn't I?  I don't see how reducing the number of senate seats by two would hurt anything, because two of the ten senators are always inactive, but if that is oh so important than how about we fill the other two seats through a third method?  The purpose of reducing the number of senate seats is merely to retain the balance between regional and at-large seats, but that does not preclude a third method from being introduced.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on June 10, 2012, 07:13:43 PM
Does Atlasia have its own version of the Glass-Steagall Act in effect?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on June 11, 2012, 08:20:54 PM
Does Atlasia have its own version of the Glass-Steagall Act in effect?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 12, 2012, 11:47:24 AM
It was reinstated in 2008.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on June 12, 2012, 01:45:31 PM

Is the bill on the wiki?  I couldn't find it on there.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on June 12, 2012, 02:47:44 PM
Airport Renaming Act
1) Mondale National Airport shall henceforth be known as Purple State National Airport.
2) Arbenz International Airport shall henceforth be known as Colin Wixted International Airport.

Couldn't you rename other airports instead of the ones that have already been renamed?
Responding here to avoid clutter...
The reasoning behind this is that both of these airports were originally named after conservatives, and a very liberal Senate we had a while back decided it would be funny to anger the conservatives and change it to two liberals, leading many to have bitterness over an act of partisan hackery. This bill is an attempt to find common ground by instead naming the airports after two respected former Presidents.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on June 12, 2012, 02:52:03 PM
Also, Purple State and Colin were two people with sentimental value, as Colin was President when I joined, and Purple State made me SoEA and helped rehabilitate me after my scandal.  This is an attempt to honor two good men.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Donerail on June 12, 2012, 03:06:31 PM
Airport Renaming Act
1) Mondale National Airport shall henceforth be known as Purple State National Airport.
2) Arbenz International Airport shall henceforth be known as Colin Wixted International Airport.

Couldn't you rename other airports instead of the ones that have already been renamed?
Responding here to avoid clutter...
The reasoning behind this is that both of these airports were originally named after conservatives, and a very liberal Senate we had a while back decided it would be funny to anger the conservatives and change it to two liberals, leading many to have bitterness over an act of partisan hackery. This bill is an attempt to find common ground by instead naming the airports after two respected former Presidents.

Ah. Seems like a great idea, but is the Senate able to do that (rename airports which lie within the territorial borders of the Mideast and are not part of a federal district)?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on June 12, 2012, 03:20:37 PM
Ah. Seems like a great idea, but is the Senate able to do that (rename airports which lie within the territorial borders of the Mideast and are not part of a federal district)?

We did once.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Donerail on June 12, 2012, 03:33:18 PM
Ah. Seems like a great idea, but is the Senate able to do that (rename airports which lie within the territorial borders of the Mideast and are not part of a federal district)?

We did once.

Yes, but was that occurrence a legitimate exercise of federal power?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on June 12, 2012, 03:36:29 PM
Yes, but was that occurrence a legitimate exercise of federal power?

I believe so.  The two airports are national and international; that justifies federal involvement.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Donerail on June 12, 2012, 04:11:34 PM
Yes, but was that occurrence a legitimate exercise of federal power?

I believe so.  The two airports are national and international; that justifies federal involvement.

So if an airport has (inter)national in its name, the federal government can change said name? So if there's an airport (say Key West International Airport), and I'm a Senator, I can make a bill renaming it after me?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on June 12, 2012, 05:02:18 PM
So if an airport has (inter)national in its name, the federal government can change said name? So if there's an airport (say Key West International Airport), and I'm a Senator, I can make a bill renaming it after me?

An airport that serves areas outside of any one region are under the jurisdiction of the federal government.  You could, but it wouldn't pass.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 13, 2012, 04:16:43 PM

I have something better, I have the links. They are saved in folder called Senate Bills in My Documents, on the computer that won't go online. I also can't access the folder at present for transference via flash drive because I am running a program on that machine, that won't finish until about 10 PM or so.

Try the Financial Services Reform Act of 2008. I am pretty sure that is what it is called.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Donerail on June 13, 2012, 04:21:46 PM
I think what you're talking about is this (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Financial_Regulatory_Reform_Act), or possibly this (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Financial_Services_Regulation_Act).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on June 14, 2012, 07:18:45 PM
Articles of Impeachment

Attorney General Fuzzybigfoot shall hereby be tried by impeachment on the following five counts:

The High Crimes and Misdemeanors of

Armed robbery.
Burglary.
Criminal trespassing.
Criminal breach of the peace.
Conspiracy against rights.

Following impeachment by the People on any or all of the above counts, Fuzzybigfoot shall be considered immediately removed from office and banned from holding any office under the Republic of Atlasia for a period of no less than twelve (12) months.

Did I miss something here?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Donerail on June 14, 2012, 07:27:00 PM
Articles of Impeachment

Attorney General Fuzzybigfoot shall hereby be tried by impeachment on the following five counts:

The High Crimes and Misdemeanors of

Armed robbery.
Burglary.
Criminal trespassing.
Criminal breach of the peace.
Conspiracy against rights.

Following impeachment by the People on any or all of the above counts, Fuzzybigfoot shall be considered immediately removed from office and banned from holding any office under the Republic of Atlasia for a period of no less than twelve (12) months.

Did I miss something here?

If you missed anything, check in the IDS Legislature page, the office of Emperor PiT, and the office of the Attorney General. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=150826.msg3326604#msg3326604 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=150826.msg3326604#msg3326604). Basically, Wormy thinks Fuzzy should be impeached for his actions.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on June 14, 2012, 07:36:49 PM
Articles of Impeachment

Attorney General Fuzzybigfoot shall hereby be tried by impeachment on the following five counts:

The High Crimes and Misdemeanors of

Armed robbery.
Burglary.
Criminal trespassing.
Criminal breach of the peace.
Conspiracy against rights.

Following impeachment by the People on any or all of the above counts, Fuzzybigfoot shall be considered immediately removed from office and banned from holding any office under the Republic of Atlasia for a period of no less than twelve (12) months.

Did I miss something here?

If you missed anything, check in the IDS Legislature page, the office of Emperor PiT, and the office of the Attorney General. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=150826.msg3326604#msg3326604 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=150826.msg3326604#msg3326604). Basically, Wormy thinks Fuzzy should be impeached for his actions.

Quite odd.  I don't see how what Fuzzy is doing is unlawful in any way.  And what do armed robbery and burglary have anything to do with this?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Donerail on June 14, 2012, 07:57:30 PM
Articles of Impeachment

Attorney General Fuzzybigfoot shall hereby be tried by impeachment on the following five counts:

The High Crimes and Misdemeanors of

Armed robbery.
Burglary.
Criminal trespassing.
Criminal breach of the peace.
Conspiracy against rights.

Following impeachment by the People on any or all of the above counts, Fuzzybigfoot shall be considered immediately removed from office and banned from holding any office under the Republic of Atlasia for a period of no less than twelve (12) months.

Did I miss something here?

If you missed anything, check in the IDS Legislature page, the office of Emperor PiT, and the office of the Attorney General. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=150826.msg3326604#msg3326604 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=150826.msg3326604#msg3326604). Basically, Wormy thinks Fuzzy should be impeached for his actions.

Quite odd.  I don't see how what Fuzzy is doing is unlawful in any way.  And what do armed robbery and burglary have anything to do with this?

His armed agents broke into buildings throughout the IDS and stole large quantities of valuables.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on June 14, 2012, 08:48:06 PM
His armed agents broke into buildings throughout the IDS and stole large quantities of valuables.

Is that confirmed by the GM/SoIA?  Otherwise, I don't see where this goes (as is, I'm inclined not to support this).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Donerail on June 14, 2012, 09:01:25 PM
His armed agents broke into buildings throughout the IDS and stole large quantities of valuables.

Is that confirmed by the GM/SoIA?  Otherwise, I don't see where this goes (as is, I'm inclined not to support this).

He said his agents were seizing all Dibble-exchange facilities throughout the IDS, and the SoIA reported such in his newspaper thing.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on June 14, 2012, 11:19:00 PM
His armed agents broke into buildings throughout the IDS and stole large quantities of valuables.

Is that confirmed by the GM/SoIA?  Otherwise, I don't see where this goes (as is, I'm inclined not to support this).

He said his agents were seizing all Dibble-exchange facilities throughout the IDS, and the SoIA reported such in his newspaper thing.

You're citing Jake's perceived understanding of my order, rather than the order itself. 


Executive order from the Office of the Attorney General, Fuzzybigfoot:


This administration charges the Imperial Region with breaking Second Clause of Section 7, Article 1 of Atlasia's third constitution by creating a regional curency (the "Dibble") under the Second Section of the Trojan Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Trojan_Act). 


Due to said violations, Federal Agents will seize control of all exchange places listed in the Trojan Act (including the Imperial Capital of Memphis and all other state capitals in the Southern region) and cease the exchange and distribution of "Dibbles" to all Southern citizens.





Stand by for an impending lawsuit against the Imperial South.


As you can see in the text above, I did not order my agents to steal anything.  I simply commanded them to take control of the exchange facilities so no more Dibbles could be distributed.  They didn't move anything.  When I ordered them to stand down after a standoff with local police forces, they left and didn't take anything with them. 

It would be great if you could simply base your talking points on actual facts.  But I'm getting the feeling that you won't, considering how you were already in my office attempting to decipher the legal semantics for yourself, before giving up and taking on someone elses viewpoint as your own.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on June 14, 2012, 11:47:45 PM
As most things Senator Wormy posts, it's not based on anything related to reality.

The order issued with my approval from the Attorney General, did not approve the 'removal' of dibbles, but the control of the exchange and minting facilities in order to prevent any further issuance.

That's all.

However, if there's evidence the agents were beyond their remit, we will treat that seriously and manage accordingly.





Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Donerail on June 15, 2012, 07:54:28 AM
His armed agents broke into buildings throughout the IDS and stole large quantities of valuables.

Is that confirmed by the GM/SoIA?  Otherwise, I don't see where this goes (as is, I'm inclined not to support this).

He said his agents were seizing all Dibble-exchange facilities throughout the IDS, and the SoIA reported such in his newspaper thing.

You're citing Jake's perceived understanding of my order, rather than the order itself. 

As you can see in the text above, I did not order my agents to steal anything.  I simply commanded them to take control of the exchange facilities so no more Dibbles could be distributed.  They didn't move anything.  When I ordered them to stand down after a standoff with local police forces, they left and didn't take anything with them. 

It would be great if you could simply base your talking points on actual facts.  But I'm getting the feeling that you won't, considering how you were already in my office attempting to decipher the legal semantics for yourself, before giving up and taking on someone elses viewpoint as your own.

Of course I'm citing Jake's understanding of your order; when someone asks for information from "the GM/SoIA", one typically cites something from either the GM or SoIA. I would assume Ben had already seen the order himself, and was asking if Jake or Shua had posted anything related to it, which Jake had, and that is what I cited.

As for the robbery charge, while your agents did not move the Dibbles, they did take control of the places where all the Dibbles were, thus removing possession of the Dibbles from its rightful owner (the private corporation that manufactures them). Robbery is defined as "taking or attempting to take something of value from someone without that person's permission or intent"; while the Dibbles were not moved, they were taken from the distributor (seeing as how they could no longer distribute). To address your second point, theft is theft, no matter how you slice it; if you break into someone's home and have their jewelry and flat-screen in your hands, but then they wake up and you say, "Just kidding", give it back, and leave, they're perfectly justified in calling the cops for larceny. Returning the Dibbles to the possession of the private manufacturing/distribution company does not make it not-theft. And yes, this is based on the definition of larceny in English common law, or as you put it, an Actual Fact™. And also, my viewpoint is my own viewpoint, and I certainly did not adopt someone else's views as my own, but made my decision based on the facts of the case; whether or not you like my conclusions is another matter.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 15, 2012, 04:37:37 PM
There are no procedures in the OSPR for impeachments that I can see. The Constitution is thus the only guide and if I am not mistaken, it places the ball in the court of the Chief Justice to proceed with them, correct?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Donerail on June 15, 2012, 05:02:59 PM
There are no procedures in the OSPR for impeachments that I can see. The Constitution is thus the only guide and if I am not mistaken, it places the ball in the court of the Chief Justice to proceed with them, correct?

Based on the Constitution, the CJ will start a new thread to consider the impeachment (which I assume means cases will be presented for both sides, debate, etc), and the Senators just act as a jury.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 16, 2012, 04:24:36 PM
On behalf of a constituent:

Quote
Census Deep Cleaning Act of 2012

1. The Registrar General of the Census bureau shall, after the conclusion of a regular federal election, remove from the voting rolls all citizens who:

- failed to cast a ballot in that same regular federal election
- were not registered with the Census Bureau as being eligible to cast a ballot at the beginning of the previous regular federal election AND
- did not cast a ballot in any federal special election occurring within the previous two months

2. No prohibition shall be made of the subsequent re-registration, at any time, of persons removed from the voter rolls through section 1 of this act.

I do not believe this would hurt the game at all, as this bill simply removes clutter and allows inactive players to re-register if they would like.

Personally, I am glad Redalgo wasn't deregistered and is eligible to run for the Senate. Then again, I value functionality over...whatever one might call kicking voters out and forcing them to re-register...unnecessary hassle?

There are many reasons why one might miss an election...especially there first one, when they might not know the election dates. Even our President missed the last election. It happens. I hope you withdraw this bill.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on June 16, 2012, 06:36:01 PM
On behalf of a constituent:

Quote
Census Deep Cleaning Act of 2012

1. The Registrar General of the Census bureau shall, after the conclusion of a regular federal election, remove from the voting rolls all citizens who:

- failed to cast a ballot in that same regular federal election
- were not registered with the Census Bureau as being eligible to cast a ballot at the beginning of the previous regular federal election AND
- did not cast a ballot in any federal special election occurring within the previous two months

2. No prohibition shall be made of the subsequent re-registration, at any time, of persons removed from the voter rolls through section 1 of this act.

I do not believe this would hurt the game at all, as this bill simply removes clutter and allows inactive players to re-register if they would like.

Personally, I am glad Redalgo wasn't deregistered and is eligible to run for the Senate. Then again, I value functionality over...whatever one might call kicking voters out and forcing them to re-register...unnecessary hassle?

There are many reasons why one might miss an election...especially there first one, when they might not know the election dates. Even our President missed the last election. It happens. I hope you withdraw this bill.

It's not an unnecessary hassle.  If someone decides to be active here again, they can take the five seconds to register back into the game.

I am willing to compromise on this and set the limit to maybe two or even three elections or so, but there is no reason why people who never vote or contribute anything to the game should just stay on the voter roll.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 17, 2012, 07:33:56 PM
Aren't voters removed if they miss three elections under current law?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on June 18, 2012, 12:36:38 AM
Aren't voters removed if they miss three elections under current law?

What law are you citing?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on June 19, 2012, 08:41:43 AM
Aren't voters removed if they miss three elections under current law?

What law are you citing?
The Constitution. I can't remember if its 3 or 4, but I know its already there.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on June 19, 2012, 01:37:39 PM
Aren't voters removed if they miss three elections under current law?

What law are you citing?
The Constitution. I can't remember if its 3 or 4, but I know its already there.

You're right, it is in there. (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_V_of_the_Third_Constitution#Section_2:_Voter_Registration_and_Voting_Rules)

Quote
Any registered voter who fails to vote in elections for six months for which he is qualified to vote shall have his registration no longer considered valid. The said voter may only be deregistered after missing three federal elections, not including runoffs and special elections. A vote in a special election or runoff will be counted towards activity the same as a vote in a regular federal election. This clause shall not be construed to deny a forum user the right to register anew.

It appears that the proposed law is unnecessary, in this case.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on June 20, 2012, 10:46:30 PM
Quote
The Protection of Legal Region Functions Act
No federal official, when engaging in an effort to enforce federal law, may prohibit, obstruct or prevent in any way shape or form the functions of a Regional Government, according to their laws, that also aren't in violation of Federal Law.

Doesn't this pretty much already go without saying?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 22, 2012, 10:45:38 PM
Indeed, but we know goverment and it's way far too well to rest on that assumption alone.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Donerail on June 27, 2012, 08:56:24 PM
Hey, Yankee, you know these kinds of things. Do I have to have the movers get everything out of my office when Nappy (or Tweed) swears in, or do I have to be done when Kal (pending confirmation) swears in?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on June 28, 2012, 12:52:54 PM
Wormy guy, why did you vote nay on the swearing in made simple act?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: TJ in Oregon on June 28, 2012, 12:54:38 PM
Wormy guy, why did you vote nay on the swearing in made simple act?

I'm going to guess and say he thinks it's pointless since the thread was sticky-ed once someone PM-ed Gustaf without it needing to pass.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 28, 2012, 05:43:17 PM
Hey, Yankee, you know these kinds of things. Do I have to have the movers get everything out of my office when Nappy (or Tweed) swears in, or do I have to be done when Kal (pending confirmation) swears in?

I would say whenever you successor swears in, but I would be inclined to get another opinion on that before making any critical decisons if I were you.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on June 28, 2012, 08:32:06 PM
Hey, Yankee, you know these kinds of things. Do I have to have the movers get everything out of my office when Nappy (or Tweed) swears in, or do I have to be done when Kal (pending confirmation) swears in?

Give Kal a different office. Keep the old one as a memento. I'm working on making a plaster cast of my Senate office as we speak.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 29, 2012, 07:37:06 PM
Your office consisted of little more then a broom closet which you shared with Pingvin, why would you want to remember that "experience". :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Donerail on June 29, 2012, 07:45:49 PM
()

Sans the artwork of the Dome of the Rock (mine is of the Palais des Nations) and also the armed Hamas gunmen, this is pretty much what my office looks like. Is it worth it to make a plaster cast?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 29, 2012, 07:49:39 PM
Your office consisted of little more then a broom closet which you shared with Pingvin, why would you want to remember that "experience". :P

()

(press secretaries get better offices than PPTs) :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 29, 2012, 08:07:40 PM
I highly doubt that myself. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on June 30, 2012, 08:39:02 AM
Do treaties only require a simple majority?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on June 30, 2012, 06:37:08 PM
Quote
We Are Above The Use Of Slavery And To Think Otherwise Is Unpatriotic And Immoral Amendment

Article VI, Section VIII of The Atlasian Constitution is amended to read:
Neither shall the Republic of Atlasia nor any of its constituent regions enforce compulsory conscription upon any citizen.


For Jbrase because obviously, I enjoy pain. :P

I was actually going to introduce a compromised version of this amendment, but hey, debating the exact same thing over and over is fun, right kids? :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on June 30, 2012, 06:38:42 PM
Will someone tell Jbrase the only way to pass this is for him to actually vote for the people that agree with him? :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 30, 2012, 06:47:54 PM
Quote
We Are Above The Use Of Slavery And To Think Otherwise Is Unpatriotic And Immoral Amendment

Article VI, Section VIII of The Atlasian Constitution is amended to read:
Neither shall the Republic of Atlasia nor any of its constituent regions enforce compulsory conscription upon any citizen.


For Jbrase because obviously, I enjoy pain. :P

I was actually going to introduce a compromised version of this amendment, but hey, debating the exact same thing over and over is fun, right kids? :P

I know, I wasn't expecting him to pm me asking to introduce that today though, and I never say no to such a respected constituent. Perhaps you could consult with him and see if he would be willing to ask me to withdraw it in favor of yours.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: CatoMinor on July 04, 2012, 12:30:56 AM
Perhaps you could consult with him and see if he would be willing to ask me to withdraw it in favor of yours.

By now I am just assuming you guys never got my pms. Go ahead an withdraw mine in favor of his.


Also Senator Wormy introduced articles of impeachment quite a while ago. Not that I am saying Fuzzy needs to be impeached, but that fact someone brought forward articles of impeachment and there is nothing being done about it is a huge sign that something is broken here. I highly suggest a senator introduce some amendment to the SoP to make sure impeachments, you know, actually happen when are supposed to in the future.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on July 04, 2012, 12:49:41 AM
Quote
We Are Above The Use Of Slavery And To Think Otherwise Is Unpatriotic And Immoral Amendment

Article VI, Section VIII of The Atlasian Constitution is amended to read:
Neither shall the Republic of Atlasia nor any of its constituent regions enforce compulsory conscription upon any citizen.


For Jbrase because obviously, I enjoy pain. :P

I was actually going to introduce a compromised version of this amendment, but hey, debating the exact same thing over and over is fun, right kids? :P

I know, I wasn't expecting him to pm me asking to introduce that today though, and I never say no to such a respected constituent. Perhaps you could consult with him and see if he would be willing to ask me to withdraw it in favor of yours.

Nothing like a dog that won't hunt... who can't let go of a bone :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 05, 2012, 12:10:45 AM
Perhaps you could consult with him and see if he would be willing to ask me to withdraw it in favor of yours.

By now I am just assuming you guys never got my pms. Go ahead an withdraw mine in favor of his.


Also Senator Wormy introduced articles of impeachment quite a while ago. Not that I am saying Fuzzy needs to be impeached, but that fact someone brought forward articles of impeachment and there is nothing being done about it is a huge sign that something is broken here. I highly suggest a senator introduce some amendment to the SoP to make sure impeachments, you know, actually happen when are supposed to in the future.


You mean amendment to the constitution? That is the only procedures for impeachments and it leaves it in the hands of the Chief Justice.

I think this is one instance where not having a two house legislature is inconvenient. We shouldn't proceed to trial whenever a Senator introduces articles of impeachement. Perhaps require passage of a Senate measure by some specified majority first.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: CatoMinor on July 05, 2012, 12:53:11 AM


You mean amendment to the constitution? That is the only procedures for impeachments and it leaves it in the hands of the Chief Justice.

I think this is one instance where not having a two house legislature is inconvenient. We shouldn't proceed to trial whenever a Senator introduces articles of impeachement. Perhaps require passage of a Senate measure by some specified majority first.

Well it should ensure that it is brought up right away and that ends any possibility that the trial wont happen simply because the CJ doesn't feel like starting it. 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Ebowed on July 05, 2012, 03:00:04 AM
I'm open to correction, but I was under the impression that the Attorney General's term was about to conclude and I was notified of the motion for impeachment (in passing, in IRC) shortly after the IDS lawsuit came into fruition.

Edit: I just had a look over the charges again and I'm more than a little confused.  If someone could provide me with an objective explanation as to what occurred, I would appreciate that and we can move from there.  You have to forgive me for not taking the charges seriously the first time I read them given the comical nature of trying someone on an online simulation for 'armed robbery.'


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 13, 2012, 06:05:15 AM
This "Good Neighbor Resolution" contains several changes to the OSPR that I find to be troubling. Most of them seem to simply complicate the procedures unnecessarily as Senators can motion to table bills they find objectionable under current rules. To create a separate and more complex procedure for doing the same thing seems rather pointless.

