Talk Elections

I tend to agree people's lives are indeed within the scope of Business to provide for. Businesses exist to provide the goods and services we need or want. Whenever a business does not provide the product people want or at to high a price people reserve the right to not purchase it from them. In a perfect Free Market other businesses who offer the same product then in theory would work to satiate those demands as long as they are reasonable. The more reasonable the demands, the more people boycotting and going over to competitors, the less customers the "bad" company will have and thus in the desire to make a profit they will also move to satisify those demands as well to save there customer base. There are problems within this system and thats why regulations and consumer protections exist. However the diverging point between Liberalism and Socialism is when people desire to work outside of this system in a certain sector, why Liberals or rather true liberals would in theory prefer to make the current system work better. It is then socialism to seek to completely take over Health care as some Senators have suggested needs to be cause they don't beleive it should be a "Business in the first place".

Don't be confused though. This bill currently falls well within the confines of reform and as such it is not socialist, unlike the bill that was orginally introduced. I do think the market manipulation is a little overdone by the provisions here, but it doesn't fundamentally conflict with my personal views in regards to the gov't role in the economy like it did before. It does however still grate on me in terms of how much that should be. I guess I could say I am really undecided how to vote on this bill. When I first approached this debate, my primarly goal was to make the Private market work as much as possible and only having the Gov't intervene to the extent necessary to make that happen and solve a few problems such as the fate of the Uninsured. Coming in third was not extending the Gov't beyond what I though necessary to achieve this goal.

I would have thought that with the Auto industry collapsing, Manufacturing continuing its decline, and several other economic concerns of the Mideast that a candidate for Senate would choose to focus on the real needs of the Mideast

elitist

This kind of behavior is representive of Atlasia's past where Liberals

What the hell language is that, anyway? :P

Financial Regulatory Reform Act of 2009.

Section 1. Section 3 of the Financial Services Regulation Act, also known as the Bank Conservation Act, is amended as follows.

a.  As used in this title, the term bank means (1) any national banking association, and (2) any bank or trust company located in the District of Columbia and operating under the supervision of the Comptroller of the Currency; and the term State means any State, Territory, or possession of Atlasia.

b. Whenever the SoIA is made aware(by the Game Moderator) of the imminent collapse of a large non traditional financial institution such as a bank or a Hedge Fund whose collapse creates significant "Systemic" risk, the SoIA shall place the institution under a Conservatorship prior to the organizations defualting and appoint a conservator to the institution(non-playable actions and events surronding him shall be reported by the Game Moderator).

C. The conservator shall be invested with the power to seize all the books, records and finacnial statements of the institution and share them with the President, SoIA and Senate.

D. The Conservator shall be invested with the power to respond to the situation with one of three options including exchanging shares in the company for debt, organising a merger with another company, or liquidation of the institution in a manner that doesn't place the market in systemic risk.

E. If none of these options shall be possible to remedy the situation, he is then to report his findings and recommendations as to what action should be taken to remedy the situation, to the President, the SoIA and the Senate.

F. Failure to comply with the directives of the Conservator shall be considered a misdemenor, offenders of which could be sentenced with up to a $50,000 fine.



Section 2 Section 4 of the Financial Services Regulation Act, also known as the Bank Conservation Act, is amended as follows.

a. If both the President and SoIA become satisfied that it may safely be done and that it would be in the public interest, the SoIA may, terminate the conservatorship and permit such bank to resume the transaction of its business subject to such terms, conditions, restrictions and limitations as he may prescribe.

b. In any reorganization of any national banking association under a plan of a kind which, under existing law, requires the consent, as the case may be, (a) of depositors and other creditors or (b) of stockholders or (c) of both depositors and other creditors and stockholders, such reorganization shall become effective only (1) when the President shall be satisfied that the plan of reorganization is fair and equitable as to all depositors, other creditors and stockholders and is in the public interest and shall have approved the plan subject to such conditions, restrictions and limitations as he may prescribe.

Statement on election to the PPT -

I would like to thank the Senate for entrusting its operations to me and having faith in my ability to run the place efficiently and without political bias. I would like to thank Fritz for switching his vote to me and say that I am extremely grateful to him despite my initial misgivings with the circumstances in which it had occured.

-Sen. North