The third modification is the one that is most disturbing. It modifies the explusion procedures in a way that would allow the the overwhelming majority of the Senate to gang up on and exterminate a lone wolf member. Currently, the expulsion procedures are shackled merely to an issue of competence only, that of innactivity. To expand it to a more vague standard with a possibly easy to manipulate procedure would be in my opinion, the greatest of mistakes. The voters determine who represents them and what views they have, not the oppressive tyranny of a majority seeking to silence opposition and dissent in what is supposed to be our "Great Deliberative Body".


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on July 13, 2012, 09:31:48 AM
I too am disturbed by the "Good Neighbor Resolution."  It could lead to any two Senators obstructing the work of the Senate.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Redalgo on July 13, 2012, 03:56:31 PM
Your objections are duly noted. However, at the time I drafted the resolution in question I could not scheme up a more effective method of obstructing Atlasian efforts to partake in unjust wars, prop up regimes with dubious human rights records, or seek terms of trade with other nations that are exploitative of other peoples by their very nature without resorting to a constitutional amendment - which would almost surely fail to succeed.

I do welcome any suggestions on how to achieve the ends of my legislation via more efficient and/or less dangerous means, but in the meanwhile I'll be inclined to lean toward a Madisonian rationale that it is better for our government to be inefficient and gridlocked than for it to enact measures crafted to suit the selfish ends of a potent (in this case realist/nationalist) political faction that has accumulated a dangerous measure of influence.

The GNR clearly has flaws and weaknesses. I am willing to amend it myself prior to its introduction on the floor of the Senate if ya'll speak up and give me something cleverer to work with.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 14, 2012, 06:55:41 AM
What is this dangerous faction you speak of? I am not aware of any situation that Atlasia would enter a war without the broad consensus of multiple parties as the occassions where one party has had the Presidency and an outright majority in the Senate are few and far between going back atleast to 2008 and probably all the way to 2004 when the Democrats controlled the entire game for a while.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Redalgo on July 14, 2012, 11:55:58 AM
As a general rule, my focus is on moving toward a vision for the future rather than on the here and now - on reacting to problems which have already emerged. Preventing an abuse of power before the factions to hypothetically be responsible have mustered their strength is important to me. To answer your question, however, I suspect the half of the Senate in support of the Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty could eventually develop into such a threat, and it's no secret that I have some degree of distrust for neo-realists when it comes to foreign policy.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on July 14, 2012, 12:33:13 PM
I suspect the half of the Senate in support of the Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty could eventually develop into such a threat, and it's no secret that I have some degree of distrust for neo-realists when it comes to foreign policy.

Seriously?  I couldn't disagree more.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Donerail on July 14, 2012, 02:09:43 PM
I suspect the half of the Senate in support of the Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty could eventually develop into such a threat, and it's no secret that I have some degree of distrust for neo-realists when it comes to foreign policy.

Judging by the legislation you have introduced so far, Senator, you are much more dangerous to the continued existence of Atlasia as we know it than any such bloc. The Internationale? Changing our flag to some kind of socialist propaganda? Really?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Redalgo on July 14, 2012, 04:12:55 PM
The third modification is the one that is most disturbing. It modifies the explusion procedures in a way that would allow the the overwhelming majority of the Senate to gang up on and exterminate a lone wolf member. Currently, the expulsion procedures are shackled merely to an issue of competence only, that of innactivity. To expand it to a more vague standard with a possibly easy to manipulate procedure would be in my opinion, the greatest of mistakes. The voters determine who represents them and what views they have, not the oppressive tyranny of a majority seeking to silence opposition and dissent in what is supposed to be our "Great Deliberative Body".

Having considered this objection at greater length, I have reached a conclusion that this part of the resolution is excessively heavy-handed and carries with it a risk of unraveling the pluralistic nature of the federal government's legislative branch. The resolution shall be edited immediately to remove the provision in question. My thanks go out to Yankee for recognizing and bringing to my attention the potential for unintended abuses. 


Judging by the legislation you have introduced so far, Senator, you are much more dangerous to the continued existence of Atlasia as we know it than any such bloc. The Internationale? Changing our flag to some kind of socialist propaganda? Really?

What business does a left wing representative have seeking office if they are uncommitted to an agenda for replacing the established order with one which is new and improved? Yes - that does make me very dangerous indeed from the perspective of those who defend the old ways. And I'm proud to take on that label of being "dangerous," and to advertise my intent with as much candor as I have passion. A better world is possible!

Still, on the issue of the Good Neighbor Resolution it is I who has chosen to champion the interests of people from all nations - not just those who reside in our own. If you have ideas for how I may implement my policy objectives on this matter at a lesser risk to the integrity of social institutions, then great. Let me know so I've an opportunity to compromise. Otherwise, I would kindly ask that my colleagues in the Senate please spare me any further protest and prepare themselves to vote in accordance to their principles, just as I will.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 16, 2012, 07:51:32 AM
Another minor change you might want to make is to replace the instances of "74 hours" with "72 hours" a much more common time requirement/period throughout the OSPR.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Redalgo on July 16, 2012, 12:28:59 PM
Good catch - 72 had been the intended increment of time.


Title: Leave of Absense (possibly)
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 18, 2012, 12:03:36 PM
Just writing this because there's been some reports of a severe thunderstorm near where I live.  If I'm unavailable for the next couple days or so, it is because we've lost power.

Thinking positively, though...


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on July 18, 2012, 04:47:21 PM
As a general rule, my focus is on moving toward a vision for the future rather than on the here and now - on reacting to problems which have already emerged. Preventing an abuse of power before the factions to hypothetically be responsible have mustered their strength is important to me. To answer your question, however, I suspect the half of the Senate in support of the Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty could eventually develop into such a threat, and it's no secret that I have some degree of distrust for neo-realists when it comes to foreign policy.
The solution to that would be to require a two-thirds approval to go to war, or at the very least, to approve treaties that promise we will go to war on another's behalf.


Title: Possible leave of absense #2
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 26, 2012, 06:29:28 PM
Another storm came...


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 27, 2012, 07:29:18 AM
Scott, this is a bad place to be putting Leaves of Absence. The Standard procedure has been to create a thread for it. I didn't even see any of these in here, till just now.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 27, 2012, 09:05:15 AM
Sorry about that.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Donerail on August 03, 2012, 07:28:11 AM
Hey, isn't the Antarctic Incorporation Act supposed to be 3rd in the queue?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 03, 2012, 01:40:34 PM
There is a scrolling issue on my computer that makes highligthing a single line diffulty on the bottom of long posts. Therefore, I have to use the old fashion methods to remove links and it must of been erased with the backspace somehow.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Frodo on August 09, 2012, 07:50:33 PM
The third modification is the one that is most disturbing. It modifies the explusion procedures in a way that would allow the the overwhelming majority of the Senate to gang up on and exterminate a lone wolf member. Currently, the expulsion procedures are shackled merely to an issue of competence only, that of innactivity. To expand it to a more vague standard with a possibly easy to manipulate procedure would be in my opinion, the greatest of mistakes. The voters determine who represents them and what views they have, not the oppressive tyranny of a majority seeking to silence opposition and dissent in what is supposed to be our "Great Deliberative Body".

Having considered this objection at greater length, I have reached a conclusion that this part of the resolution is excessively heavy-handed and carries with it a risk of unraveling the pluralistic nature of the federal government's legislative branch. The resolution shall be edited immediately to remove the provision in question. My thanks go out to Yankee for recognizing and bringing to my attention the potential for unintended abuses. 


Judging by the legislation you have introduced so far, Senator, you are much more dangerous to the continued existence of Atlasia as we know it than any such bloc. The Internationale? Changing our flag to some kind of socialist propaganda? Really?

What business does a left wing representative have seeking office if they are uncommitted to an agenda for replacing the established order with one which is new and improved? Yes - that does make me very dangerous indeed from the perspective of those who defend the old ways. And I'm proud to take on that label of being "dangerous," and to advertise my intent with as much candor as I have passion. A better world is possible!

Still, on the issue of the Good Neighbor Resolution it is I who has chosen to champion the interests of people from all nations - not just those who reside in our own. If you have ideas for how I may implement my policy objectives on this matter at a lesser risk to the integrity of social institutions, then great. Let me know so I've an opportunity to compromise. Otherwise, I would kindly ask that my colleagues in the Senate please spare me any further protest and prepare themselves to vote in accordance to their principles, just as I will.

----------------------

Redalgo, you have some of the most interesting and thought-provoking bills and proposals of any senator past or present that I have ever encountered.  I earnestly hope you stick around. 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 09, 2012, 08:11:52 PM
Most definately. In fact my greatest concern is that initial lack of success will discourage him, which would be most unfortunate. He is certainly pilling a lot on his plate and it is inevitable in a body that rejects many smaller items, that such large transformations will be a monumental undertaking for anyone.



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on August 09, 2012, 11:16:01 PM
Indeed.  Keep at it Redalgo; you're a pleasure.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Donerail on August 15, 2012, 11:07:13 AM
In regards to the National University bill proposed by Senators Sbane/Scott: Given that currently the only federal universities are West Point and Annapolis (as well as Air Force Academy, Coast Guard Academy, Merchant Marine Academy, University of Health Sciences, NDU, etc), would it be feasible to make the universities specified in the bill to be specifically schools of political science, law, international relations, economics, that kinda thing, to serve the same purpose as the others, training our youth to join the civilian government sphere?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 15, 2012, 01:43:16 PM
In regards to the National University bill proposed by Senators Sbane/Scott: Given that currently the only federal universities are West Point and Annapolis (as well as Air Force Academy, Coast Guard Academy, Merchant Marine Academy, University of Health Sciences, NDU, etc), would it be feasible to make the universities specified in the bill to be specifically schools of political science, law, international relations, economics, that kinda thing, to serve the same purpose as the others, training our youth to join the civilian government sphere?

Well, I wouldn't have a problem with covering those studies with funds from the bill, but I'm not in favor of restricting funds to schools that only specialize in those fields.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Donerail on August 15, 2012, 02:07:16 PM
In regards to the National University bill proposed by Senators Sbane/Scott: Given that currently the only federal universities are West Point and Annapolis (as well as Air Force Academy, Coast Guard Academy, Merchant Marine Academy, University of Health Sciences, NDU, etc), would it be feasible to make the universities specified in the bill to be specifically schools of political science, law, international relations, economics, that kinda thing, to serve the same purpose as the others, training our youth to join the civilian government sphere?

Well, I wouldn't have a problem with covering those studies with funds from the bill, but I'm not in favor of restricting funds to schools that only specialize in those fields.

Then what is the point of setting up a national university system if not to train students for government work?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 15, 2012, 02:19:28 PM
In regards to the National University bill proposed by Senators Sbane/Scott: Given that currently the only federal universities are West Point and Annapolis (as well as Air Force Academy, Coast Guard Academy, Merchant Marine Academy, University of Health Sciences, NDU, etc), would it be feasible to make the universities specified in the bill to be specifically schools of political science, law, international relations, economics, that kinda thing, to serve the same purpose as the others, training our youth to join the civilian government sphere?

Well, I wouldn't have a problem with covering those studies with funds from the bill, but I'm not in favor of restricting funds to schools that only specialize in those fields.

Then what is the point of setting up a national university system if not to train students for government work?

The purpose of it is to train students for work in general.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Donerail on August 15, 2012, 02:21:01 PM
In regards to the National University bill proposed by Senators Sbane/Scott: Given that currently the only federal universities are West Point and Annapolis (as well as Air Force Academy, Coast Guard Academy, Merchant Marine Academy, University of Health Sciences, NDU, etc), would it be feasible to make the universities specified in the bill to be specifically schools of political science, law, international relations, economics, that kinda thing, to serve the same purpose as the others, training our youth to join the civilian government sphere?

Well, I wouldn't have a problem with covering those studies with funds from the bill, but I'm not in favor of restricting funds to schools that only specialize in those fields.

Then what is the point of setting up a national university system if not to train students for government work?

The purpose of it is to train students for work in general.

()

Why not just send funding to the regions for their already existing colleges?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 15, 2012, 02:37:04 PM
In regards to the National University bill proposed by Senators Sbane/Scott: Given that currently the only federal universities are West Point and Annapolis (as well as Air Force Academy, Coast Guard Academy, Merchant Marine Academy, University of Health Sciences, NDU, etc), would it be feasible to make the universities specified in the bill to be specifically schools of political science, law, international relations, economics, that kinda thing, to serve the same purpose as the others, training our youth to join the civilian government sphere?

Well, I wouldn't have a problem with covering those studies with funds from the bill, but I'm not in favor of restricting funds to schools that only specialize in those fields.

Then what is the point of setting up a national university system if not to train students for government work?

The purpose of it is to train students for work in general.

()

Why not just send funding to the regions for their already existing colleges?

The bill's purpose is to provide funding for new universities in economically distressed areas, but I don't see a problem with that idea, either.

Sbane, Napoleon- your input, please?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on August 15, 2012, 02:38:23 PM
Regions are free to use their own money to create new universities as they wish.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Donerail on August 15, 2012, 05:01:10 PM
Regions are free to use their own money to create new universities as they wish.

Yes, but why pay millions of dollars to create new universities instead of just sending it to the regions to expand their current universities (and link the funding to expansions in economically-distressed areas if you want)?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sbane on August 18, 2012, 11:22:46 PM
I don't see why we should only expand existing universities. Or if the regions were going to create more universities with their money, why does it matter if it is a regional one or a federal school? I would favor the regions spending more money and effort on community colleges and state schools (like the CSU system in California) rather than research universities. These regional research universities are fine and should continue to function but their focus should be on the community colleges and state schools. The federal government can then focus on national research universities, which the regions can build in an economically distressed location in their region.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on August 20, 2012, 12:23:42 AM
Is there a special process for citizens to discuss issues with the committees? 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 20, 2012, 12:49:51 AM
Is there a special process for citizens to discuss issues with the committees? 

Just discuss whatever matter you want in the committee thread, we've had no time to plan ahead for these sorts of things. Just keep it on topic and don't disrupt the proceedings. If problems develop we can revise the policy as we go.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 20, 2012, 12:51:44 AM
Also, you can be expect to be dragged before my committee in chains pretty soon, shua. >:D


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 26, 2012, 12:14:37 AM
Would anyone happen to know if minor gun safety laws are constitutional in Atlasia?  I'm not sure to what extent the 5th Amendment of Article VI of the Constitution forbids gun laws.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 26, 2012, 12:21:41 AM
Would anyone happen to know if minor gun safety laws are constitutional in Atlasia?  I'm not sure to what extent the 5th Amendment of Article VI of the Constitution forbids gun laws.

Have we implemented any gun control legislation nationally, at all?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 26, 2012, 12:24:51 AM
Would anyone happen to know if minor gun safety laws are constitutional in Atlasia?  I'm not sure to what extent the 5th Amendment of Article VI of the Constitution forbids gun laws.

Have we implemented any gun control legislation nationally, at all?

I'm not sure.  I don't think guns have come up since I joined the game last year.  Looking back at the wiki, I believe the Northeast Region passed some type of gun law a few years ago, but I'm honestly not sure if it was even legal given how broad the Fifth Amendment seems to be.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 27, 2012, 12:50:27 AM
Would anybody know?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on August 27, 2012, 01:11:56 AM

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

That's all I know of. Section 3 was repealed in a later bill.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on October 01, 2012, 02:01:39 PM
What would the senators think of selecting committee members during the lame-duck sessions so as to prevent last month's disaster from happening again? :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on October 01, 2012, 04:29:53 PM
Atrociousness aside, Hagrid's latest bill is blatantly unconstitutional.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on October 02, 2012, 12:06:05 AM
You've always been quite the charmer.

As I've said, I'll change it into an amendment if my fellow senators think we should. I don't see what you gain by being a tool.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on October 02, 2012, 12:06:30 AM
I was talking about the bill, not you.

I advise against entertaining the idea of election re-dos and re-starts. I don't think we will see many situations like this down the road, if any.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 02, 2012, 12:13:24 AM
What would the senators think of selecting committee members during the lame-duck sessions so as to prevent last month's disaster from happening again? :P

We would have to alter all three resolutions and that open up the prospect of soon to be, but not yet Senators engaging in Senate business. Not that such is definitely a problem, but perhaps it should be avoided if possible.

I think we should amend the root resolution that I passed a few months ago to specify the voting procedures and time window by which it is to take place at the beginning of each Senate. That way we will know in advance what has to be done and won't have to struggle to find someone to count the votes. I was planning to introduce something to that effect today or tomorrow, with the idea that it be considered by the GOR, but events beyond my control have ruined tonight for me. I got sick and so did my computer. :P I can't access any of the stuff I have written for the purposes of the Senate.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on October 02, 2012, 12:17:52 AM
I've been toying with the idea for a while and the best solution I could find to alleviate your concerns, would be to allow everything to be sorted out and have it assembled for an up or down vote as soon as the session starts.

The Senators-elect and incumbents will gather before the session to determine the PPT and the Committees, similar to how they are now, but beginning immediately after the elections. The incoming Senators will have the elected prepared for an inclusive vote as something of a procedural formality.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on October 02, 2012, 08:42:22 AM
I like Napoleon's suggestion.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 05, 2012, 12:33:06 AM
Articles of Impeachment against President Napoleon and SoFE homely:

In accordance with Article 1, Section 2 of the Atlasian Constitution, I propose that the Senate impeach the two above named individuals for official misconduct in the last election.

I only recently discovered (past week or so) that the Impeachment clarification Amendment failedi n the Pacific and the Midwest. ::) Remember those days when it was South that was difficult on all those amendmnets and how those smug bastids, some of them in those two regions, would mock and scorn the South? :P

Anyway, this means that the situation still stands as it did in June when Wormyguy tried to introduce impeachment articles, or simply, what the current constitution said. Basically the ball is in the Chief Justice's court here, from my reading of the appropriate section of the constitution.



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 05, 2012, 12:36:55 AM
Free refill ban:

1.) It shall be a criminal offence to offer a "flat rate" for any drink that contains sugar or alcohol. Listed prices must be valid for an exact quantity and be charged for any additional quantity.

2.) Violators will be fined an amount not to exceed $1,000 per offence.

Because of course, it is an absolute travesty those predatory drink vendors, forcing people at gun point to buy their drinks and then they have the absolute gaul to force them to take seconds. It's practically barbaric, BARBARIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 06, 2012, 03:43:50 PM
Greetings, Senators,


It is my great privilege to inform the legislative branch that Midwest is no longer a part of Atlasia. Therefore, any attempts by anyone to sit here as "Midwest Senator" are illegal.


Sincerely,
Kalwejt
Lord Protector


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 07, 2012, 12:17:35 AM
I'm sorry, who the hell are you?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on October 07, 2012, 02:07:12 AM

For not showing a proper respect to the High Office, you are to report in Tyburn.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: morgieb on October 09, 2012, 05:08:04 PM
I formally demand that SoIA morgieb either resume his duties or resign. He has has now been absent from his office for over two weeks.
Over two weeks? Ouch.

I'll try to get some stuff done now, heh.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Donerail on October 09, 2012, 05:52:27 PM
It's been spotted!

()


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Simfan34 on November 14, 2012, 04:23:38 PM
Is Marokai facing expulsion soon?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 14, 2012, 04:41:54 PM
There is a minimum time of absention on its use of 14 days of consecutive absenteeism. We put that in there for fear JCPers would use it to boot out RPP Senators in a partisan fashion.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 14, 2012, 09:34:33 PM
Ugh, guys, you have no idea how sorry I am. Our sh** phone line completely died for three straight days and f'ed with our internet. I've had absolutely no reasonable way to let anyone know this so I've just sort of been adrift this entire time until earlier today. I am really really really really sorry; it was all completely out of my control. :(


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on November 14, 2012, 09:49:57 PM
I am sorry to see the senate in such disarray, trying to throw out Marokai, people at each other's throats. This chamber truly needs a savior to bring it back from the brink of disaster!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 15, 2012, 11:54:09 PM
Okay Dukie and Mary, which one of you two idiots corrupted this page of this thread making it so that it jams my browser every time I tried to load it.


Marokai, did you withdraw the "Go to the Doctor Instead" bill? If you are going to withdraw bills use the damn strikethrough. Otherwise my noticeboard will lead me to the abyss of blankness and I don't know whether it was withdrawn or the post vanished (anyone remember Barnes' vote in June 2009, fun times!!! :P)

Nix, since the Dream act is going to pass most likely, do you still want "The Gardens of Dreams Act"?

And Duke, the Senate is not in dissarray and the only people who are talking about throwing Marokai out is peoples in yous own damn party, so dismount your high horse before I personally ensure that your precious Lindsay loses his primary, the same way "I gave" Marokai, Governor Kasich. Yes newbs, I am that evil! >:D >:D >:D


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 16, 2012, 01:47:00 AM
Just wanted to make sure.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 18, 2012, 10:36:20 AM
For the record, yes, I did withdraw it by just cutting it out of my larger proposal posts. Sorry about that. From now on I'll use the strikethrough.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 29, 2012, 12:38:00 AM
Regarding the John Engle bill, I would like to remind the Senate that John Engle was a criminal who either 1) violated federal law by registering a second account; or 2) impersonated a previous poster.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on November 29, 2012, 05:32:49 PM
Senators, may I direct your attention to a resolution that recently passed the Mideast Assembly and was signed by myself...

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: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on December 04, 2012, 03:55:02 PM
So y'all know...

Hi everyone—

Just issuing a statement to let everyone know that I'll be pretty pre-occupied over the next five or six days with real life exam work. I'll be monitoring events as best I can, but I'll probably have to put my participation in senate debates on hold. Same goes for answering questions about my candidacy and running campaign events.

Thanks,

Hagrid


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 05, 2012, 02:56:33 AM
My brother was in the hospital for several days (falling into a particularly nasty case of Diabetic Ketoacidosis..) and I wanted nothing to do with Atlasia in the meantime, understandably. So, thanks for any understanding, assuming I'm getting understanding.. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on December 05, 2012, 01:43:24 PM
I would also like to present this resolution that was recently passed by the Northeast Assembly:

Quote
A RESOLUTION

A resolution to be transmitted to the Senate of Atlasia concerning this Assembly's concern over the state of the wiki.

Be it enacted by the Northeast Assembly convened

To the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia:

To all whom these presents may come we, the Representatives of the Northeast Assembly, send greeting.
1. WHEREAS the wiki is severely lacking in updates, especially in the categories of statutes and court cases;
2. WHEREAS the regions depend on an updated wiki to pass and enforce their own laws;
3. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Northeast Assembly urges the the Senate to hold a hearing to determine what should be done to rectify the problem.
4. The Northeast Assembly also recommends that the Attorney General be called for a Committee hearing and evaluation on his handling of the Wiki situation.


()

The Attorney General has already resigned, but I felt this should be brought to the Senate for everyone's attention.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 05, 2012, 08:32:42 PM
I think we're in the midst of the first filibuster in Senate history.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on December 05, 2012, 09:02:49 PM
I think we're in the midst of the first filibuster in Senate history.

Which debate?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on December 05, 2012, 09:10:24 PM

My poker bill.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on December 15, 2012, 01:29:30 PM
What's wrong with the current law (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Viva_Las_Atlasia_Act)?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 16, 2012, 11:06:16 AM
What's wrong with the current law (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Viva_Las_Atlasia_Act)?

Excellent question.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fritz on December 22, 2012, 12:38:48 AM
Forgive me if this issue has already been addressed...in response to recent events in the state of Connecticut, I strongly feel that it behooves the Senate to introduce appropriate gun control legislation.  Thank you gentlemen for your attention.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 22, 2012, 12:40:15 AM
Forgive me if this issue has already been addressed...in response to recent events in the state of Connecticut, I strongly feel that it behooves the Senate to introduce appropriate gun control legislation.  Thank you gentlemen for your attention.

I did manage to (barely) get this into law (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=161113.msg3491170#msg3491170), earlier in my term, but I'm definitely open to expanding on it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on December 22, 2012, 08:38:20 AM
Forgive me if this issue has already been addressed...in response to recent events in the state of Connecticut, I strongly feel that it behooves the Senate to introduce appropriate gun control legislation.  Thank you gentlemen for your attention.


This is also a very important issue that I hope to work to further.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sec. of State Superique on December 23, 2012, 09:04:14 PM
What is that??


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on January 02, 2013, 11:57:43 AM
The the Postac Service Act states
Quote
All labor and pension contracts as previously negotiated are hereby null and void

I'm surprised everyone agrees with that and nobody is trying to defend the workers. It is scrapping negotiated contracts. It doesn't even wait for the next negotiation to modify the agreements.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Northeast Rep Snowball on January 03, 2013, 12:29:49 PM
I fail to see the arguements with not eating dog meat, according to the F.L. 36-13: Animal Protection Act,

Quote
1. The Region recognizes animal cruelty as the following: a. Willful neglect b. Malicious killing c. Beatings d. Animal Fighting ie Dog fight, cock fight for sport.
 
2. The Region 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.

10. No method of slaughtering or handling in connection with slaughtering shall be deemed to violate this act unless it is inhumane. Slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of any religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument and handling in connection with such slaughtering is not inhumane for purposes of this act.
 
 


The practice of eating human constitutes a cultural tradition for many creepy Atlasians. So what?
 
Good point, what is wrong with eating dead humans, same thing, I find no problem with it
Quote
Dogs were elevated to special status centuries ago, and the eating of them was already outlawed too. Perhaps you didn't notice?

I'm just as willing to give guinea pig meat a similar status.
Then you would have to give pig meat, goat meat, chicken meat, cow meat the same status of have a bigoted state

Quote
Some cultures stone women to death. I guess its not fair to "outlaw" that.
The difference is that eating ones dogs doesn't endanger Humans!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 03, 2013, 03:38:04 PM
Does anyone know if there's a 'Violence Against Women Act'-esque piece of legislation on the books in Atlasia?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on January 03, 2013, 03:42:49 PM
Does anyone know if there's a 'Violence Against Women Act'-esque piece of legislation on the books in Atlasia?

Technically we inherited all the laws from the US upon creation of Atlasia way back when, but as it's a piece of legislation that requires frequent renewal, I suppose it no longer exists by this point. (And frankly, I don't know if it would pass.)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 03, 2013, 03:47:58 PM
Does anyone know if there's a 'Violence Against Women Act'-esque piece of legislation on the books in Atlasia?

(And frankly, I don't know if it would pass.)

In this Senate?  Why not? :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on January 03, 2013, 03:51:57 PM
Does anyone know if there's a 'Violence Against Women Act'-esque piece of legislation on the books in Atlasia?

(And frankly, I don't know if it would pass.)

In this Senate?  Why not? :P

Atlasia can be weird sometimes. Things that would be completely uncontroversial sometimes get weird and widespread objections. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on January 04, 2013, 01:22:47 PM
I like the intent of your Amendment, Nix (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.msg3577940#msg3577940) (I love consolidating and clarifying things) but I think it might be better in the long term if we removed the SoIA and SoEA from the Constitution so the Senate could have more flexibility in defining and rejiggering those offices.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bgwah on January 04, 2013, 01:52:53 PM
Does anyone know if there's a 'Violence Against Women Act'-esque piece of legislation on the books in Atlasia?

(And frankly, I don't know if it would pass.)

In this Senate?  Why not? :P

Atlasia can be weird sometimes. Things that would be completely uncontroversial sometimes get weird and widespread objections. :P

I know what you mean. Who the heck decides they need to go out of their way to legalize the commercial production of dog meat?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Barnes on January 05, 2013, 12:51:33 PM
Just an FYI to the Senate, I'm having to replace my WiFi Router this weekend so I'm doing what I can over my iPhone; I should be back and running by Monday at the latest. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Frodo on January 05, 2013, 09:46:50 PM
Once Hagrid's bill on mental health is passed into law, should we expect any further gun control legislation on the heels of the real-life unveiling of the Biden Group's gun control proposals, or does current law (in combo with Hagrid's legislation) just about cover everything likely to be in it?  


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on January 05, 2013, 10:00:16 PM
My bill was only really meant to address one aspect of the larger issue. I would not be surprised to see more legislation on the table, but it's not likely to come from my end. We did pass some pretty comprehensive gun reform a couple months ago, though.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Frodo on January 05, 2013, 10:03:13 PM
My bill was only really meant to address one aspect of the larger issue. I would not be surprised to see more legislation on the table, but it's not likely to come from my end. We did pass some pretty comprehensive gun reform a couple months ago, though.

That is what I am referring to by 'current law'. 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Donerail on January 05, 2013, 11:00:07 PM
Quote
Amendment to the Trade Agreement Re-evaluation Commission

1: Subsection "d." shall be added to the Trade Agreement Re-evaluation Commission. Subsection "d." shall read "Drafting recommendations for increasing efficiency in the Department of External Affairs through realignment and closure of Department military facilities."

This would give BRAC capabilities to this Commission (without the need to create a new commission specifically for BRAC). I would request that one of you kind Senators introduce this for me.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Donerail on January 11, 2013, 03:45:01 PM
Quote
Department Renaming Act

1. The Department of External Affairs is hereby renamed The Department of State.

2. The Department of Internal Affairs is hereby renamed The Department of the Treasury.

3. The office of Secretary of External Affairs is hereby renamed Secretary of State.

4. The office of Secretary of Internal Affairs is hereby renamed Secretary of the Treasury.

5. Any references to the old names of the offices or departments concerned in previous law shall remain considered references to the offices and departments, under their new titles.



Although I support Sen. Oakvale's legislation, I would recommend the Senate to consider legislation that delineates specifically which federal departments in 'America' go under which department in Atlasia. I know the DoEA includes the Department of State (Foreign Affairs (including protecting/assisting citizens living/travelling abroad, assisting businesses in the int'l marketplace, coordinating int'l activities of other agencies (including official visits), keeping public informed about foreign events, and providing automobile registration for diplomatic vehicles) and the imprinting of the Great Seal; however, the SoS is who (IRL) a President or VP tenders his resignation to, a custom I do not believe we have in place), the Department of Defense (Army, Navy, Air Force, DARPA, Defense Intelligence Agency, Defense Logistics Agency, Missile Defense Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, Pentagon Force Protection Agency, National Defense University, National War College, National Security Resources Board, National Security Council, Joint Chiefs, Inspector General, Combatant Commands, National Guard Bureau, etc.), the Agency for International Development, and the UN Ambassadorship.

Who would control Commerce? They seem to be concerned with both external and internal trade. Homeland Security includes both internal (FEMA) and external (border/immigration) components. Would the Intelligence Community be part of the DoEA or independent under the control of the President (specifically the CIA)?

Of course the Census Bureau is also part of the Department of Commerce IRL, and here it's independent. I'm assuming Treasury and the Mint go under DoIA, but I could be wrong there too.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on January 12, 2013, 05:37:23 AM
Some useful Senate procedure - this may not be necessary, but I've noticed cases where we've had to include fixings of misspellings in amendments to bills and so on.

Quote
No More Typos Act

1. When posting the text of a bill in its debate thread, the President pro tempore of the Senate, may, at his discretion, edit the text to correct any obvious mispellings or typos provided they do not change the meaning of the legislation significantly, without requiring a vote on the edited text.

2. In the event that the changes to the grammar of spelling of the text may arguably alter the intent of the bill, the President pro tempore will consult with the sponsor of the bill before making his changes.

3. The sponsor of the bill may object to a change, in which case the President pro tempore must return the bill to its original language.

Oakie, this power is already at the disposal of the PPT as all me predecessors (and successors) have used it. The only difference is, I usually am somewhat more cautious in its use, hence those cases you mention. IF changes need to be made, thne such should be in the form of an OSPR amendment, otherwise this will get forgotten about after a short time. I would be happy to assist you in alterating it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Oakvale on January 12, 2013, 10:31:29 AM
Some useful Senate procedure - this may not be necessary, but I've noticed cases where we've had to include fixings of misspellings in amendments to bills and so on.

Quote
No More Typos Act

1. When posting the text of a bill in its debate thread, the President pro tempore of the Senate, may, at his discretion, edit the text to correct any obvious mispellings or typos provided they do not change the meaning of the legislation significantly, without requiring a vote on the edited text.

2. In the event that the changes to the grammar of spelling of the text may arguably alter the intent of the bill, the President pro tempore will consult with the sponsor of the bill before making his changes.

3. The sponsor of the bill may object to a change, in which case the President pro tempore must return the bill to its original language.

Oakie, this power is already at the disposal of the PPT as all me predecessors (and successors) have used it. The only difference is, I usually am somewhat more cautious in its use, hence those cases you mention. IF changes need to be made, thne such should be in the form of an OSPR amendment, otherwise this will get forgotten about after a short time. I would be happy to assist you in alterating it.

Oh, I see, my mistake - I didn't know we already had procedures for this, my Senate service almost entirely being under your reign as PPT. ;D

I'd be more than happy to withdraw it and if necessary formally include the provision in an OSPR amendment at some later date.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 14, 2013, 05:16:43 PM
Are farm subsidies primarily distributed by the federal government or by the regional governments?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on January 15, 2013, 12:45:02 AM
Does anyone have any information regarding the potential whereabouts of Speed of Sound?
This is getting ridiculous...


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 15, 2013, 03:43:07 PM
Wow, he hasn't been on in weeks.  I'd hate to see a good Secretary have to be replaced...


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Donerail on January 15, 2013, 03:44:54 PM
Haven't heard from him since last year. I'm not going to disappear, though :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Barnes on January 16, 2013, 11:05:04 PM
Again, apologies for the limited activity a the moment, school is kind of a killer.  The forthcoming long weekend will be helpful, though. :)


Title: Re: The DoEA 'South Beach' Act of 2013
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on January 17, 2013, 06:03:02 AM
My comment is directed solely at Clause 1 of Section 2

Total procurement of each variant of the F-35 shall be reduced by 25%, to be offset by purchase of additional F/A-18, F-16, A-10, and AV-8B aircraft.

Considering that the last new Harrier was built in 1997, any AV-8's that might be procured are going to have to come from buying used aircraft.  The UK stopped flying its Harriers a couple years ago, but they weren't built to the AV-8B standard, but their own British standard.

The A-10 situation is even more comical.  The last all new A-10 was built in 1984 and unlike the Harrier, there are no used foreign models to be bought.

At least the F-16 and F/A-18E/F are still in production.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Donerail on January 17, 2013, 07:46:15 AM
Total procurement of each variant of the F-35 shall be reduced by 25%, to be offset by purchase of additional F/A-18, F-16, A-10, and AV-8B aircraft.

Considering that the last new Harrier was built in 1997, any AV-8's that might be procured are going to have to come from buying used aircraft.  The UK stopped flying its Harriers a couple years ago, but they weren't built to the AV-8B standard, but their own British standard.

And we have announced our intention (http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/11/navy-marine-buying-decommissioned-british-harriers-111311w/) to purchase Britain's entire inventory of Harrier IIs, primarily for spare parts, but we could rip out the British avionics and replace them with our own for significantly less than it'd cost to buy new F-35Bs.

The A-10 situation is even more comical.  The last all new A-10 was built in 1984 and unlike the Harrier, there are no used foreign models to be bought.

The A-10 would primarily involve upgrades to older aircraft in order to bring them back into service. We currently operate 345 A-10s out of 716 built. This would primarily involve upgrading old A-10As to A-10Cs, enhancing their service life, new targeting systems, etc.



Though thanks for pointing that out. It really should be "procurement", not "purchase".


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on January 17, 2013, 05:32:28 PM
More important question, in case anybody knows; do the individual states in Atlasia have their own governments, or do only regional governments have complete control of their states?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Franzl on January 17, 2013, 07:01:04 PM
Hope Yankee's doing alright.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on January 19, 2013, 04:32:32 PM

I'm just fan fingtastic, nothing but ice cream and gum drops over here... :P

Comedy aside, I have been better to be sure. Having multiple computers is wonderfull until you run into problems with getting their owners to cooperate with you, even when they are allegedly family and live in the same house.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on February 06, 2013, 08:54:31 PM
I believe we need to have an election to fill the vacancy in the Judiciary... It would be nice to have three members. :D


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 06, 2013, 09:57:44 PM
I am getting pushed up against that 10:00 PM time again, so it may get pushed until after midnight.

Would it be wise to wait until after the Special Election or no?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on February 06, 2013, 10:02:26 PM
I would prefer to do it sooner than that, only because it's really tough to run a legitimate committee with only two people. I could get things going again right away, but what weight will an endorsement from the Judiciary really have if it's just a summary of two people's votes?

Maybe I'll shift focus to have us work with the AG...


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 25, 2013, 06:30:20 AM
Senators, since I am sure that they have been appended to other bills, would the sponsors consider withdrawing the Labor Rights Act and the DoEA Atkins Act?

Thank You!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 04, 2013, 07:05:53 AM
Quote
Separation of Powers Amendment

Article II, Section I, Clause V, shall be amended to read the following:

5. The President shall appoint the Principal Officers of the executive departments who shall constitute the Cabinet, with the advice and consent of the Senate, who shall all be registered voters. The President shall have power to dismiss any member of his Cabinet.

I am Senator in a party, whose chairman is being appointed to a cabinet position and is currently deeply embattled, by a President of the same said party who is also in dire straits at present over the same issue and also has appointed someone else to an entirely different position that is knocking on heaven's door as well for activity reasons. So the best thing possible for me to do to help them as that party's only Senator, is to introduce an executive power grab that would eliminate the need for confirmation hearings? What a brilliant strategy. :P

Not to mention that it is a horrible policy that BK would be waved into the AG's office, considering he is about to set a record for unanimous rejection vote, the same way he set a record for voting for his own expulsion last fall.

When I first ran for the Senate, there was a former President who got waved through, took offense that someone dared ask him about, you know, doing his job. Then he did nothing, except try to seize control of the gov't. We need tougher, more hard core confirmation hearings, with kickass questions. We should be water boarding those SOB's every time they dare ask us for their trust to serve in a cabinet capacity.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 04, 2013, 10:18:14 AM
No party chairman has been nominated for a Cabinet position Mr. PPT.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 04, 2013, 01:50:50 PM
No party chairman has been nominated for a Cabinet position Mr. PPT.

I thought Griffin was Labor Chairman. Or are you considering the GM as seperate from the cabinet here?

I was speaking from Snowstalkers perspective in a sarcastic fashion to illustrate the counterproductive effect of his amendment being offered at this point in time. It doesn't have to match the situation 100% to the details to accomplish, because I am not Snowstalker nor am I labor. The point I was making is that he is undermining his own party's nominee and Presidnet with the Amendment.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on March 04, 2013, 01:52:34 PM
No party chairman has been nominated for a Cabinet position Mr. PPT.

I thought Griffin was Labor Chairman.

I was speaking from Snowstalkers perspective in a sarcastic fashion to illustrate the counterproductive effect of his amendment being offered at this point in time.

Gm is not a cabinet position and would be unaffected by the proposed amendment.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 04, 2013, 01:56:35 PM
No party chairman has been nominated for a Cabinet position Mr. PPT.

I thought Griffin was Labor Chairman.

I was speaking from Snowstalkers perspective in a sarcastic fashion to illustrate the counterproductive effect of his amendment being offered at this point in time.

Gm is not a cabinet position and would be unaffected by the proposed amendment.

He is still restricting Senate oversight over a large number of appointees at a time when several are questionable and thus illustrating the importance of what he is removing.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 04, 2013, 02:12:57 PM
But since we are being overly technical, I am not the PPT at present, just so you know. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Donerail on March 07, 2013, 05:59:56 PM
Is there any way to declare legislation clearly frivolous and dilatory before it reaches the floor? Snowstalker's legislation about reliving his Call of Duty fantasies about blasting Germans notwithstanding, the legislation is clearly pointless, frivolous, and stupid and I'd really prefer the Senate not waste its time with such matters.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 07, 2013, 06:04:55 PM
The PPT does indeed have that power, yes.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on March 07, 2013, 06:20:12 PM
I third Joyce's call.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on March 07, 2013, 06:29:41 PM
All I wanted was a reaction. ;)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Oakvale on March 07, 2013, 07:42:02 PM
We should formally censure Senator Snowstalker for the above fiasco.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 08, 2013, 08:19:08 AM
Naw I don't reckon I will. :P If he wants to pursue a debate over destroying checks and balances I feel obligated to bring it to the floor as long as:

1. The amendment is functional in that it achieves his desired objective.
2. Is not frivolous (I hardly call destroying democracy a frivolous matter).
3. It is not Unconstitutional (It can't be for obvious reasons).

To do otherwise would require me to abuse this power based of personal bias and I won't be one to do that.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 08, 2013, 08:21:07 AM
Oh, you meant the War thing. Yea that is nuts.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Oakvale on March 21, 2013, 09:03:10 PM
As elaborated on in my office thread, I have some real life issues I need to attend to, and will be taking a leave of absence from Senate duties for one week. I'd particularly like to apologise for the damage this may do to the Judiciary Committee, but things are kind of rough at the moment - I won't go into it but suffice to say I don't have the energy or time to commit to the task at hand right now.

If after a week things have not settled down I will be resigning as Senator.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on April 07, 2013, 11:23:03 AM
I have a question on the ratification decentralization amendment. At first I read it as a regional legislature had to choose one method.

Quote
3. Regions shall be free to ratify Amendments passed by the Senate multiple times, in any of the following ways, chosen by their legislature:
3a. Approval by vote of the Region's lawmaking body, or
3c. Public referendum wherein each citizen shall vote via public post, in a length determined by the Region's lawmaking process.

I took it as choosing one option and sticking to it for every amendment. It could also be the legislature chooses one option every time an amendment comes up depending on the topic. (the first time they choose legilsature vote, second time public vote, third time public vote, fourth legislature vote). That could slow the processus of ratification if the legislature makes a choice every time there is an amendment or if the legislature is inactive.

Is it correct the regional legislatures can choose the method of ratification case by case or can make a formal choice of method if they wish.

I was also wondering if the regions have total control on determining the requirements for passage, like simple majority or a super majority, or even rules like a majority of voters registered by the three main parties in the region. 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on April 19, 2013, 11:13:28 PM
I have a question on the ratification decentralization amendment. At first I read it as a regional legislature had to choose one method.

Quote
3. Regions shall be free to ratify Amendments passed by the Senate multiple times, in any of the following ways, chosen by their legislature:
3a. Approval by vote of the Region's lawmaking body, or
3c. Public referendum wherein each citizen shall vote via public post, in a length determined by the Region's lawmaking process.

I took it as choosing one option and sticking to it for every amendment. It could also be the legislature chooses one option every time an amendment comes up depending on the topic. (the first time they choose legilsature vote, second time public vote, third time public vote, fourth legislature vote). That could slow the processus of ratification if the legislature makes a choice every time there is an amendment or if the legislature is inactive.

Is it correct the regional legislatures can choose the method of ratification case by case or can make a formal choice of method if they wish.

I was also wondering if the regions have total control on determining the requirements for passage, like simple majority or a super majority, or even rules like a majority of voters registered by the three main parties in the region. 

I didn't sponsor the amendment, but I think your interpretation is correct.  Regions should have full autonomy on the ratification process, whether it's case by case or standardized for all amendment votes.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on April 20, 2013, 02:15:01 PM
Thank you for making the effort of replying even if you were not someone at the federal level  proposing or voting on the matter.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on April 20, 2013, 02:49:30 PM
Does anybody know if Atlasia has established an official retirement plan for seniors, or is that already covered by the Social Security Act, the basics of which I assume resemble the real life version's?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on April 20, 2013, 05:21:25 PM
Does anybody know if Atlasia has established an official retirement plan for seniors, or is that already covered by the Social Security Act, the basics of which I assume resemble the real life version's?
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Comprehensive_Social_Security_Reform_Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Comprehensive_Social_Security_Reform_Act)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on April 21, 2013, 10:39:45 AM
Thanks, Napoleon.

Another question (which I tried asking Snowguy, but his thread hasn't been updated since early March, so I doubt he'll see it...): What percentage of rural communities in Atlasia are without modern electricity sources?  Nothing on the wiki seems to indicate that we have a TVA or something like that.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on May 05, 2013, 05:04:16 PM
If someone may want to put that in a better place, fell free to do it/indicate me where.
List of Senatorial successions, per the Proportional Representation Act:

41th Senate:
Senator #1: Lief (JCP)
Senator #2: Bacon King (JCP)
Senator #3: Dallasfan (Pop)
Senator #4: AHDuke99 (RPP)
Senator #5: Antonio V (UDL)

42th Senate (a three seat by-election happened):
Senator #1: Lief (JCP), then Oakvale (JCP)
Senator #2: Bacon King (JCP), then Snowguy (JCP)
Senator #3: Dallasfan (Pop), then Shua (Pop)
Senator #4: AHDuke99 (RPP)
Senator #5: Antonio V (UDL)

43th Senate:
Senator #1: Oakvale (JCP)
Senator #2: Snowguy (JCP)
Senator #3: Shua (Pop)
Senator #4: AHDuke99 (RPP)
Senator #5: Antonio V (UDL)

44th Senate:
Senator #1: Oakvale (JCP), then JBrase (Ind)
Senator #2: Snowguy (JCP)
Senator #3: Shua (Pop)
Senator #4: AHDuke99 (RPP)
Senator #5: Antonio V (UDL)

45th Senate (supposing senate agree with the UDL-JCP (left-left) and Pop-CID (right-center) pairings:
Senator #1: JBrase (Ind)
Senator #2: Snowguy (JCP)
Senator #3: Homelycooking (CID), then Kalwejt (JCP)
Senator #4: AHDuke99 (RPP)
Senator #5: BRTD (JCP)

46th Senate:
Senator #1: JBrase (Ind)
Senator #2: Nathan (JCP)
Senator #3: Kalwejt (JCP)
Senator #4: AHDuke99 (RPP)
Senator #5: BRTD (JCP)

47th Senate (no clear political matches):
Senator #1: Junkie (RPP, then Ind)
Senator #2: Nathan (JCP, than Labor)
Senator #3: Kalwejt (JCP), then Polnut (JCP, then Liberal)
Senator #4: TJ in Cleve (RPP, then Whig)
Senator #5: 20RP12 (SPA)

48th Senate (no clear political matches between (Ind and Liberal) and (Labor and Whig):
Senator #1: Junkie (Ind), then Alfred F. Jones (Labor)
Senator #2: Nathan (Labor)
Senator #3: Oakvale (Liberal), then Pingvin (Whig)
Senator #4: TJ in Cleve (Whig)
Senator #5: Clarence (Whig)

49th Senate (seat 2 is the longest Labor-held, indies are in alphabetical order):
Senator #1: AndrewCT (Ind)
Senator #2: seatown (Labor)
Senator #3: Wormyguy (Ind)
Senator #4: TJ in Cleve (Whig)
Senator #5: Clarence (Whig)

50th Senate:
Senator #1: AndrewCT (Ind)
Senator #2: seatown (Labor)
Senator #3: Wormyguy (Ind), then vacant.
Senator #4: TJ in Cleve (Whig)
Senator #5: Clarence (Whig)

51th Senate:
Senator #1: Bacon King (Liberal), then vacant
Senator #2: Marokai Blue (Labor)
Senator #3: NVTownsend (Liberal), then vacant
Senator #4: Hagrid (Whig)
Senator #5: Clarence (Whig), then Franlz (Liberal)

52th Senate:
Senator #1: Simfan (TPP)
Senator #2: Marokai Blue (Labor)
Senator #3: Snowstalker (Labor)
Senator #4: Hagrid (Whig), then (Fed)
Senator #5: Franzl (Liberal), then (TPP)

53th Senate (Labor keeps its longest held seat, no clear ideological fits (Lab-TPP and Lib-Fed)):
Senator #1: Mr. X (Liberal), then (TPP)
Senator #2: Barnes (Labor), then Napoleon (Liberal)
Senator #3: Spamage (Fed)
Senator #4: Hagrid (Fed)
Senator #5: Franzl (TPP)

54th Senate:
Senator #1: Mr. X (TPP), then (Ind)
Senator #2: Napoleon (Liberal)
Senator #3: Spamage (Fed), then Clarence (Fed)
Senator #4: Hagrid (Fed)
Senator #5: Franzl (TPP), than MattFromVT (Fed)

55th Senate:
Senator #1: Mr. X (Ind)
Senator #2: Napoleon (Liberal)
Senator #3: Kalwejt (Liberal)
Senator #4: Hagrid (Fed)
Senator #5: MaxQue (Lab)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 05, 2013, 05:23:37 PM
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Senate_History

Nix has it the other way around in here.

It really only matters with regards to you changing a predecessors vote and I think we have already gotten past all such potentiallities without controversy on the matter.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on May 05, 2013, 05:29:20 PM
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Senate_History

Nix has it the other way around in here.

It really only matters with regards to you changing a predecessors vote and I think we have already gotten past all such potentiallities without controversy on the matter.

Well, it's not when the list will be 20 Senates long than we will need to fix it, as it will quite tenious.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 05, 2013, 05:38:10 PM
Well I was speaking in terms of Senate functionality, not the wiki consideration. But yeah, it would be advisable to resolve this sooner than latter.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sec. of State Superique on May 12, 2013, 09:25:17 PM
Where it is the Financial Tax that Mr. Marokai has proposed during the campaign?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 13, 2013, 05:16:47 PM
Can you be more specific? Is something missing from the introduction thread?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on May 13, 2013, 09:26:40 PM
I think Superique is refering to the 0.1% stock transaction tax that was in the President's campaign platform.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on May 13, 2013, 09:29:52 PM
Well, the President can't introduce bills, only Senators can. I would suggest you to lobby a Senator to introduce a bill on the issue.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 15, 2013, 04:56:52 PM
If the President posted it in his thread it should have been introduced. If one got missed, I would have anticipated that Marokai would bitch about it until it got introduced and I would gladly introduce it for him just to ease his state of mind. I know I introduced some of them, myself like the Parties Amendment and the Libertas thing.

Maxy you are tight with the President, why don't you contact him about this and if there is a stituation here, get it introduced for him. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on May 15, 2013, 06:48:27 PM
If the President posted it in his thread it should have been introduced. If one got missed, I would have anticipated that Marokai would bitch about it until it got introduced and I would gladly introduce it for him just to ease his state of mind. I know I introduced some of them, myself like the Parties Amendment and the Libertas thing.

Maxy you are tight with the President, why don't you contact him about this and if there is a stituation here, get it introduced for him. :)

The President is currently on leave from Atlasia, you're quite aware of that.
Anyways, I don't remember any bill on that subject being posted. It was in the campaign platform of the Marokai/Duke ticket, through, but no bill has been published on the subject for the moment.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sec. of State Superique on May 16, 2013, 08:33:23 PM
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was talking about the bill that President Marokai posted on his platform :/


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 16, 2013, 08:43:30 PM
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was talking about the bill that President Marokai posted on his platform :/

Well, the President hadn't realized that was something I already did when I was President.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 17, 2013, 05:07:35 AM
If the President posted it in his thread it should have been introduced. If one got missed, I would have anticipated that Marokai would bitch about it until it got introduced and I would gladly introduce it for him just to ease his state of mind. I know I introduced some of them, myself like the Parties Amendment and the Libertas thing.

Maxy you are tight with the President, why don't you contact him about this and if there is a stituation here, get it introduced for him. :)

The President is currently on leave from Atlasia, you're quite aware of that.
Anyways, I don't remember any bill on that subject being posted. It was in the campaign platform of the Marokai/Duke ticket, through, but no bill has been published on the subject for the moment.

Actually I just assumed Duke had finally done away with him and seized control of the country. :P



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on May 19, 2013, 06:13:21 AM
I'm sorry, but as it's been a while since my last Senate tenure, do things are always that slow? It's seems we're in a very slow mode.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on May 19, 2013, 06:37:16 AM
I'm sorry, but as it's been a while since my last Senate tenure, do things are always that slow? It's seems we're in a very slow mode.

I think than the PPT is having computer problems, which cause delays. Indeed, it's very slow.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on May 19, 2013, 01:19:07 PM
I'm sorry, but as it's been a while since my last Senate tenure, do things are always that slow? It's seems we're in a very slow mode.

I think than the PPT is having computer problems, which cause delays. Indeed, it's very slow.

That's a shame, since Yankee is basically holding the Senate for years.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 19, 2013, 06:42:26 PM
I'm sorry, but as it's been a while since my last Senate tenure, do things are always that slow? It's seems we're in a very slow mode.

I think than the PPT is having computer problems, which cause delays. Indeed, it's very slow.

That's a shame, since Yankee is basically holding the Senate for years.

The computer is working for now (started working mysteriously on Friday) but I wasn't able to get back on the site yesterday like I had planned because a downloaded ran over and I had to get off the line.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 20, 2013, 03:39:14 PM
I was going to wait until you asked me questions, but I thought these posts in the analysis thread were very interesting:

I'm sorry, but as it's been a while since my last Senate tenure, do things are always that slow? It's seems we're in a very slow mode.

I think than the PPT is having computer problems, which cause delays. Indeed, it's very slow.

Because you guys are saying we should all be impeached for the same reason, essentially. Should the entire Senate be impeached, too? Just food for thought.

I would point out that I have two backup computers (my mother and my fathers) and there has rarely has there been an occassion that I did not get on at least once every other day and update the Senate.  I even came on during my birthday and delayed opening my gifts to get the job done in the Senate. I came on Friday and did likewise. I came on Saturday morning and there was only two or three posts in the whole board in Senate threads and thus I elected to delay until the afternoon, by which time a storm forced me off the line and to shut the machine down. The weather has been terrible down here. I would crawl over lava to get this job done.

The cause of the Senate being slow, is the members at-large, and the failure of my procedural requests to be answered in a timely manner and the failure of the administration to keep their dedicated slots filled, in spite of communications to responsible members of said institution, on my birthday, once again. I would guess that the absence of the President is partially responsible for this lapse, of course.


As for Kalwejt's OSPR amendment it is something that I have wanted for years. I might desire some minor alterations, but in general I support reducing the number of days on the Dean. That would also facilitate the start of the Senate in case the VP doesn't do his job, the Dean could thus be free to start the Senate by like Sunday, instead of the next Wednesday.

I would point how that the VP already has complete authority over the Senate and can withdraw and regrant authority to the PPT as he chooses since it is his power delegated to an officer of the Senate. Therefore he has the complete authority to fill in the gaps as he show decides, regardlesso f length of absence of the PPT.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on May 21, 2013, 07:13:07 PM
Executive Order #29-003 declared state of anarchy for Pacific region and named an administrator of voting booth.

I ask the Senate, maybe by the Internal Affairs or GOR committee, to investigate and question the President on this action. He should be held accountable.

The Pacific was not an hyperactive region. It is the west coast and has a more laid back pace. The recall of the Governor petition got enough signatures and all indication was it was going to happen. According to the information published, the recall had until May 26 to be done. There was still time. It was not running behind schedule. Someone had indicated he would administer the recall.

Declaring a state of anarchy in the Pacific at this point was not appropriate and an overreaction. The President took the power away from elected officials who were complying with the region's law.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on May 21, 2013, 08:52:50 PM
I agree with you, Poirot. Even so, I'm not sure there's anything we can do. The president is well within his right to do what he did, even though I was inclined to believe that the region would be able to get things together on its own. I just don't think this is a battle worth fighting.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 21, 2013, 08:59:36 PM
I think the thing to consider here, is that this is not infinite, the Pacific region is not being managed, and while it looks like there is a drive within the region to restore stability, the President needs to ensure the processes to get that stability going and to give it legitimacy is there.

I think you're worrying a little too much here.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 21, 2013, 09:15:16 PM
I think the Judiciary is the responsible committee, thought the GOR could possibly step in since they are occupied at the moment.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on May 21, 2013, 10:52:12 PM
I have contacted the Justice committee chair if it's the appropriate committee.

Using the state of anarchy power was wrong because it didn't meet the requirements. There was no anarchy state. The voting booth probably would have been opened. Interfering in the region's affair was not yet required. It was like a preemptive strike.

Maybe a president approving the trolling of another party's thread has no legal consequence and it's politics rivalry but declaring anarchy state when it is not really needed is abuse of power.     


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on May 22, 2013, 12:16:50 AM
I have contacted the Justice committee chair if it's the appropriate committee.    

I answered you on that, but I doubt it's in the Judiciary committee powers anyways, unless it's considered related to regional law enforcement, which I doubt.

Anyways, the committee is busy until next Suday, we already are in the impeachment hearings of the Supreme Court Justices (which weren't my choice).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on May 22, 2013, 09:51:20 PM
It won't probably matter by next week, they could have recalled everyone for all I know. And from the reactions I've read, senators would back the President's actions or think he is within is right.

I still think an exceptional power was used and the description of state of chaos used to justified the action was exaggerated. Recall could happen without declaring anarchy power. If there was worry about the legality of the person opening the voting booth, the elected official who was going to do it could have been officially named in charge of voting booth instead of a newcomer.

It is worrying to know one person has the power to decide when a region is dysfunctional.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on May 22, 2013, 10:41:53 PM
It is worrying to know one person has the power to decide when a region is dysfunctional.

Well, blame the authors of the Paficic Constitution, then. It's clearly written than the President has that power and we have nothing to do with it. Senate didn't write the Pacific Constitution, nor it has the power to amend it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 22, 2013, 11:41:29 PM
I have contacted the Justice committee chair if it's the appropriate committee.    

I answered you on that, but I doubt it's in the Judiciary committee powers anyways, unless it's considered related to regional law enforcement, which I doubt.

Anyways, the committee is busy until next Suday, we already are in the impeachment hearings of the Supreme Court Justices (which weren't my choice).

Is it not a legal matter by nature? As I said, we could possible take over for the Judiciary since we are only minimally engaged at present, provided the members agree of course.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on May 23, 2013, 01:24:06 AM
I have contacted the Justice committee chair if it's the appropriate committee.    

I answered you on that, but I doubt it's in the Judiciary committee powers anyways, unless it's considered related to regional law enforcement, which I doubt.

Anyways, the committee is busy until next Suday, we already are in the impeachment hearings of the Supreme Court Justices (which weren't my choice).

Is it not a legal matter by nature? As I said, we could possible take over for the Judiciary since we are only minimally engaged at present, provided the members agree of course.

Well, even if it's the job of the Judiciary Committee, I'm not sure it would be worthwhile to study the question. What can we do after that? We can't amend the Pacific Constitution, we can't abroge the degree and I doubt anyone wants to impeach the President over that.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on May 24, 2013, 09:40:20 AM
I am utterly baffled at how this is some sort of scandalous issue. What weird agenda do I have, there? I made the order because there is a clause in the Pacific's Constitution (which specifically says to interpret it liberally!) to immediately designate someone who can open voting booths as quickly and efficiently as possible when there's a breakdown in government and things aren't working how they're supposed to. Only in the last day before I made the declaration did the Governor finally appear, and then he went back into hiding. The majority of the regional council decided to stop doing their jobs.

What questions do you want asked? What investigation is there to be had? I designated someone to open voting booths and immediately resolve the meltdown in in the Pacific's regional government, which was in my power to do, and not only in my power to do, but gave me serious leeway in determining when to do so. After a Governor goes horribly inactive, is under recall, and the regional legislature effectively loses a majority of their members, that's a pretty good reason to feel like the Pacific could use some help.

You would basically have to prove, for it to be invalid, that there wasn't any reasonable belief whatsoever that the Pacific government was either mismanaged or breaking down. And it's clearly understandable why anyone would think that.

Is this my Benghazi, or something? What in the world am I even being sinisterly accused of here that I have to be investigated for? You guys are acting like I installed a puppet government in the Pacific. I literally just authorized a specific person to be the on-call vote administrator. Deep breaths.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on May 24, 2013, 10:05:45 AM
I don't think anyone other than Poirot's expressed any concern about this. Maybe he hasn't read the (Third?) Pacific Constitution; I don't think it's on the wiki.

Sorry, I read Hagrid as being more aggressive than he probably meant to come off as being. :P

Nevertheless, I wish people who are uncomfortable with the declaration could cut me a little more slack, here. I did it for genuine reasons; I want the region to get back on track as soon as possible. I'm sorry if I stepped on toes, I just want everything to get sewn up as quickly as it can.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DemPGH on May 24, 2013, 02:59:23 PM
If I can interject a personal as well as legal opinion here - I think what we're talking about is a "turning on the lights and opening the doors" sort of thing. It's like the case that's before the Court right now - when things slow down to where the chief concern is only keeping the train moving on the tracks, so to speak, it's not a one-man takeover of anything. The President's only concerned about inactivity interrupting the game, that's all and nothing more. When that happens, someone should step in and say, "Let's keep things moving," and that's all that's happened.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 24, 2013, 06:37:52 PM
I made the order because there is a clause in the Pacific's Constitution (which specifically says to interpret it liberally!) to immediately designate someone who can open voting booths as quickly and efficiently as possible when there's a breakdown in government and things aren't working how they're supposed to.

Where do you see that clause?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on May 24, 2013, 06:49:12 PM
It literally could not be any more straightforward.

SECTION 2: ELECTORAL REGULATIONS
1.   All elections to regional offices, including but not limited to the Pacific Council, the Governorship, recall elections, and such, will be opened by the Governor of the Pacificans on the Voting Booth subboard. In an absence of the Governor, the Pacific Justice may open the thread. In a case of “anarchy”, defined as a lack of elections and/or a lack of any comprehensible regional Government, which may be interpreted liberally by the Federal Government at their advisory, the Secretary of Federal Elections (or any equivalent thereof) or the President of Atlasia may designate a Pacific Citizen to open a voting booth for the vacated offices in a time set by one of the designated federal officers.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 24, 2013, 06:49:58 PM
It literally could not be any more straightforward.

SECTION 2: ELECTORAL REGULATIONS
1.   All elections to regional offices, including but not limited to the Pacific Council, the Governorship, recall elections, and such, will be opened by the Governor of the Pacificans on the Voting Booth subboard. In an absence of the Governor, the Pacific Justice may open the thread. In a case of “anarchy”, defined as a lack of elections and/or a lack of any comprehensible regional Government, which may be interpreted liberally by the Federal Government at their advisory, the Secretary of Federal Elections (or any equivalent thereof) or the President of Atlasia may designate a Pacific Citizen to open a voting booth for the vacated offices in a time set by one of the designated federal officers.

That is not the Pacific Constitution.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Second_Pacific_Constitution (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Second_Pacific_Constitution) This is is the law of the land and I don't see that clause.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Adam Griffin on May 24, 2013, 06:51:50 PM
It literally could not be any more straightforward.

SECTION 2: ELECTORAL REGULATIONS
1.   All elections to regional offices, including but not limited to the Pacific Council, the Governorship, recall elections, and such, will be opened by the Governor of the Pacificans on the Voting Booth subboard. In an absence of the Governor, the Pacific Justice may open the thread. In a case of “anarchy”, defined as a lack of elections and/or a lack of any comprehensible regional Government, which may be interpreted liberally by the Federal Government at their advisory, the Secretary of Federal Elections (or any equivalent thereof) or the President of Atlasia may designate a Pacific Citizen to open a voting booth for the vacated offices in a time set by one of the designated federal officers.

That is not the Pacific Constitution.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Second_Pacific_Constitution (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Second_Pacific_Constitution) This is is the law of the land and I don't see that clause.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=171442.0


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 24, 2013, 06:53:57 PM
It literally could not be any more straightforward.

SECTION 2: ELECTORAL REGULATIONS
1.   All elections to regional offices, including but not limited to the Pacific Council, the Governorship, recall elections, and such, will be opened by the Governor of the Pacificans on the Voting Booth subboard. In an absence of the Governor, the Pacific Justice may open the thread. In a case of “anarchy”, defined as a lack of elections and/or a lack of any comprehensible regional Government, which may be interpreted liberally by the Federal Government at their advisory, the Secretary of Federal Elections (or any equivalent thereof) or the President of Atlasia may designate a Pacific Citizen to open a voting booth for the vacated offices in a time set by one of the designated federal officers.

That is not the Pacific Constitution.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Second_Pacific_Constitution (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Second_Pacific_Constitution) This is is the law of the land and I don't see that clause.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=171442.0

Yeah, but the vote wasn't conducted properly (according to Wolfentoad himself).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Adam Griffin on May 24, 2013, 06:56:28 PM
I believe you're referring to the first vote on this Constitution.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=170986.0


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Bacon King on May 24, 2013, 06:57:23 PM
I suggest this discussion be taken to a new thread?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on May 24, 2013, 06:57:47 PM
I believe you're referring to the first vote on this Constitution.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=170986.0

No, it was the most recent one. He told me "not to tell anyone", but who am I to stand pat and witness an egregious injustice?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on May 24, 2013, 08:04:35 PM
I have contacted the Justice committee chair if it's the appropriate committee.     

I answered you on that, but I doubt it's in the Judiciary committee powers anyways, unless it's considered related to regional law enforcement, which I doubt.

Anyways, the committee is busy until next Suday, we already are in the impeachment hearings of the Supreme Court Justices (which weren't my choice).

Is it not a legal matter by nature? As I said, we could possible take over for the Judiciary since we are only minimally engaged at present, provided the members agree of course.

Well, even if it's the job of the Judiciary Committee, I'm not sure it would be worthwhile to study the question. What can we do after that? We can't amend the Pacific Constitution, we can't abroge the degree and I doubt anyone wants to impeach the President over that.

I wasn't opining on the merits of the issue, just the practicalities of who should review the matter if it is considered to be of concern.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on May 24, 2013, 08:12:17 PM
I believe you're referring to the first vote on this Constitution.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=170986.0

No, it was the most recent one. He told me "not to tell anyone", but who am I to stand pat and witness an egregious injustice?

Well, unless a Court rules that vote illegal, it must be considered legal, in my opinion.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on May 24, 2013, 09:33:47 PM
I like how we're using the possibility that they can't even vote on a new Constitution as a defense of their competency. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on June 10, 2013, 10:21:47 PM
On voting rights included in the common market between Atlasia and Canada, the agreement states Atlasians living in a canadian province are considered from a region for limited jurisdictional and regional/federal electoral purposes.

An Atlasian residing in Canada will have the right to vote if I undestand this, but if the citizen can also be a candidate for office in the region, wouldn't be a negative for the candidate since Canada is still another country. Why would I vote for someone to represent me if the candidate is living in a foreign country even if we are attached for electoral purposes. 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on June 10, 2013, 11:08:13 PM
Why would I vote for someone to represent me if the candidate is living in a foreign country even if we are attached for electoral purposes. 

Well, it's pretty much your choice if you want to vote or not for someone.
You know, many countries have persons in Parliament for representing people in foreign countries. It's only a slight variation on that scheme.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 10, 2013, 11:14:35 PM
When I read over it for the first time, my first thought was the "Democrats Abroad" primary or whatever it was called from back in 2008.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Sec. of State Superique on June 19, 2013, 12:37:19 PM
Why would I vote for someone to represent me if the candidate is living in a foreign country even if we are attached for electoral purposes. 

Well, it's pretty much your choice if you want to vote or not for someone.
You know, many countries have persons in Parliament for representing people in foreign countries. It's only a slight variation on that scheme.

A great example is Italia


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on June 25, 2013, 08:49:10 PM
So, hum, on the days listed as holidays on the federal holidays act, will the senate and regional legislatures be active or on holidays (not working) ?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on June 27, 2013, 10:13:01 AM
I have a comment on the red text section of an amendment found in the Regional Legislative Act Act of 2013.

Quote
AN AMENDMENT

To protect the power of Atlasia's citizens to amend the constitutions of their respective regions in a democratic fashion.

1. Article IV, Section 1 of the Third Constitution is amended as follows:

Section 1: Regional Government
1. The Regions may elect a Governor as chief executive officer, and may establish other executive posts as they wish, but no executive member may be elected for a term of more than six months.
2. Regions may establish elected legislatures for themselves to make proper laws and electoral procedures.
3. Regions may establish judiciaries for themselves; However, if they choose not to, the federal Supreme Court shall arbitrate in all election disputes, but only insofar as Regional Law may provide. Any Region may vest all or part of its judicial power in the Supreme Court of Atlasia.
4. Regions are autonomous of the federal government and may govern themselves and their elections as they wish, except where otherwise provided for in this Constitution.
5. The citizens of a region shall have the power to petition for a new regional constitution. A federal official designated by the President shall convene a regional constitutional convention for a region upon the application of a majority of a region's citizens.  The replacement constitution proposed by the convention shall become operative when ratified by three-fifths of that region's citizens in a public poll administered by said federal official. All public polls mandated under this section shall be via public post in the Voting Booth and shall last for exactly one week.

If the only way a region can have a new constitution (because is has none or has one but want a new one) requiring a majority of citizens in the region is high. If it is based on census numbers, the Pacific for example has 32 citizens. Would this mean 17 citizens have to petition for a new constitution. Seems nearly impossible to me.

And to approve the new constitution, the three-fifths of that region's citizens in a public poll is needed. Is it three-fifths of citizens on the census number or of those who will take the time to vote on the issue. 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on June 27, 2013, 07:58:02 PM
Thank you for the explanations.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 05, 2013, 11:19:23 AM
Hmm... it might be a good idea to pass a law limiting one bill to a post in the Introduction thread.  I'm sure you all know what I mean...


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 05, 2013, 11:23:21 AM
Hmm... it might be a good idea to pass a law limiting one bill to a post in the Introduction thread.  I'm sure you all know what I mean...

Why? It would only take up more space.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 05, 2013, 11:25:05 AM
Hmm... it might be a good idea to pass a law limiting one bill to a post in the Introduction thread.  I'm sure you all know what I mean...

Why? It would only take up more space.

It isn't fair to other senators' bills.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: TNF on July 05, 2013, 11:51:45 AM
We already have an "anti-clogging" rule, although I do see your point.

Still, TNF's broad legislative agenda won't interfere with bringing education reform to the floor quickly. We'll tackle Kal's judicial tenure amendment first, and then Scott's bill will take the executive slot.

Also, remember that swearing in doesn't take place until noon EST, 20 minutes from now.

Noon EST was 51 minutes ago(?) right?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 05, 2013, 11:54:08 AM
As has been rubbed in my face many times by Yankee, Atlas time is weird and doesn't always run in conjunction with actual time, for stupid reasons. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: TNF on July 05, 2013, 11:57:51 AM
As has been rubbed in my face many times by Yankee, Atlas time is weird and doesn't always run in conjunction with actual time, for stupid reasons. :P

I was unaware. Well I hope that doesn't invalidate my swearing in. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 05, 2013, 12:01:48 PM
Wouldn't hurt to swear in again, just to be on the safe side, incase a certain crazed southern man makes it an issue. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 05, 2013, 12:33:37 PM
You people are running on a fake time imposed on you by Woodrow Wilson, known as Daylight Savings Time. This is not mentioned in the constitution of Atlasia and the terms are stated as starting at Noon Eastern Standard Time.

You push your clocks forward in the spring and back in the fall. Therefore throughout the summer you are running an hour ahead of "Standard time". For those on the east coast, EST becomes EDT. We run on EST all year long in the Senate.

Why? You ask? The reason is simple. Unlike elections, which are one off things. The Senatei s constantly running. If we changed our times, it would mess up the bill times, vote lengths and such for every bill that was on the floor when the transition occurred.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 05, 2013, 12:37:19 PM
So yes, swear in again, lest someone get pissed about that 5-5 tie subsequently broken in your favor by DemPGH next month, and then that someone sues claiming you as one of the Ayes was never a Senator. It would probably be tossed out, but if we were to be forced to redo a bunch of bills in the off chance the Justices go rogue (very strong change with that Judicial Tenure Amendment), that would destroy the Senate functionality.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on July 16, 2013, 03:01:21 PM
With my resignation, could somebody take over sponsorships of the Judicial Tenure Amendment and Wikimaster General Act?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 17, 2013, 06:13:41 AM
Quick somebody take the Judicial Tenure Amendment it could be on the floor any minute. I would even though I oppose it, but I am at the limit as it is so it don't work.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: MaxQue on July 17, 2013, 06:44:20 PM
If nobody took it, I'll take it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on July 17, 2013, 08:40:13 PM
I'll take the Wikimaster one, I suppose.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on July 24, 2013, 08:32:36 PM
Does anybody know if Atlasia has established an official retirement plan for seniors, or is that already covered by the Social Security Act, the basics of which I assume resemble the real life version's?
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Comprehensive_Social_Security_Reform_Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Comprehensive_Social_Security_Reform_Act)

unless I missed it, section 8 of this bill has not been fulfilled.  That this program is being run without any account of its total cost and revenues is worth keeping in mind as the basic income bill is being considered.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: ZuWo on July 29, 2013, 08:17:39 AM
Senators of Atlasia,

28 Atlasian citizens have signed the petition for "More Fiscal Responsibility and Sustainable Economic Development". (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=176693.0)

Regards,

ZuWo


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: TNF on July 29, 2013, 09:37:45 AM
Senators of Atlasia,

28 Atlasian citizens have signed the petition for "More Fiscal Responsibility and Sustainable Economic Development". (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=176693.0)

Regards,

ZuWo

k


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DemPGH on September 08, 2013, 09:30:12 AM
The Senate should strongly consider an impeachment and expulsion hearing against "Senator" Xahar for:

1) Willfully violating his oath of office
2) Abuse of power
3) Dereliction of duty
4) Hostility toward the democratic processes of Atlasia


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 08, 2013, 07:02:16 PM
The Senate's expulsion power is tied to a strict activity standard that must first be violated.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: TNF on September 08, 2013, 10:12:49 PM
The Senate should strongly consider an impeachment and expulsion hearing against "Senator" Xahar for:

1) Willfully violating his oath of office
2) Abuse of power
3) Dereliction of duty
4) Hostility toward the democratic processes of Atlasia

Xahar is a Senator in good standing elected by the people of the Republic of Atlasia and should be allowed to act as one.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 08, 2013, 10:20:48 PM
The Senate should strongly consider an impeachment and expulsion hearing against "Senator" Xahar for:

1) Willfully violating his oath of office
2) Abuse of power
3) Dereliction of duty
4) Hostility toward the democratic processes of Atlasia

There's no need for scare quotes. No matter how distraught it might make you, I have been duly elected by the electorate of Atlasia to the Senate.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on September 19, 2013, 11:49:11 PM
And we essentially have the return of the Ludlow Amendment. Thanks, TNF!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: TNF on September 20, 2013, 07:16:29 AM
And we essentially have the return of the Ludlow Amendment. Thanks, TNF!

You're welcome. If war is right, it should be declared by the people, not the Senate, because Senators don't get in uniform and risk their lives for their country.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on October 06, 2013, 10:04:41 PM
The Senate is presently studying a change in the judiciary system.

Quote
The People’s Court shall consist of five (5) randomly selected Atlasian citizens who are deemed qualified. The Supreme Court has the authority to determine the definition of “qualified.”

Citizens could be selected to be on the People's Court. Will there be an opt out option for citizens who don't want to be selected ? I am not interested in making rulings like a judge.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 07, 2013, 11:37:10 AM
The Senate is presently studying a change in the judiciary system.

Quote
The People’s Court shall consist of five (5) randomly selected Atlasian citizens who are deemed qualified. The Supreme Court has the authority to determine the definition of “qualified.”

Citizens could be selected to be on the People's Court. Will there be an opt out option for citizens who don't want to be selected ? I am not interested in making rulings like a judge.

You are free to post this question in the debate thread and such would probably better ensure that you have an answer. My assumption would be that it would operate like a jury and thus opt outs would not be possible save for special circumstances, but Tyrion would be better to answer exactly regarding the present text. As for whether or not the Senate is willing to expand the range of opt outs, is something we would have to see about.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: President Tyrion on October 07, 2013, 04:21:07 PM
The Senate is presently studying a change in the judiciary system.

Quote
The People’s Court shall consist of five (5) randomly selected Atlasian citizens who are deemed qualified. The Supreme Court has the authority to determine the definition of “qualified.”

Citizens could be selected to be on the People's Court. Will there be an opt out option for citizens who don't want to be selected ? I am not interested in making rulings like a judge.

This is a good question. My answer in the main thread:
Quote
Well, with the text as-is, I would say that the Supreme Court would have the power to determine the legitimacy of opting out, because they can determine the definition of "qualified" and that could include "willing."

So I'd say it's NOT like a regular jury system if the Supreme Court were to choose for it to be so, but it also could be, if the SC decides to prevent adjudicators from dropping out. As it stands, it's merely a judgment call on the SC's part. We could tighten that up if people would like.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on November 06, 2013, 04:21:11 PM
Quote
Child Abuse Prevention Act of 2013

1. Males aged sixteen and younger may not be circumcised.
    1a. Persons found in violation of this act shall be fined no less than $100,000 per offense and a forfeiture of all relevant medical licenses.
This may be the most ridiculous and unconstitutional thing TNF has introduced to-date. Another record broken - what can we expect next??


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Napoleon on November 06, 2013, 04:24:51 PM
Quote
Child Abuse Prevention Act of 2013

1. Males aged sixteen and younger may not be circumcised.
    1a. Persons found in violation of this act shall be fined no less than $100,000 per offense and a forfeiture of all relevant medical licenses.
This may be the most ridiculous and unconstitutional thing TNF has introduced to-date. Another record broken - what can we expect next??

It won't pass.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: TNF on November 06, 2013, 06:28:49 PM
Quote
Child Abuse Prevention Act of 2013

1. Males aged sixteen and younger may not be circumcised.
    1a. Persons found in violation of this act shall be fined no less than $100,000 per offense and a forfeiture of all relevant medical licenses.
This may be the most ridiculous and unconstitutional thing TNF has introduced to-date. Another record broken - what can we expect next??

Yeah, stopping genital mutilation of children is a rather ridiculous position to hold. ::)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on November 07, 2013, 12:56:54 PM
This may be the most ridiculous and unconstitutional thing TNF has introduced to-date. Another record broken - what can we expect next??

I couldn't agree more.  Thankfully it will never become law.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: President Tyrion on December 03, 2013, 06:57:15 PM
Napoleon has stated that he'll resign, but I don't trust that he'll actually do it. What can we do to expedite the process?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Maxwell on December 03, 2013, 07:09:29 PM
Not much. Senate Expulsion is the best we can do, and he has actively made it so that he's untouchable from expulsion. Xahar has done much of the same.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: President Tyrion on December 03, 2013, 10:27:07 PM
Not much. Senate Expulsion is the best we can do, and he has actively made it so that he's untouchable from expulsion. Xahar has done much of the same.

Let's see what I can do.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: President Tyrion on December 03, 2013, 10:37:41 PM
Fyi I actually will be resigning. :)  I'm sorry, I have just lost all interest in things like "Honest Term Limits". Let me know when you need a new game moderator. Bye
I am taking a leave of absence for the remainder of my term.

For safekeeping.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: TNF on December 03, 2013, 11:28:57 PM
He deserves to be expelled.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: President Tyrion on December 03, 2013, 11:47:31 PM

I am going to try to ram through some changes to the OSPR, as you can see in the Legislation thread.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: PJ on December 04, 2013, 12:07:07 AM
Can someone explain why Nappy and Xahar haven't already been expelled?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Maxwell on December 04, 2013, 12:11:19 AM
Can someone explain why Nappy and Xahar haven't already been expelled?

It's a very simple explanation: they have both strategically dodged the numeric limits.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 04, 2013, 02:31:37 AM
Can someone explain why Nappy and Xahar haven't already been expelled?

As Maxwell said, they both came narrowly skirted removal. They came really close in Sept/October but Legal issues concerning the validity of the use of impeachment on Senators (hence why we improved thE Expulsion process and then subsequently passed the On Second Thought Oops Amendment) as well as the fact that they both narrowly avoided being absent seven days, prevented action from being taken.



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: PJ on December 07, 2013, 08:42:07 PM
Does the Progressive Union have jurisdiction over the vacant senate seat? If the semi-presidentialism amendment passes, I believe we will appoint Superique, but who is it directed to if Napoleon was the only member of the Reality or Nothing at the time of his resignation?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: President Tyrion on December 07, 2013, 11:21:30 PM
Does the Progressive Union have jurisdiction over the vacant senate seat? If the semi-presidentialism amendment passes, I believe we will appoint Superique, but who is it directed to if Napoleon was the only member of the Reality or Nothing at the time of his resignation?

This is still a question for the Department of Forum Affairs, according to the proportional representation act.
Quote
5. Where there exists any doubt as to party affiliation; major party status; or time of vacancy arising, it shall be the responsibility of the Department of Forum Affairs to clarify these matters upon request by any citizen.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fritz on December 07, 2013, 11:23:12 PM
I have ruled on this.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: PJ on December 08, 2013, 12:56:33 PM
Quote
STTTTLOFUTF Resolution

1. This resolution shall be known as the "Stop Trying to Take the Land out from under Tyrion's Feet Resolution".

2. The federal government of Atlasia does not recognize the Midwest Region's claim to the State known as New Mexico to the federal government.

3. The federal government of Atlasia does not recognize any alternate names the Midwest Region may give the State of New Mexico.

4. The State of New Mexico is rightfully a member of the Pacific Region, and any claim to the contrary by another region shall be disregarded.

5. All registered residents of New Mexico are citizens of the Pacific Region, and any claim to the contrary by another region shall be disregarded.

6. Should any changes be made to the borders of the Midwest or Pacific regions, or the number of regions changed, then this Resolution shall be declared null and void.

7. This resolution shall be effective upon passage.
:D


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: President Tyrion on December 14, 2013, 06:29:01 PM
Quote
Motion for the Expulsion of Senator Xahar

After missing the Atlas Fantasy Government for over 7 days, starting on 12/05/13.

I swear, I was literally looking through Xahar's posting history as you posted this, because I feared the same thing.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 15, 2013, 05:41:10 PM
Quote from: Current Procedures
Article 12: Expulsion Procedures
1. A Senator may motion for the expulsion of any other sitting Senator, provided that the aforementioned Senator has not posted anything in the Senate for 7 consecutive days (defined as 168 hours from the time of the last post) and has not declared a leave of absence in the Atlas Fantasy Government Board, by creating a thread alerting the Senate to the potential for absence over a coming specified set of days. Those specific days (the 24 hours comprising the specified dates listed), and thus any days prior in accordance with the "consecutive provision" above, shall thus not be counted towards the 7 days of absence required to to pursue expulsion. This shall be done by creating a thread in the Atlas Fantasy Government Board specifically motioning for expulsion of the aforementioned Senator.

2. If the motion is seconded by another Senator, the PPT shall commence debate and hear the reasons for the expulsion motion and provide an opportunity for the Senator being expelled to respond and defend himself. Debate on the expulsion for the Senator shall last for no less then 72 hours. Once 72 hours has expired, a Senator may motion for an extension of 48 hours to the debating period.

3. After all time has expire, the PPT shall close the debate and open a vote on the expulsion of the senator. The vote shall require, in accordance with Article 1 Section 3 Clause 1 of the Constitution, two thirds of the Senate to vote in the affirmative to expel the Senator. The vote shall last for 72 hours or until enough Senators have voted in the affirmative or negative.

4. Following the expulsion of a Senator, the PPT shall inform the public of its actions and inform the Secretary of Federal Elections of the occurrence of a vacancy in the expelled Senator’s seat.

Not like an amendment to this is presently on the floor or anything and thus the section in question aptly visible, or anything. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Maxwell on December 18, 2013, 05:47:12 PM
I just realized that TNF is the third most senior Senator now...


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on December 19, 2013, 02:35:31 AM
I just realized that TNF is the third most senior Senator now...

Hasn't Yankee been there for like 3 years?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on December 19, 2013, 02:36:10 AM
Regarding the Xahar shenanigans... why not just amend the constitution so that a party cannot replace a vacancy with the person who last occupied the seat before the vacancy occurred?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 19, 2013, 02:47:40 AM
Regarding the Xahar shenanigans... why not just amend the constitution so that a party cannot replace a vacancy with the person who last occupied the seat before the vacancy occurred?

Well that doesn't help much in other circumstances like them running in a special and winning or getting appointed by the Governor to a regional seat if they were a Regional Senator. I was thinking last night that one which banned expelled Senators from serving as a Seantor for the duration of the term from which they were expelled from was preferable. That would cover all the scenarios and frankly, we have been one step behind on each expulsion incident it seems with regards to it being exploited so a little forward looking on the approach is warrented.

I just realized that TNF is the third most senior Senator now...

And Gass is now Dean of the Senate.

I just realized that TNF is the third most senior Senator now...

Hasn't Yankee been there for like 3 years?

Four years and six months. And I won all fifteen of those elections fair and square.

Keep in mind that there is an 80% turnover rate every six months or so. In fact it is even higher than that because you have Senators like Maxwell and Xahar who were elected in August and didn't run again in December and thus aren't factored in and of course Polnut winning that special and so on.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on December 19, 2013, 04:31:02 AM
But TNF has only been there since July 2013...


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: PJ on December 19, 2013, 09:34:48 PM
Quote
Pacific Emergency Stimulus

The Pacific Region shall receive a stimulus package totaling $100 billion to be spent in its entirety in 2014.
Thank you so much!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 20, 2013, 02:13:29 AM

Napoleon was Dean of the Senate for months, and he had only come in February 2013. 



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Talleyrand on January 04, 2014, 06:16:58 PM
My activity will be limited from the 4th through 7th of January, as I am out of town.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on January 08, 2014, 12:09:26 AM
Quote
Amendment to the "Fair De-registration Rights Act"

Clause 2 of the "Fair De-Registration Rights Act" is hereby amended to read:
2. The name of any deregistered citizen shall be removed from the voting roll. Deregistration shall take effect immediately.Any citizen who chooses to deregister shall have 24 hours from the time of their post to rescind their deregistration. After 24 hours have elapsed, their deregistration shall take effect.

The Senate specifically chose to prohibit allowing deregistered members to rejoin once they'd posted notice. If we're not going to force people to take deregistraiton seriously, we shouldn't bother keeping it.
I want to have a new debate on the issue in light of former Senator Maxwell's departure, including a discussion on the merits of deregistration.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Talleyrand on January 08, 2014, 01:28:59 AM
My activity will be limited from the 4th through 7th of January, as I am out of town.

I'm back now, and will be able to participate more actively in debate.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on January 08, 2014, 05:33:32 PM
My activity will be limited from the 4th through 7th of January, as I am out of town.

I'm back now, and will be able to participate more actively in debate.

I am glad to here it. :)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: President Tyrion on January 10, 2014, 04:18:13 PM
Anti Mandatory Minimum Amendment

No mandated minimum penalty for any crime shall be in force in Atlasian Federal law, excepting direct and proportional reparations.

I support this. I was considering going to the Supreme Court on this issue, but it turns out it's quite difficult to write a lawsuit of that nature.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on January 10, 2014, 06:24:55 PM
And it is now on the floor of the Senate.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: TNF on January 19, 2014, 03:09:58 PM
We're a couple of weeks into the new session, yet no one seems to be adding new laws to the wiki. What gives?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: TNF on January 19, 2014, 03:14:25 PM
Also, I'm a bit embarrassed that a Senator from my party is proposing a return to the failed policies of the Drug War Era. I had hoped that we had left that sad period behind us for good.

I concur with the former President. The Comprehensive Drug Reform Act was passed by the Senate unanimously last session. I'm not sure why Senator X wants us to return to the failed policies of the past.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Chancellor Tanterterg on January 19, 2014, 04:12:57 PM
Also, I'm a bit embarrassed that a Senator from my party is proposing a return to the failed policies of the Drug War Era. I had hoped that we had left that sad period behind us for good.

I concur with the former President. The Comprehensive Drug Reform Act was passed by the Senate unanimously last session. I'm not sure why Senator X wants us to return to the failed policies of the past.

I am glad that Chairman Nix and Senator TNF can at least agree with me that the War on Drugs as it was carried out in the past was a failure.  However, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction and Atlasia's current drug policies are doomed to fail as well.  I believe that we should addressing this problem in a reasonable and responsible way with laws that balance punishment with rehabilitation and treatment.  If any of my fellow Senators agree that what I described approach then I'd urge them to support the important reforms that I have proposed.  If they want to continue the failed policies of the past, they should oppose my drug bills and vote for the status quo.  I would also welcome the input of my fellow Senators.  Together, we can strike a major blow against the scourge of drug addiction!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: TNF on January 19, 2014, 10:35:48 PM
I am proud to support X's bid to save our stingrays.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on January 20, 2014, 02:43:29 AM
X could you at least consolidate some of these bills together. Even if you disagree with the content of the "comprehensive" law in question, is not the format such that the merits of which speak for themselves?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Chancellor Tanterterg on January 20, 2014, 08:32:00 AM
X could you at least consolidate some of these bills together. Even if you disagree with the content of the "comprehensive" law in question, is not the format such that the merits of which speak for themselves?

I deliberately opted not to consolidate them so we could essentially have a "line-item vote" on each proposal, sorry :(


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: DemPGH on January 20, 2014, 11:15:31 AM
I don't understand or support re-criminalization either. There's so much else that could be done positively than to try to go back to an old negative that largely loaded jail cells with non-violent offenders.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: PJ on January 22, 2014, 08:06:41 PM
Quote
Rapists Shouldn't Have Custody Act of 2014

1. Effective upon the passage of this legislation, no Region may enact legislation granting custody of a child or visitation rights to persons having fathered children as a result of nonconsentual sexual intercourse. All existing legislation which does not explicitly bar rapists from obtaining custody or being allowed visitation rights to children they have fathered through nonconsentual sexual intercourse shall be superseded by this legislation, effective upon its passage.
2. This legislation should not be interpreted as preventing offenders from requiring to pay child support if otherwise required by Regional statute.
I fully support this.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Oakvale on January 27, 2014, 04:03:46 PM
Would a Senator be willing to introduce a bill for me?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: President Tyrion on January 27, 2014, 04:27:02 PM
Would a Senator be willing to introduce a bill for me?

Yeah sure, as your Regional Senator


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Oakvale on January 28, 2014, 09:14:35 AM
Would a Senator be willing to introduce a bill for me?

Yeah sure, as your Regional Senator

Excellent, I'll PM you.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on February 15, 2014, 05:19:57 PM
Is there a place I could read about the powers of the VP in the Senate, what he can do in the senate procedures. When NCYankee is absent the senate work almost stops. I thought maybe the VP has some power to move things. 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 15, 2014, 06:11:41 PM
Is there a place I could read about the powers of the VP in the Senate, what he can do in the senate procedures. When NCYankee is absent the senate work almost stops. I thought maybe the VP has some power to move things. 

The VP can do everything I can do. In fact, he is the primary authority and all my authority is delegated directly from him. https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Current_Senate_Rules,_Regulations,_and_Procedures

On the flip side, the Consitution only allows the VP to break ties, so that is omething he can do that I cannot.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on February 15, 2014, 06:13:17 PM
Whilst losing the two days was unfortunate, we are still on track to break records on both amendments to legislation and legislation overall, if the pace so far is maintained in the last two or three weeks.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bore on April 03, 2014, 12:58:06 PM
I need somewhere to put this, and this thread will do as well as any other. The amendments that have been ratified since the wiki was last updated are the expulsion amendment, the  mandatory minimum one the on 3rd thoughts and the semi presidentialism one.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Maxwell on April 03, 2014, 09:47:52 PM
I'll get on the amendments problem friday night or saturday afternoon, and as well update resolutions and some other things on the wiki.

Thank you for notifying me.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on May 08, 2014, 07:50:22 PM
I semi-support the End lame duck terms. I find the lame duck period very long and ideally I would get rid of it. Because certification, possible court case, preparation for newly elected people, maybe read about senate rules and write legislation, I would choose a lame duck session as short as possible, maybe 5 or 7 days after the election.

I am against the Proportional representation fix amendment. I know it's a fix but I am against the situation of a senator serving for more than a month being nominated by a political party. I don't like party nomination instead of election and it could be for a long time, a month is a quarter or a normal term. 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on May 25, 2014, 11:38:39 AM
I'm trying to understand when the End lame duck terms amendment would apply for the first time. It says: take effect with the terms of those elected in the August 2014 general election

Does it mean the lame duck period in August will be shorter or is it at the end of the term of those elected in August which would make the shorter term lame duck period first applied in December only. December would be in a long time to apply the new period.

Also the bill's name could be changed since the lame duck will still exist. Pehaps some words like Modify, Shorten, or Reduce is more appropriate.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bore on May 25, 2014, 01:08:42 PM
I'm trying to understand when the End lame duck terms amendment would apply for the first time. It says: take effect with the terms of those elected in the August 2014 general election

Does it mean the lame duck period in August will be shorter or is it at the end of the term of those elected in August which would make the shorter term lame duck period first applied in December only. December would be in a long time to apply the new period.

Also the bill's name could be changed since the lame duck will still exist. Pehaps some words like Modify, Shorten, or Reduce is more appropriate.

Hello Poirot,

The amendment title has been changed to shorten, it's just the thread title which is using the original amendment name.

At the moment, if the amendment passed the senators elected in the August general election would sign in earlier, so they would the present at large senators and obviously all future senators and presidents would have a shorter lame duck period.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on May 25, 2014, 01:55:29 PM
Sorry for the name. I was only noticing the thread title.
Thanks for explaining to me when it would start.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Barnes on June 21, 2014, 09:50:55 PM
If I were looking for a Senator to sponsor a bill (or bills) on my behalf in the Senate, would this be the appropriate place to inquire? ;D


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 22, 2014, 01:26:36 AM
If I were looking for a Senator to sponsor a bill (or bills) on my behalf in the Senate, would this be the appropriate place to inquire? ;D

You could just PM bore or hell as a former Southerner (in game), I would still hook you up. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Barnes on June 22, 2014, 01:28:30 AM
If I were looking for a Senator to sponsor a bill (or bills) on my behalf in the Senate, would this be the appropriate place to inquire? ;D

You could just PM bore or hell as a former Southerner (in game), I would still hook you up. :P

Seems like I've found a sponsor at the moment; but I'll remember your offer, Yankee.  Who knows what I might use it for... ;D


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on June 22, 2014, 01:43:26 AM
Look at it like this, Barnes. You didn't get expelled, you are just 17 months late for work. :P


"I didn't quit, I am just seven years late for work" - Dave Chappelle.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on June 22, 2014, 09:22:49 PM
I have worries about the method of election by party list in the bicameralism bill for candidates who are not from major parties.

First, I would like to know if a voter could only make a choice (or choices) in one list. There is no way a voter could select candidates that are not in the same list.

It has been suggested in the bill discussion thread:
Each major party would be allowed to determine how it will handle the selection/order of candidates
Everyone else would caucus together and use standard PR-STV to determine selection/order


Everyone else is lumped together in the same list? So two independent candidates, one Far Left and one Earth Liberation could be on the same list. Even if voters are able to rank candidates in a single list, can voters know in choosing the Everyone else list that their vote won't help elect someone they don't like.

I'm trying to imagine if that type of ballot will be good for candidates not in major parties. 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on June 23, 2014, 12:28:51 AM
I have worries about the method of election by party list in the bicameralism bill for candidates who are not from major parties.

First, I would like to know if a voter could only make a choice (or choices) in one list. There is no way a voter could select candidates that are not in the same list.

It has been suggested in the bill discussion thread:
Each major party would be allowed to determine how it will handle the selection/order of candidates
Everyone else would caucus together and use standard PR-STV to determine selection/order


Everyone else is lumped together in the same list? So two independent candidates, one Far Left and one Earth Liberation could be on the same list. Even if voters are able to rank candidates in a single list, can voters know in choosing the Everyone else list that their vote won't help elect someone they don't like.

I'm trying to imagine if that type of ballot will be good for candidates not in major parties. 

What would make sense is to have it so that independent and minor party candidates can choose whether to join a list with others, or whether to run by themselves. 

Whether a voter could select more than one list I'm not clear on either.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on June 24, 2014, 08:11:31 PM
What would make sense is to have it so that independent and minor party candidates can choose whether to join a list with others, or whether to run by themselves. 

Whether a voter could select more than one list I'm not clear on either.

I wouldn't like forcing independent and small parties to be on the same miscellaneous list. Having their own list would be better but then a possible difficulty for them if voters can select only one list is being seen as having a good chance to have enough votes to win. If voters don't believe these candidates can garner enough votes and voting is not transferable to another list, then they could decide to avoid risking wasting a vote and go to the biggest party they like.

I've been trying to imagine what the voting dynamic would be with party list for independent / small parties. The bicameral proposal seems to be tied to shrinking the number of regions so I am opposed to it.   


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Prince of Salem on June 26, 2014, 12:05:56 AM
Would Sen. Bore or any At-Large Senator or just any Senator introduce this bill to the Senate? Please :)

Quote
No Problem But You Pay It Act

1. Clause 4 of the Transgender Rights Act of 2013 is hereby repealed.

It's not like I've got anything against transgenders, but we are talking about government spending and taxpayer's money here, and I really believe this isn't the best way to go with it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bore on June 26, 2014, 05:01:48 AM
Obviously I don't and can't see myself supporting this bill, but I think, given civilian introduced legislation is rare enough that it should be encouraged, there is a shortage of items in the queue and I am JomCAR's regional senator I'll introduce the bill.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Prince of Salem on June 26, 2014, 11:51:15 AM
Obviously I don't and can't see myself supporting this bill, but I think, given civilian introduced legislation is rare enough that it should be encouraged, there is a shortage of items in the queue and I am JomCAR's regional senator I'll introduce the bill.

Thank you Senator ^^


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: WrathOfTheGods on July 25, 2014, 09:59:25 PM
I'd like to have any senator introducing this bill:

Quote
First Atlasian Foreign Policy Solutions Act

Section 1. Israel and Palestine

1. The Department of External Affairs shall send an ultimatum to the governments of Israel and Palestine to cease fire and reach a diplomatic agreement within 7 days.

2. If Israel and Palestine do not cease fire and reach an agreement within 7 days, the Atlasian government shall declare war on these countries and deploy ground troops in their territory.

3. The mentioned military actions shall have the objective of:
   i. Incorporating the Israeli and Palestinian territories to the Republic of Atlasia.
   ii. Preventing internal conflicts between the people of said territories.

4. A Jewish temple and a Christian temple shall be built in Jerusalem with federal funds.

5. A referendum shall be held between the people of Israel and Palestine to determine if their territory, which shall be called from now as Canaan, is to become an Atlasian state.

6. If the people of Canaan vote for becoming a state, a second referendum shall be held to determine whether they want to join the Imperial Dominion of the South or the Northeast Region.

Section 2. Venezuela

1. The Department of External Affairs shall send an ultimatum to the government of Colombia to hold a referendum among Venezuelan citizens if they want to be part of Colombia or not.

2. This referendum shall be held within 30 days.

3. If the Colombian government does not hold the said referendum within 30 days, the Atlasian government shall declare war on Colombia and deploy ground troops in Venezuelan territory.

4. The mentioned military actions shall have the objective of:
   i. Incorporating the Venezuelan territory to the Republic of Atlasia.
   ii. Protecting Venezuela and its people from any attack by the Colombian military or subversive forces.
   iii. Repealing Colombian authority from Venezuela.

5. A referendum shall be held between the people of Israel and Palestine to determine if their territory is to become an Atlasian state.

6. If the people of Venezuela vote for becoming a state, they shall join the Imperial Dominion of the South.

May the gods be with you.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Prince of Salem on July 25, 2014, 10:04:52 PM
I'd like to have any senator introducing this bill:

Quote
First Atlasian Foreign Policy Solutions Act

Section 1. Israel and Palestine

1. The Department of External Affairs shall send an ultimatum to the governments of Israel and Palestine to cease fire and reach a diplomatic agreement within 7 days.

2. If Israel and Palestine do not cease fire and reach an agreement within 7 days, the Atlasian government shall declare war on these countries and deploy ground troops in their territory.

3. The mentioned military actions shall have the objective of:
   i. Incorporating the Israeli and Palestinian territories to the Republic of Atlasia.
   ii. Preventing internal conflicts between the people of said territories.

4. A Jewish temple and a Christian temple shall be built in Jerusalem with federal funds.

5. A referendum shall be held between the people of Israel and Palestine to determine if their territory, which shall be called from now as Canaan, is to become an Atlasian state.

6. If the people of Canaan vote for becoming a state, a second referendum shall be held to determine whether they want to join the Imperial Dominion of the South or the Northeast Region.

Section 2. Venezuela

1. The Department of External Affairs shall send an ultimatum to the government of Colombia to hold a referendum among Venezuelan citizens if they want to be part of Colombia or not.

2. This referendum shall be held within 30 days.

3. If the Colombian government does not hold the said referendum within 30 days, the Atlasian government shall declare war on Colombia and deploy ground troops in Venezuelan territory.

4. The mentioned military actions shall have the objective of:
   i. Incorporating the Venezuelan territory to the Republic of Atlasia.
   ii. Protecting Venezuela and its people from any attack by the Colombian military or subversive forces.
   iii. Repealing Colombian authority from Venezuela.

5. A referendum shall be held between the people of Israel and Palestine to determine if their territory is to become an Atlasian state.

6. If the people of Venezuela vote for becoming a state, they shall join the Imperial Dominion of the South.

May the gods be with you.

???


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: WrathOfTheGods on July 26, 2014, 02:05:44 PM
Forget about the bill I put before. Due to new data given, I'll present this instead:

Quote
Occupy Venezuela Act

1. The Department of External Affairs shall send an ultimatum to the government of Colombia to hold a referendum among Venezuelan citizens if they want to be part of Colombia or not.

2. This referendum shall be held within 30 days.

3. If the Colombian government does not hold the said referendum within 30 days, the Atlasian government shall declare war on Colombia and deploy ground troops in Venezuelan territory.

4. The mentioned military actions shall have the objective of:
   i. Incorporating the Venezuelan territory to the Republic of Atlasia.
   ii. Protecting Venezuela and its people from any attack by the Colombian military or subversive forces.
   iii. Repealing Colombian authority from Venezuela.

5. A referendum shall be held between the people of Israel and Palestine to determine if their territory is to become an Atlasian state.

6. If the people of Venezuela vote for becoming a state, they shall join the Imperial Dominion of the South.

May the gods be with you.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: GAworth on August 01, 2014, 07:23:41 PM
So I am not really sure where to put this comment, but here seems as good as any (in regards to the Bicameral Birthing Bill)

If we use districts when talking about a lower house, I suggest that we create a freeze on moving from state to state one month prior to the election, at that time the SoFE or whoever is responsible would then re-apportion the districts. The freeze would be lifted after the election has concluded. If we use a proportional lower house like the real Congress, then I suggest a freeze for regional shifts as well during this time. If a new member joins during the freeze, their addition does not affect the district make up.

If we are contemplating districts, this seems reasonable, I know this was a concern.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on August 04, 2014, 10:34:17 PM
Quote
Keep Them Fearful Act of 2014

1. The Department of Internal Affairs shall, upon the passage of this legislation, employ the unemployed by constructing working guillotines in every town or city in which at least one resident reports an adjusted (that is, after tax) gross income in excess of $1,000,000. This figure shall annually adjust with inflation. The guillotines in question shall be constructed and shall remain on public display in the wealthiest areas of the town or city in question, as defined in this Act.

2. In addition to the construction of guillotines as described above, the Department of Internal Affairs shall also, upon the passage of this legislation, employ the unemployed by constructing working guillotines across the street from every stock exchange in the Republic of Atlasia. In the case that this is not practicable (i.e. if there is no street adjacent to the stock exchange in question), said guillotine will be constructed and erected inside the stock exchange itself and shall be on permanent display therein.

3. The use of the guillotines constructed by this Act shall be strictly prohibited by law. In the event that said guillotines are used against a person who derives his or her income primarily (herein defined as more than 25 percent of their total income) by the extraction of rent or the return on an investment, perpetrators shall be sentenced to a night in prison to think about what it is they have done. They shall then be freed and shall have no permanent criminal record attributed to them, and any existing criminal records shall be fully and totally expunged. If the guillotine in question is used against a person whose income is primarily derived from the sale of their labor to another person (herein defined as more than 25 percent of their total income) they shall face no less than 25 years in prison and forfeit all of their assets to the community in which they reside, which shall do with them as they see fit.

4. Unless stated otherwise herein, this Act shall take effect upon its passage.

The Labor Party is turning this game into a joke. Before, in terms of ideology, we were on a Vermont or Massachusetts level. I don't even know what you would call the level we are at now...at this rate I would be surprised if this game lasted another year.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on August 04, 2014, 10:41:24 PM
Quote
Keep Them Fearful Act of 2014

1. The Department of Internal Affairs shall, upon the passage of this legislation, employ the unemployed by constructing working guillotines in every town or city in which at least one resident reports an adjusted (that is, after tax) gross income in excess of $1,000,000. This figure shall annually adjust with inflation. The guillotines in question shall be constructed and shall remain on public display in the wealthiest areas of the town or city in question, as defined in this Act.

2. In addition to the construction of guillotines as described above, the Department of Internal Affairs shall also, upon the passage of this legislation, employ the unemployed by constructing working guillotines across the street from every stock exchange in the Republic of Atlasia. In the case that this is not practicable (i.e. if there is no street adjacent to the stock exchange in question), said guillotine will be constructed and erected inside the stock exchange itself and shall be on permanent display therein.

3. The use of the guillotines constructed by this Act shall be strictly prohibited by law. In the event that said guillotines are used against a person who derives his or her income primarily (herein defined as more than 25 percent of their total income) by the extraction of rent or the return on an investment, perpetrators shall be sentenced to a night in prison to think about what it is they have done. They shall then be freed and shall have no permanent criminal record attributed to them, and any existing criminal records shall be fully and totally expunged. If the guillotine in question is used against a person whose income is primarily derived from the sale of their labor to another person (herein defined as more than 25 percent of their total income) they shall face no less than 25 years in prison and forfeit all of their assets to the community in which they reside, which shall do with them as they see fit.

4. Unless stated otherwise herein, this Act shall take effect upon its passage.

The Labor Party is turning this game into a joke. Before, in terms of ideology, we were on a Vermont or Massachusetts level. I don't even know what you would call the level we are at now...at this rate I would be surprised if this game lasted another year.

The game will prosper once the reactionaries are eliminated. I fully support comrade TNF's bill.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lumine on August 04, 2014, 10:42:59 PM
Mother of god... We may not have a PPT to strike down that abomination before it even reaches the floor, but you can bet I will demand that bill to be tabled!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: TNF on August 04, 2014, 10:45:13 PM
Quote
Keep Them Fearful Act of 2014

1. The Department of Internal Affairs shall, upon the passage of this legislation, employ the unemployed by constructing working guillotines in every town or city in which at least one resident reports an adjusted (that is, after tax) gross income in excess of $1,000,000. This figure shall annually adjust with inflation. The guillotines in question shall be constructed and shall remain on public display in the wealthiest areas of the town or city in question, as defined in this Act.

2. In addition to the construction of guillotines as described above, the Department of Internal Affairs shall also, upon the passage of this legislation, employ the unemployed by constructing working guillotines across the street from every stock exchange in the Republic of Atlasia. In the case that this is not practicable (i.e. if there is no street adjacent to the stock exchange in question), said guillotine will be constructed and erected inside the stock exchange itself and shall be on permanent display therein.

3. The use of the guillotines constructed by this Act shall be strictly prohibited by law. In the event that said guillotines are used against a person who derives his or her income primarily (herein defined as more than 25 percent of their total income) by the extraction of rent or the return on an investment, perpetrators shall be sentenced to a night in prison to think about what it is they have done. They shall then be freed and shall have no permanent criminal record attributed to them, and any existing criminal records shall be fully and totally expunged. If the guillotine in question is used against a person whose income is primarily derived from the sale of their labor to another person (herein defined as more than 25 percent of their total income) they shall face no less than 25 years in prison and forfeit all of their assets to the community in which they reside, which shall do with them as they see fit.

4. Unless stated otherwise herein, this Act shall take effect upon its passage.

The Labor Party is turning this game into a joke. Before, in terms of ideology, we were on a Vermont or Massachusetts level. I don't even know what you would call the level we are at now...at this rate I would be surprised if this game lasted another year.

Mother of god... We may not have a PPT to strike down that abomination before it even reaches the floor, but you can bet I will demand that bill to be tabled!

I'm not sure what's really offensive about it. It's not as if it allows the guillotine to be used, or anything. I mean hell, Clause 3 clearly doles out punishment for violators.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lumine on August 04, 2014, 10:56:23 PM
I'm not sure what's really offensive about it. It's not as if it allows the guillotine to be used, or anything. I mean hell, Clause 3 clearly doles out punishment for violators.

Senator, nuking a random nation makes more sense than that bill, and I hope to see the rest of the Labor senators opposing it as well.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: TNF on August 04, 2014, 11:00:47 PM
I'm not sure what's really offensive about it. It's not as if it allows the guillotine to be used, or anything. I mean hell, Clause 3 clearly doles out punishment for violators.

Senator, nuking a random nation makes more sense than that bill, and I hope to see the rest of the Labor senators opposing it as well.

Not really. The bourgeoisie need to be kept fearful. No nation needs to be nuked.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lumine on August 04, 2014, 11:03:42 PM
I'm not sure what's really offensive about it. It's not as if it allows the guillotine to be used, or anything. I mean hell, Clause 3 clearly doles out punishment for violators.

Senator, nuking a random nation makes more sense than that bill, and I hope to see the rest of the Labor senators opposing it as well.

Not really. The bourgeoisie need to be kept fearful. No nation needs to be nuked.

You honestly see nothing wrong with class warfare and dismissing entire sectors of our society while using government assets to scare the people of Atlasia, don't you?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: TNF on August 04, 2014, 11:09:06 PM
I'm not sure what's really offensive about it. It's not as if it allows the guillotine to be used, or anything. I mean hell, Clause 3 clearly doles out punishment for violators.

Senator, nuking a random nation makes more sense than that bill, and I hope to see the rest of the Labor senators opposing it as well.

Not really. The bourgeoisie need to be kept fearful. No nation needs to be nuked.

You honestly see nothing wrong with class warfare and dismissing entire sectors of our society while using government assets to scare the people of Atlasia, don't you?

Nope. The bourgeoisie are disgusting parasites and deserve everything the proletariat send their way.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lumine on August 04, 2014, 11:10:49 PM
Then I stand by my comments, this insanity has to be stopped as soon as possible.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on August 04, 2014, 11:11:59 PM
I'm not sure what's really offensive about it. It's not as if it allows the guillotine to be used, or anything. I mean hell, Clause 3 clearly doles out punishment for violators.

Senator, nuking a random nation makes more sense than that bill, and I hope to see the rest of the Labor senators opposing it as well.

Not really. The bourgeoisie need to be kept fearful. No nation needs to be nuked.

You honestly see nothing wrong with class warfare and dismissing entire sectors of our society while using government assets to scare the people of Atlasia, don't you?

That's kind of the point. Terror is the goal.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bore on August 04, 2014, 11:12:21 PM
Lumine and TNF clearly need to take this outside.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: TNF on August 04, 2014, 11:13:07 PM
The bourgeoisie should live in constant fear. After all, the Proletariat already do (fear of homelessness, unemployment, not having access to medical care), so why not level the playing field?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: GAworth on August 04, 2014, 11:21:34 PM
So wait the bill just calls for them to be built, but never used?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: TNF on August 04, 2014, 11:22:08 PM
So wait the bill just calls for them to be built, but never used?

Yep. It's a jobs program!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: GAworth on August 04, 2014, 11:24:53 PM
So wait the bill just calls for them to be built, but never used?

Yep. It's a jobs program!
Interesting.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on August 05, 2014, 12:50:39 AM

I'd rather a jobs program go toward building houses, fixing infrastructure and providing a better life for people... It just seems kind of.... Weird.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Mechaman on August 05, 2014, 06:56:04 AM
I must protest Senator TNF's new bill.  It doesn't go near far enough.

Tiocfaidh ár lá!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 08, 2014, 07:22:29 PM
Doesn't the Senate already have a presiding officer (the Vice President)?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on August 09, 2014, 03:42:54 AM
Doesn't the Senate already have a presiding officer (the Vice President)?

Yes, there's no need to create the extra office. Unless of course the Vice Presidency were eliminated altogether, which I don't see happening.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: windjammer on August 09, 2014, 04:25:47 AM
With these reforms, I would have no dutie at all.

If really people don't like the office of the VP, I prefer much more the abolition of this office than a basically useless office.

The VP is the president of the senate, that's the constitution that says that. The VP isn't a member of the executive branch, he's a member of the legislative branch, (he's the president of the senate), the VP has no power except his tie breaking vote and has to respect the rules. The VP is clearly independent from the president.

So yes, I prefer the VP to be eliminated than being transformed into an inactive office. Because these new rules basically strip every duty the VP could have.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 09, 2014, 10:57:08 AM
Like I said in the thread, the Constitution makes the VP President of the Senate not the rules.

I have issues with changing to the term Speaker as the PPT should be a merit based not a political based election.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bore on August 09, 2014, 11:01:55 AM
Like I said in the thread, the Constitution makes the VP President of the Senate not the rules.

I have issues with changing to the term Speaker as the PPT should be a merit based not a political based election.

Speaker is not an inherently political term. For instance, the speaker in britain is non partisan.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 09, 2014, 11:05:20 AM
Like I said in the thread, the Constitution makes the VP President of the Senate not the rules.

I have issues with changing to the term Speaker as the PPT should be a merit based not a political based election.

Speaker is not an inherently political term. For instance, the speaker in britain is non partisan.

As long as everyone is clear then that such is the British version of such and that is the nature of the office.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: windjammer on August 09, 2014, 01:03:11 PM
This proposal doesn't affect the VP's status as President of the Senate. I would not have written these rules without carefully rechecking every relevant clause of the Constitution.

To clarify, Speaker is only meant to denote the office responsible for administering the Senate. The intent is not to change the nature of the Senate's administration.

But this is killing the role of my office Averroes...

Have I done something bad when I administered this senate?
And yes, the VP isn't a member of the executive, all of his duties are legilsative: president of the senate, tie breaking vote.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: windjammer on August 09, 2014, 01:16:43 PM
And again, I would prefer you simply abolish this office instead of simply stripping every duty this office could have in the future.

I know this isn't made to be personal, but really, retiring every duty I could have,...


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: windjammer on August 09, 2014, 01:22:51 PM
This proposal doesn't affect the VP's status as President of the Senate. I would not have written these rules without carefully rechecking every relevant clause of the Constitution.

To clarify, Speaker is only meant to denote the office responsible for administering the Senate. The intent is not to change the nature of the Senate's administration.
And Averroes, it affects my statute of "President of the Senate", because I would have basically no duty in the senate.
Quote
Etymologically, a president is one who presides (from Latin prae- "before" + sedere "to sit"; giving the term praeses). Originally, the term referred to the presiding officer of a ceremony or meeting


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: windjammer on August 09, 2014, 02:07:47 PM
First, let me address the constitutional objection, because it's the most important point at stake here.

The Constitution (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Third_Constitution_%28single_page%29) has two clauses that directly pertain to this debate:

First:
Quote from: Article 1, Section 1
3. The Vice President of the Republic of Atlasia shall be the President of the Senate, but shall have no vote unless they be equally divided.
4. The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, who shall act as President of the Senate in the absence of the Vice President.

This corresponds almost verbatim with the text of the United States Constitution: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States."

Clearly the intent is to imitate the arrangement that prevails in the United States. In the modern Senate, the Vice President is limited to his role as tie-breaker and may not even participate in Senate debate. In fact, if you care to read the actual Senate's standing rules, they assign no additional responsibilities to the Vice President.

Note that the Constitution does not use the verb 'preside' in reference to the Vice President at any point. If you want to appeal to etymology, consider that the Latin root of 'president' is praesident which means ‘sitting before.’

Second:

Quote from: Article I, Section 3
The Senate may establish rules for its own proceedings, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of its number, expel a Senator.

Notice that the Vice President is not mentioned again in the clause that establishes how Senate procedure is set - Why would this be so if the Senate is obliged to grant him a procedural role? If a mandatory procedural role for the Vice President is implied, why is there no guide as to how extensive this role must be?

I hope you will still adress my other points though.
If I have nothing to do, why not simply abolishing my office and replacing that by a 11th senator?

Clearly, an office that has no duty is likely to die one day.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on August 09, 2014, 02:25:32 PM
The VP as an office has been around since the beginning of this game and prior to February 2013, literally did nothing unless the PPT was missing or the President was gone. That was the job of the VP, not to run the Senate.

The VP is there to break ties and stand in for the President when they go missing. Those are duties, so the argument that not allowing the VP to control the Senate renders the office useless is invalid.

I am and was fine with how the Senate administered itself before. The VP controls a few slots close to the executive branch and the PPT controls all the rest. That's logical, that makes sense.

Windjammer, these rule changes are not meant as personal attacks against you or against your job in office, so I wish you wouldn't feel as if any of us are attacking you. It just goes to my basic belief that each branch of government should be self-governing and not subject to encroachment by other branches.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: windjammer on August 09, 2014, 02:28:25 PM
I know this isn't made against me.

But I cannot interpret in an another way than a defiance towards the job I have been doing, that's all.

And yes, I know there isn't a bad intention behind Averroes.

I'm just desperate.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: windjammer on August 09, 2014, 02:39:32 PM
I know this isn't made against me.

But I cannot interpret in an another way than a defiance towards the job I have been doing, that's all.

And yes, I know there isn't a bad intention behind Averroes.

I'm just desperate.

Actually, my proposed rules would allow the Vice President to serve as the Senate's presiding officer under the current circumstances:

Quote
2. The most senior Senator shall convene the Senate to elect a Speaker on the first day of each legislative session. The Senate shall elect a Speaker from among its members by majority consent. If the Senate fails to reach majority consent within one week, the Vice President may serve as Speaker until agreement is reached.

Oh please Averroes,
This is absolutely nothing.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: windjammer on August 09, 2014, 02:40:54 PM
But I hope that, even on your phone, you will still be able to describe the current job I was doing...


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: windjammer on August 09, 2014, 02:43:39 PM
But I hope that, even on your phone, you will still be able to describe the current job I was doing...

What are you asking?

Whi this sudden change? Is it because I have made something bad as VP???


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: windjammer on August 09, 2014, 02:58:48 PM
And how would you rate my performance???


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: HagridOfTheDeep on August 09, 2014, 03:14:10 PM
This is absurd.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: windjammer on August 09, 2014, 03:15:27 PM

???


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on August 09, 2014, 03:20:36 PM
And how would you rate my performance???

I don't think that has much to do with anything, really. No one's complaining about the job you've done. It's just about cleaning up the rules, really... The VP was never a particularly active office apart from acting as an adviser to the President and some minor Senate duties. You've been very active, Windjammer, but really the office itself doesn't require much. If we can clean up the rules, more's the better.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: windjammer on August 09, 2014, 03:57:10 PM
And how would you rate my performance???

I don't think that has much to do with anything, really. No one's complaining about the job you've done. It's just about cleaning up the rules, really... The VP was never a particularly active office apart from acting as an adviser to the President and some minor Senate duties. You've been very active, Windjammer, but really the office itself doesn't require much. If we can clean up the rules, more's the better.

So this is my activity the problem? That's weird. That's someone worthy of Atlasia. A Justice failed to be impeached even if he didn't post during more than one month, and someone who just wants to be active, there is an attempt to strip him all of his duties.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Dr. Cynic on August 09, 2014, 06:51:29 PM
And how would you rate my performance???

I don't think that has much to do with anything, really. No one's complaining about the job you've done. It's just about cleaning up the rules, really... The VP was never a particularly active office apart from acting as an adviser to the President and some minor Senate duties. You've been very active, Windjammer, but really the office itself doesn't require much. If we can clean up the rules, more's the better.

So this is my activity the problem? That's weird. That's someone worthy of Atlasia. A Justice failed to be impeached even if he didn't post during more than one month, and someone who just wants to be active, there is an attempt to strip him all of his duties.

We've said it a dozen times. Your activity isn't the issue. The issue is that the rules are ambiguous at best and they should be fixed.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bore on August 09, 2014, 07:25:03 PM
The whole debate over whether the VP or a senator should administer the senate seems tangential to the whole point of Nix's proposal. The rules can be written in the same way giving the power entirely to the VP or entirely to a senator, the point is they are much clearer than the current mess.

In fact, Nix's proposal while needing a wee bit of tweaking and debate strikes me as very like the Northeast SOAP's, as in, easy to understand and administer. The Northeast's speaker (by the way, a non partisan office) changes almost every session, and each time, from cinci to cync to alfred to deus to whoever else, the result is effective administration. The same happening to the senate is unimaginable.

Let's not let controversy over the VP get in the way of this needed simplification of senate procedures.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: GAworth on August 11, 2014, 07:24:36 PM
And how would you rate my performance???

I don't think that has much to do with anything, really. No one's complaining about the job you've done. It's just about cleaning up the rules, really... The VP was never a particularly active office apart from acting as an adviser to the President and some minor Senate duties. You've been very active, Windjammer, but really the office itself doesn't require much. If we can clean up the rules, more's the better.

So this is my activity the problem? That's weird. That's someone worthy of Atlasia. A Justice failed to be impeached even if he didn't post during more than one month, and someone who just wants to be active, there is an attempt to strip him all of his duties.

Ok, step back from the key board, think of happy thoughts, and then come back. I don't think everyone is having a problem with your activity, in fact I am glad to see an active VP. The rules do need to be cleared and as Bore said, the word speaker could be replaced with President, thus you would be in charge and that is not the main issue.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on August 17, 2014, 11:46:11 AM
For the energy sector debate, perhaps the Senate could look into a different model. There could be partial nationalization. I googled Statoil in Norway and it says it is owned 67% by government. Maybe we could have government control in a private sector setting (still need to make profit).


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 23, 2014, 04:06:30 PM
I typed up an alternative to Nix's proposal, but I seem to have misplaced the version I typed up this morning. It is probably saved on my computer but I am sure I saved to the flash drive. Anyone here is the outline of what it contains differently and I will try to get it posted later if possible.

Quote
First off I want to clearly illustrate the numbers.


Current Rules ~6446 words
Nix's proposal ~1750 words 73% reduction
My preferred alternative ~2478 words 62% reduction.

General:
The vast bulk of what is removed comes from changes to the very top and the very bottom of the OSPR, stuff that is rarely used, outdated or antiquated. Namely the stuff we never bothered to change primarily because 1) it was irrelevant or 2) was not used regularly like votes, expulsions and debate process. The bulk of what we do use regularly was consolidated both effectively and on a bipartisan basis over the course of late last year and early this year and I tried to preserve that work where possible.


There are two big benefits from a comprehensive rules change and that is consistency of terminology I used VP for President of the Senate because POS well you get the idea :P and a final resolution with regards to the role of the VP. Until now, the Senate has just not had the apetite to do this kind of thing though.

I kept the same office titles we know and love to avoid confusion about the nature of offices. The PPT is still going to be a merit based officer elected by the Senate and the VP is still going to be charged with maintaining civility and decorum. The difference now is when it says PPT shall, it will mean the PPT shall and the VP is prohibited, unlike the current OSPR. I used presiding officer in areas that could apply to both and where I used presiding officer in relation to an activity of the whole Senate, that is default to be done by the PPT.

I decided to limit the VP both to answer the criticisms that OMG WINDJAMMER TEARING UP THE CONSTITUTION, whilst on the other hand, I did not cut quite as deeply as Nix. I left him confirmation hearings like Nix, but also the PPT elections like has always been the case, and the ability to preside over a limited number of slots (5 to 6).

I have restricted the VP from more legislative aspects including the ability to trash legislation. I was going to do the same for amendments but with the VP presiding over slots, it might serve to allow him that responsbility for amendments to legislation within those slots but if someone wants to change that, I am fine with that.



Article III
PPT will regulate the queue. Since the power to can legislation could be considered to be "legislating" having the VP do that is probably the most obvious separation of powers issue.


The slots are displayed in a more clear fashion. The override slot is eliminated. Slot 6 no longer excludes Constitutional Amendments but will only be used if the queue gets over 20 and slot 9 if the emergency slots are full. I would prefer not tie them to such specific leashes, but some kind of a reserve is preferable in times of low queue size. FP slot remains but now can be used for any purpose if no Foreign Policy related stuff is in the queue.

I restored the clogging rule, because sorry Nix, I love that you kept in order slots but without the clogging rule that will collapse.

As for opening up of slots, I fixed the problem with Nix's regarding bills languishing for seven days whilst the President sits on his behind. As soon as the presiding officer informs the President a bill has passed, it is off the floor, which is what do presently. It is quicker that way and since overrides and redrafts are handled off slot, there is no reason to block a slot for seven days, especially when there is only eight like with Nix's proposal.

Article IV
This is the last one really save for Expulsions that looks considerably like the current text of the OSPR. I condensed the debating rules down even further from our work a few months ago, and then stole Nix's clause regarding tabling and inserted it in this section just as he did with some minor changes.

I also combined some stuff in the Amendment section of this article as well. Both were subject to revision to remove unnecessary wordiness as well. I left Amendment votes at three days like the current OSPR.

Article V Grand theft of Nix from here on.

I put final vote's back to five for now. I am open to going to three like amendments but switching the two lengths around doesn't make much sense. I kept the ability to close unanimous final votes without giving vote change times.

Redrafts and Overrides are both handled here and off-slot now.

Article VI
The most like Nix's of any of the sections may be one or two word changes tops, though clause two might need to be changed to reflect the difference in final vote lengths.

Article VII
This is another clear steal from Nixy baby, with the exception of sentence stating that the resolution establishing the committee will also establish the rules for such. Might be superfluous and if so, it is easily parted with.

Article VIII
This was one where I had to go more status quo. Even so, I consolidated and reduced the wording as much as possible and eliminated a good one hundred words from here alone.

Article IX
Nix's text save for exemptions I tacked on to clauses 1 and 2, that deal with access to the floor and expulsion of course. Also I limited 3 to just areas of Constitutional ambiguity or violation, because I don't like the Supreme Court regulating our procedures and the Constitution is rather specific on this point. I am fine with conceding this point though.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: windjammer on August 23, 2014, 04:11:16 PM
I don't understand the logic.

If I understand correctly, I was accused of "executive overreach".
And now, the only prerogatives you want to give to the VP is basically the Confirmation hearing?

Do you realize that the Confirmation hearings are basically made after the President's actions? That wouldn't be an executive overreach if his own VP would administer the thread for the confirmation of his administration???


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 23, 2014, 04:12:58 PM
I don't understand the logic.

If I understand correctly, I was accused of "executive overreach".
And now, the only prerogatives you want to give to the VP is basically the Confirmation hearing?

Do you realize that the Confirmation hearings are basically made after the President's actions? That wouldn't be an executive overreach if his own VP would administer the thread for the confirmation of his administration???

Hold up, Nix's limits you to Confirmation Hearings. Mine basically gives the VP what Cincy was doing. I am sorry if that is confused. I don't have the latest version of the text, if I did it would ve clearer and the one I have from last night is a 1 AM wonder, a mess with spelling errors and is 2600 words instead of 2400.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 23, 2014, 04:14:59 PM
Very nice, Yankee. I'm especially encouraged that your revisions still result in nearly a two-thirds reduction in word count.

We'll have to hash out some of these differences once the rules resolution reaches the floor, but I think we'll be able to agree on resolutions to all but a few points of difference without controversy.

The vast bulk is aged junk and even where we previously condensed, I found ways to reduce further. So while it is 11% larger that yours, I feel mine saves some arms and legs that yours removed like the clogging rule, checks on expulsion and the inability to exempt from things like expulsion.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: windjammer on August 23, 2014, 04:18:37 PM
I don't understand the logic.

If I understand correctly, I was accused of "executive overreach".
And now, the only prerogatives you want to give to the VP is basically the Confirmation hearing?

Do you realize that the Confirmation hearings are basically made after the President's actions? That wouldn't be an executive overreach if his own VP would administer the thread for the confirmation of his administration???

Hold up, Nix's limits you to Confirmation Hearings. Mine basically gives the VP what Cincy was doing. I am sorry if that is confused. I don't have the latest version of the text, if I did it would ve clearer and the one I have from last night is a 1 AM wonder, a mess with spelling errors and is 2600 words instead of 2400.

You don't understand my point Yankee.

Both you and Averroes are going to limit the VP's actions to things where the President has the most influence: the  Confirmation hearing.
You want to avoid executive overreach, and the prerogative you're giving to the VP are the Confirmation hearings: nomination made by the President.



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 23, 2014, 04:21:02 PM
I don't understand the logic.

If I understand correctly, I was accused of "executive overreach".
And now, the only prerogatives you want to give to the VP is basically the Confirmation hearing?

Do you realize that the Confirmation hearings are basically made after the President's actions? That wouldn't be an executive overreach if his own VP would administer the thread for the confirmation of his administration???

Hold up, Nix's limits you to Confirmation Hearings. Mine basically gives the VP what Cincy was doing. I am sorry if that is confused. I don't have the latest version of the text, if I did it would ve clearer and the one I have from last night is a 1 AM wonder, a mess with spelling errors and is 2600 words instead of 2400.

You don't understand my point Yankee.

Both you and Averroes are going to limit the VP's actions to things where the President has the most influence: the  Confirmation hearing.
You want to avoid executive overreach, and the prerogative you're giving to the VP are the Confirmation hearings: nomination made by the President.



The concern for overreach is primarily the executive intruding into the legislation affairs. Executive appoints are just that, and merely require the advise and consent of the Senate.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: windjammer on August 23, 2014, 04:25:11 PM
I don't understand the logic.

If I understand correctly, I was accused of "executive overreach".
And now, the only prerogatives you want to give to the VP is basically the Confirmation hearing?

Do you realize that the Confirmation hearings are basically made after the President's actions? That wouldn't be an executive overreach if his own VP would administer the thread for the confirmation of his administration???

Hold up, Nix's limits you to Confirmation Hearings. Mine basically gives the VP what Cincy was doing. I am sorry if that is confused. I don't have the latest version of the text, if I did it would ve clearer and the one I have from last night is a 1 AM wonder, a mess with spelling errors and is 2600 words instead of 2400.

You don't understand my point Yankee.

Both you and Averroes are going to limit the VP's actions to things where the President has the most influence: the  Confirmation hearing.
You want to avoid executive overreach, and the prerogative you're giving to the VP are the Confirmation hearings: nomination made by the President.



The concern for overreach is primarily the executive intruding into the legislation affairs. Executive appoints are just that, and merely require the advise and consent of the Senate.

Intruding into the legislation affairs? The VP didn't have any power for the vote except the tie breaking vote. Legislative affairs merely require the advise and consent of the Senate too.

I'm not VP anymore, but when I was VP, I absolutely wanted to avoid any conflict with the fact that I was the second of the President, that's why I didn't want to administer the Presidential slots.

Why not replacing the confirmation hearings by the constitutional amendments ??

Ii'm not saying that for bothering you, and really.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: windjammer on August 23, 2014, 04:31:32 PM
And in addition,
for the constitutionnal amendments, considering the VP can't break the ties, he would do that really fairly.

To be honest, when I became VP, I really hesitated with this incarnation:
-doing the constitutional amendments stuff because I couldn't break the tie.
-and for the bills, letting the PPT do all the stuff, and me basically behaving as the 11th senator.


It seems I should have behaved like that haha.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 23, 2014, 04:43:03 PM
The thing is what people complained about though was ironically what elected to do as opposed to what you elected not to do precisely for the concerns. You were a rather careful VP and thus the outcry even baffles me and maybe it has just been building for a while and seeing the VP run 15 slots was the straw that broke the camels back.

Either way I think we are better off with an active VP and more active then the one envision by next. After all it was his slave err VP that helped secure the notion of active VP as opposed to letting it die with Duke leaving office as just a scheme of the Carolinians. :P

By way of having the VP as the presiding officer and superior to the PPT and able to perform all his duties meant the VP could can legislation for instance and that would be an example of interferring with the legislative process. Administering a slot is relatively safe and save for an amendment o legislation, nothing can really be done that poses a risk.

Anyway I got the rules alternative finally. Took a good cross country run to obtain it though. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 23, 2014, 04:43:35 PM
Quote from: Part I
Every resolution included in "Current Senate Rules, Regulations, and Procedures" is repealed, and the following rules are adapted in their place:

Article I: Purpose and Definitions

1. The purpose of these rules is to provide efficient and fair guidelines for the careful deliberation of legislation and the execution of other responsibilities as set forth in the Atlasian constitution, as well as to define the responsibilities of the Senate's officers.

2. Definitions:
         Legislation - any bill, Constitutional Amendment, or resolution
         Act - A bill that has been passed into law
         Amendment - A vehicle for the alteration of legislation presently on the floor
         President of the Senate (VP) - The Vice President and de-jure presiding officer
        President Pro-Tempore (PPT) - The de-facto presiding officer of the Senate
         Dean of the Senate - Longest continuously serving Member who is not serving as PPT   
        Senate Floor - All slots, confirmation hearings, officer elections and any other thread with Senate business conducted in it.
Noticeboard – A public display of all current action in the Senate maintained by the presiding       officer, including a queue of introduced legislation and numbered list of amendments.

Article II: Officers of the Senate

1. The President of the Senate (VP) shall be responsible for ensuring the fair application of these rules for the Senate and shall work to maintain its speed, efficiency and civility of decorum. The VP shall at no point exercise any legislative power, including the crafting of or voting (save for ties) on legislation. The VP may serve as presiding officer over portions of the Senate, in the following defined circumstances in accordance with the rules:

       i. vacancy of the PPTship
       ii. by request of the PPT during a leave of absence
       iii. a limited number of slots not exceeding 40% of the total number in agreement with the PPT.
       iv. at the beginning of the Senate term

2. The President Pro-Tempore (PPT) shall be the primary presiding officer of the Senate and shall be fully bound by the terms of these rules. The PPT shall be elected from amongst the Senators in a vote presided over by the VP. 48 hours shall be given for Senators to declare their candidacies for the post in a dedicated thread. With the 48 hours expired, the President of the Senate shall commence a 120 hour IRV vote, whereby a majority vote shall select the PPT from amongst the declared candidates.

3. If the PPT shall be absent for a period exceeding two days, the Dean shall temporarily exercise his powers and prerogatives until his return. If Dean is also absent, then next longest serving Senator will be so empowered until the PPT's or Dean's return or upon the vacancy of the PPTship. The Dean of the Senate may also preside on a limited basis by public request of either the VP or PPT.

Article III: Legislation

Section 1: Introducing Legislation

1. Any sitting Senator may introduce legislation in the designated thread created by the PPT in the first seven days after his assuming the post. Posting in this thread will be limited only to Senators and a thread for non-Senators to post in response to recently introduced legislation shall be also created.

2. All legislation must be clear in its intent and desired changes with regards to past law. Legislation lacking in clarity will be subject to being removed from the queue by the PPT as per the terms of Article III, Section I, Clause 3, and all portions of previous Acts to be amended that are not specifically noted, will be left unchanged.

3. All legislation that is functionally impractical, frivolous, or is directly unconstitutional may be removed from the queue by the PPT. The sponsor shall have 72 hours to object, in which case the concurrence of 1/3 of the Senators shall overturn the PPT's actions.

4. If a Senator has five or more bills in succession and has been absent for 120 hours, without a Leave of Absence, then any Senator may motion for the withdrawal of that Senator's bills and with the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate, the PPT shall thus remove them from the queue. If a Senator vacates his office, all his bills not yet on the floor will be removed unless another Senator publically assumes sponsorship.

Section 2: Introducing Legislation to the Floor

1.  Their shall be fourteen slots available for the debating of legislation:
1 - 5:    General Slots, legislation placed on the floor in order of introduction.
            6:          Extra General Slot can be used only if the queue exceeds 20. 
            7 - 8:     Forum Affairs or legislation deemed to be an emergency by the Presiding officer
            9 :          Extra Emergency slot to be used only if 7 and 8 are full
            10 - 11: Utilized at the discretion of the PPT
            12:          Reserved for Foreign/Military/International Affairs – May be used at VP’s discretion in        absence of such bills.
            13 - 14:  Executive Slots – Administered by VP for legislation introduced on behalf of the Executive Branch
       
 2. If a Senator has introduced more than three pieces of legislation in succession, then his subsequent pieces of legislation shall be passed over until one of those three is finished or no legislation by other Senators remain in the queue. Emergency legislation placed in Slots 7-9, or in 10-11 should the former be filled already, shall be exempt from this limitation.

 3. A slot shall become open only in the following circumstances.

i.   The executive branch being informed of bill or resolution’s passage by the presiding officer.
ii. The passage of a rules amendment
iii. Upon the region’s being informed that a Constitutional Amendment has passed the Senate
 iv. Failure of legislation in a final vote.
v.   If the legislation is tabled or withdrawn in accordance with the rules.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 23, 2014, 04:44:40 PM
Quote from: Part II
Article IV: Debating and Amending Legislation

Section 1: Floor Debate

1.  Once legislation is on the floor, debate shall begin and last for at least 72 hours, unless that minimum is waived by unanimous consent (UC). UC may be motioned for by any Senator, after which the presiding officer shall then give 24 hours for Senators to object.

2. If debate on the legislation has halted for longer than 24 hours and the 72 hour minimum has elapsed or been waived, any senator may call for a vote on said legislation, which the presiding officer may thus open.

3. After the 72 hour minimum has elapsed, continued debate shall only be ended by a cloture motion passed by 2/3rds of the Senate, the passage of which shall be followed by a final vote opened by the presiding officer.  Cloture may be waived on a piece of legislation through a UC request, in the same method as in Article 4, Section 1, Clause 1. Upon the completion of the objection period, with no objections having been filed, the presiding officer may open a final vote on the legislation.

4. If fourteen (14) days have passed since the opening of the debate on a piece of legislation, and a vote on said legislation has not begun, a cloture motion shall only require a simple majority unless two Senators have previously motioned to continue the 2/3rds requirement.

5. After a piece of legislation is brought to the Senate floor, the original sponsor (the Senator who introduced it) may motion to withdraw the legislation under consideration at any point prior to a final vote or after it has been vetoed, but not if the Senate is presently voting on any Amendments to the legislation or is presently voting on a motion for cloture.

6. Co-sponsors of legislation under consideration shall have the power to neither withdraw legislation nor contest withdrawal of legislation by the original sponsor. Any office-holding Senator may assume sponsorship of the legislation within 72 hours after the original sponsor has motioned to withdraw. Once a motion to assume sponsorship has been filed by a Senator, Senators shall have 48 hours to object to this motion. If any Senator objects, the presiding officer shall open a vote on the motion lasting 72 hours or less if a majority has voted for or against the motion. If the motion is rejected, the bill shall be removed from the floor.

7. Any Senator may file a motion to table a piece of legislation during debate. The presiding officer shall open a vote on the motion to table when at least two other Senators have seconded the motion. Voting shall take place in accordance with the same rules that apply to voting on amendments, except that a two thirds majority of sitting Senators shall be required for approval of the motion to table. Tabled legislation shall be removed from the Senate floor immediately.

Section 2: Rules on Amendment(s)

1. Any sitting Senator may offer amendments to the legislation, during the period of debate. Components of the underlying legislation not referenced in an amendment will remain unchanged. The presiding officer may remove amendments from consideration that are functionally impractical, frivolous, directly unconstitutional, or lack clear intent regarding the changes to be made. The amendment sponsor shall have 24 hours to object to the decision and may overturn the action with the concurrence of 1/3rd of his fellow Senators. The presiding officer shall number and track all amendments offered during the course of each Senate session.

2. The legislation's primary sponsor shall judge the amendment(s) as friendly or hostile to their legislation’s intent. If judged friendly by the sponsor, the presiding officer shall give twenty four hours for objections to the amendment. The amendment shall be considered passed if no one objects. 

3. If judged hostile by the sponsor, no feedback has been given, or if a Senator has objected, then a vote shall be started by the presiding officer once the amendment has been on the floor at least twenty four hours. The vote shall last for three days or until a majority has voted in favor or against the amendment, at which point Senators will be prohibited from changing their votes.

Article V: Final Votes, Redrafts and Overrides

1. Votes on legislation shall last for a maximum of 5 days (i.e. 120 hours).

2. When a piece of legislation has enough votes to pass or fail, unless the vote be unanimous in which case it may be closed immediately, the presiding officer shall announce that he or she will close the vote in 24 hours and that any Senator who wishes to change his or her vote must do so during that interval.

3. If a piece of legislation is vetoed by the president, the bill's sponsor may request an override of the veto within 3 days, i.e. 72 hours, of the veto taking place. The presiding officer may extend this period if the bill's sponsor has posted a leave of absence. For the purposes of overriding vetoes, any Senator who abstains from voting shall be counted as a vote against overriding the veto.

4. If the President submits a redraft in accordance with the Constitution, the rules for such shall be as established in the Constitution with the exception that 24 hours of debate shall occur prior to the vote on the redraft.

5. Veto Overrides and Redraft proceedings shall not be conducted in a slot and thus not subjected to any limits on the amount of legislation on the floor.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 23, 2014, 04:45:22 PM
Quote from: Part III
Article VI: Presidential Nominees

1. The VP shall open a confirmation hearing for presidential nominees immediately following the president's announcement of the nomination.

2. Each hearing shall last for 3 days (i.e. 72 hours). The hearing may be abbreviated according to the unanimous consent rules outlined in Article IV: Rules on Senate Debate. Voting shall take place in the same fashion as votes on legislation would otherwise, according to the rules outlined in Article V.

Article VII: Senate Committees

1. The Senate may convene standing and special Senate Committees as well as to facilitate discussion. No sitting Senator may be excluded from a Senate Committee. The rules for committees shall be defined in the resolution establishing the committee.

Article VIII: Expulsion

1. A Senator may motion for the expulsion of another sitting Senator by creating a thread in the Atlas Fantasy Government Board specifically motioning for expulsion of that Senator in one of the following situations:
    i. The Senator has not posted anything on the Atlas Fantasy Government board for 168 consecutive hours and who also does not have a leave of absence (LOA) covering any portion of that consecutive period. A LOA must be posted on the Atlas Fantasy Government board and contain specific dates, the hours of which will not be counted towards the 168 hours mentioned above. The LOA may not extend to the end of the term or last more than 368 hours; the posting of such shall be grounds for potential expulsion.
    ii. The Senate has demonstrative proof that the aforementioned Senator no longer desires to perform the duties vested in him or her by the Atlasian people and the Constitution by which he and his constituents abide.

2. If the motion is seconded by another Senator, the PPT shall commence debate and hear the reasons for the expulsion motion and let the Senator being expelled respond and defend himself. Debate on the expulsion of the Senator shall last for no less than 72 hours. Once 72 hours has expired, a Senator may motion for an extension of 48 hours.

3. After all time has expired; the PPT shall close the debate and open a vote on the expulsion of the senator. The vote shall require, in accordance with Article 1 Section 3 Clause 1 of the Constitution, two thirds of the Senate to vote in the affirmative to expel the Senator. This 72 hour vote may be ended early if enough Senators have voted for it to pass or fail.

4. Following the expulsion of a Senator, the PPT shall inform the Secretary of Federal Elections of the occurrence of a vacancy in the expelled Senator’s seat. The election, appointment, or any other form of selection of someone as Senator whilst still within a term from which that same someone has previously been expelled from the Senate shall not be recognized by the Senate.

Article IX: Overriding the Rules and Disputes

1. The Senate may elect to suspend any section of these rules at any time with the consent of two-thirds of sitting Senators, save for terms of Article III and Article IX

2.  The PPT may unilaterally suspend any section of these rules at any time, with unanimous consent with the exception of Article III, Article IV where not stated in said Article, and Article VIII

3. If the Senate cannot resolve a rules dispute, the Supreme Court may intervene and issue a binding decision dictating the proper interpretation save only where a violation of the Constitution is present.

4. For all Senators, the votes of successors shall displace that of their predecessors in the chamber should a vote overlap with a change in Senate.



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 23, 2014, 04:46:24 PM
I composed it in word but my neighbor's computer doesn't have word so I had to paste it in to notepad so I am fortunate the spacing isn't worse in spots. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: windjammer on August 23, 2014, 04:50:22 PM
The thing is what people complained about though was ironically what elected to do as opposed to what you elected not to do precisely for the concerns. You were a rather careful VP and thus the outcry even baffles me and maybe it has just been building for a while and seeing the VP run 15 slots was the straw that broke the camels back.

Either way I think we are better off with an active VP and more active then the one envision by next. After all it was his slave err VP that helped secure the notion of active VP as opposed to letting it die with Duke leaving office as just a scheme of the Carolinians. :P

By way of having the VP as the presiding officer and superior to the PPT and able to perform all his duties meant the VP could can legislation for instance and that would be an example of interferring with the legislative process. Administering a slot is relatively safe and save for an amendment o legislation, nothing can really be done that poses a risk.

Anyway I got the rules alternative finally. Took a good cross country run to obtain it though. :P

Yankee, I think you have again missed my point :P.

I want an active VP too. I think I was an "active" VP, and that I really tried to be the fairest possible. But, if you're going to change his role, I obviously disagree, but, at least, do not give the VP basically the most "executive-oriented" slots. That would be, again, criticized in the future.

I have really loved my job, that's the best experience I have ever had during my atlasian time (except my fall :P).

I want an active VP too. You don't think that if the PPT does all the bills/confirmation stuffs, and the VP the constitutionnal amendment stuff, that would be great?
The VP would have many responsibilities (we have often constitutionnal amendments), and he coudln't be criticized for any reason because he couldn't use his tie breaking vote for that.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 24, 2014, 04:05:54 PM
You would have to create slots just for amendments and that would add to complexity, not lessen it.

I don't recall anyone criticizing the executive slots. Consider that a while ago MaroDuke was trying to make the VP an actual Senator because omg, President has to have a Senator introduce stuff and it is not like you need six of them to pass it oh wait you do... :P

Managing slots is rather tame. Most of the complaints I saw dealt with the scale, but remember because of my problems, reading any such situation might be incorrect. I am still blaming myself and my inability to get on for leading to your resignation to being with. :(

Lol this computer autocorrected Nix's name to next in the post you quoted.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 25, 2014, 05:02:12 PM
I just remembered something that both mine and Nix forgot to include. Senate Succession of seats and votes. Failure to do vote displacement would violate the constitutional allotment of seats. Imagine if the votes were counted from ME Senator, his successor takes officer and his vote is likewise counted. You have 11 votes.

As for at-large seats it is governed by one of the Proportional Represenation Acts.

1: shua-spiral-Deus
2. Lumine
3. Alfred-Polnut
4. Goldwater-JCL
5. Dr. Cynic



Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on September 06, 2014, 11:27:47 AM
Good question. Yesterday I noticed there was no swearing in for senate yet. The election was almost two weeks ago. I figured maybe it's two full weeks after the election has ended. I haven't gone to check what the rules say to know the exact dates, I just go by memory of a delay of about two weeks.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on September 06, 2014, 11:38:21 AM
September 5th looks like a first Friday after the election!

This would be the exact text:

Quote
Those elected in ordinary elections to the Senate shall take office at noon Eastern Standard Time on the first Friday in the month after their election. Those elected in special elections to the Senate shall take office as soon as the result of their election has been formally declared.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lumine on September 06, 2014, 01:03:19 PM
Indeed, I knew I was supposed to swear-in earlier in the week, but I got a bit distracted... I've also sent a message to the rest of the At-Large Senators so we can swear-in as soon as possible.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 06, 2014, 06:24:43 PM
Wasn't yesterday inauguration day for the new Senate?

Yep. Normally I post a warning that such is coming but what little time I had on Thursday, was expended playing catch up after being unable to get on at all for a week.

Indeed, I knew I was supposed to swear-in earlier in the week, but I got a bit distracted... I've also sent a message to the rest of the At-Large Senators so we can swear-in as soon as possible.

Nah you were supposed to swear in yesterday at noon. :P


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Maxwell on September 06, 2014, 09:06:29 PM
The War Powers amendment has FAILED in the IDS.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 11, 2014, 07:15:40 PM
()

PAID FOR BY CITIZENS FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bore on January 03, 2015, 12:16:05 PM
Just to inform everyone senate control now passes to Yankee in his capacity as most senior senator until the election of the next speaker


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on January 28, 2015, 10:21:37 PM
It is shocking to see the Senate could suspend the rules to retroactively consider an amendment successfully passing when at the time it was closed there were not enough votes to pass it.

I am doing this on the advice of the supreme court to avoid a legal debate over whether a 2/3rds majority of voting senators or a 2/3rds majority of all sitting senators  is needed to pass an amendment.

I hope the Supreme Court didn't explicitly told you to suspend the rules and count one more vote after the fact. 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SWE on January 28, 2015, 10:27:13 PM
Nobody cares poirot


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on January 28, 2015, 10:34:32 PM

It's sad that s small group of people can run things as they please.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: bore on January 29, 2015, 08:30:11 AM
quote author=oakvale link=topic=205886.msg4467906#msg4467906 date=1422478263]
Official Atlasia Supreme Court Release
Nyman, DC

Notice of Dismissal

After consideration of the petitioner's arguments, the Supreme Court of Atlasia has declined to grant certiorari to hear the question of whether the passage of a constitutional amendment with six votes in favour was in violation of the Constitution of Atlasia.

We see no reason that this matter cannot be addressed internally, as outlined by the Speaker, and the Court would prefer that questions of Senate procedure be handled internally unless there is a clear and compelling wider public interest and a clear conflict relating to the constitutional particulars. In this instance, we see no compelling reason for the Court to intervene as opposed to a resolution to the issue enacted under the auspices of the office of Speaker.

The case is dismissed.
[/quote]


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on January 29, 2015, 11:50:44 PM
I don't know why they don't want to come out and explain 6 is not 7. Since they don't want to settle the issue and throw back the ball to the Senate, maybe they expect the amendment be declared void because there was a problem in the voting process.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on February 06, 2015, 12:51:55 PM
The President using the state of emergency reason to propose the electoral reform amendment is a bit of a stretch in my opinion in the definition of state of emergency. I view a legislative emergency as a quick need to repair an important loophole in a law, or pass a law to solve something that is stopping the game from moving. Election reform is not a "state of emergency". It looks more like state of emergency means whatever the President wants. 


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Lumine on February 06, 2015, 01:02:42 PM
Well, for me said reform is urgent.

The fact remains that most people seem dissafected with the current system for At-Large Senate races and would like some actions on that front, the commission has worked hard and they have crafted a proposal, and since I had the chance of sending said proposal to the floor right away instead of waiting for a long time I certainly wasn't going to delay it.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SWE on February 06, 2015, 04:53:14 PM


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on February 06, 2015, 07:08:25 PM
Things are so testy around here these days!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on February 08, 2015, 11:46:28 AM
The Civil rights acts of 2014 under consideration in the Senate has a provision on jury selection. I'll quote the redraft version proposal:

Quote
Juries shall be selected throughout the Republic of Atlasia based on the principle of equal representation for all racial minorities reasonably proportionate to their numbers (as a percentage of the local population). Regional governments are encouraged to enact guidelines providing for proportionate jury selection

Perhaps this is jury composition in theory but will this really change the way jury is selected in the game? Jurors are selected at random at the moment. Will the Civil rights act change that and will the census need to be expanded to gather data on gender and ethnicity.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Türkisblau on February 08, 2015, 11:51:30 AM
The Civil rights acts of 2014 under consideration in the Senate has a provision on jury selection. I'll quote the redraft version proposal:

Quote
Juries shall be selected throughout the Republic of Atlasia based on the principle of equal representation for all racial minorities reasonably proportionate to their numbers (as a percentage of the local population). Regional governments are encouraged to enact guidelines providing for proportionate jury selection

Perhaps this is jury composition in theory but will this really change the way jury is selected in the game? Jurors are selected at random at the moment. Will the Civil rights act change that and will the census need to be expanded to gather data on gender and ethnicity.


This is an interesting point.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on February 08, 2015, 12:13:23 PM
The Jury Reform Act states

2. Jury selection shall be random

so if this Act is the most recent on this topic and still in place, some modification could be needed.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Jury_Reform_Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Jury_Reform_Act)


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: SWE on February 08, 2015, 12:30:18 PM
Will this mean Simfan has to serve on every jury now?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on February 08, 2015, 04:04:27 PM
Are we allowed to discuss bills currently up for debate here?


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Poirot on February 08, 2015, 04:25:21 PM
Are we allowed to discuss bills currently up for debate here?

Yes, here everybody can discuss Senate issues freely. It is usually accepted for a citizen to post in a senate bill if you have a concern but I'm not a Senate official. If you want to make sure Senators read your post, maybe directly in the Senate bill is better.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on February 08, 2015, 04:26:32 PM
Are we allowed to discuss bills currently up for debate here?

Yes, here everybody can discuss Senate issues freely. It is usually accepted for a citizen to post in a senate bill if you have a concern but I'm not a Senate official.

Awesome.  Thanks!


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on February 08, 2015, 04:48:29 PM
As a concerned citizen of Atlasia, I would like to take my opportunity to express my concern for the current budget figures being debated in the Senate.

My greatest concerns are the low spending we have with regards to the Atlasian Navy and space.

Naval supremacy is the backbone of our armed forces; as stated by Admiral Trost, "When a crisis confronts the nation, the first question asked by policy makers is: 'What naval forces are available and how fast can they be on station?'"

With the end of the Cold War, we have seen a reasonable decline in our navy, from a peak of nearly 600 ships.  Yet the decline has continued at a concerning pace, where our naval forces have dwindled to less than half that number.  The Nimitz was retired prior to its replacement, the Gerald R. Ford, being rendered combat-ready.  This concerns me a great deal, as the forces of terror and jihad rage across the globe, particularly with the rise of the ISIS threat.  Yet we must not neglect other groups which are hostile to the forces of freedom, all of which pose a threat to national security and our allies around the world.  Our navy is the backbone of our global military supremacy, and is vital in our struggle to root out the forces of evil, and allows us to do so without regard to if they operate within our own borders or on the other side of the world.

Moreover, our space program has been vital in the development all sorts of technology, with military and civilian applications.  Spin-off technologies from the space program has given us commonplace items such as artificial hearts, automatic insulin pumps, breast cancer screenings, emissions testing, x-rays, microlasers, protective clothing, cybernetic arms and hands, ultrasounds, satellite television, and more.  They also inspired a generation of innovators such as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.

The economic implications of ignoring space are not yet known, but it would be a tragedy if we wait around to find out.  I would implore our senators to consider increased funding of space from $15 billion, less than .5% of our proposed budget, to $30 billion.  Such an increase would represent less than 1% of each federal dollar spent in the budget.  Surely we can afford this investment, which would allow us to more quickly return to the moon, construct a lunar base, and use said base as a launchpad for a human mission to Mars.  It would allow for human adventure and exploration, and untold economic implications from spin-offs, space tourism, and more.  Space has represented the greatest return on investment for any federal program thus far.  Let's get back on the path of exploration and innovation.  Let's start this year.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Maxwell on February 09, 2015, 12:05:46 AM
I'd like to remind you that the Atlasian space program was actually INCREASED from $9 Billion to $15 Billion thanks to a bill I wrote.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Prince of Salem on February 09, 2015, 02:37:27 PM
I'd like to discuss the Wrong Choice Amendment here.

I think that by this moment, the Senate is ready to reject it. I also think that 2 hours is too much time for a change in the ballot. But what about 90 minutes? Or 1 hour? I think 1 hour would ultimately be a good compromise, just to adjust a few mistakes made.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: windjammer on February 09, 2015, 04:28:33 PM
I'd like to discuss the Wrong Choice Amendment here.

I think that by this moment, the Senate is ready to reject it. I also think that 2 hours is too much time for a change in the ballot. But what about 90 minutes? Or 1 hour? I think 1 hour would ultimately be a good compromise, just to adjust a few mistakes made.
Well, the problem is that I don't see a single reason to change this system.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Prince of Salem on February 09, 2015, 04:38:38 PM
I'd like to discuss the Wrong Choice Amendment here.

I think that by this moment, the Senate is ready to reject it. I also think that 2 hours is too much time for a change in the ballot. But what about 90 minutes? Or 1 hour? I think 1 hour would ultimately be a good compromise, just to adjust a few mistakes made.
Well, the problem is that I don't see a single reason to change this system.

The system wouldn't change, only the timing. Just a little "opportunity", that's it, benefiting beginners overall.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 10, 2015, 05:42:49 PM
I'd like to discuss the Wrong Choice Amendment here.

I think that by this moment, the Senate is ready to reject it. I also think that 2 hours is too much time for a change in the ballot. But what about 90 minutes? Or 1 hour? I think 1 hour would ultimately be a good compromise, just to adjust a few mistakes made.
Well, the problem is that I don't see a single reason to change this system.

The system wouldn't change, only the timing. Just a little "opportunity", that's it, benefiting beginners overall.

20 mins has never struck me as unreasonable.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Prince of Salem on February 20, 2015, 01:43:03 AM
I propose we declare February 19th "Aaron Green's Day". It should be a holiday for all of Atlasia to remind us the importance of our right to vote and our right to be someone for this country.


Title: Re: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
Post by: Jerseyrules on February 20, 2015, 07:11:55 PM
I'd like to remind you that the Atlasian space program was actually INCREASED from $9 Billion to $15 Billion thanks to a bill I wrote.

Yes, but that is not sufficient for a manned mission to Mars nor a lunar base in the near future.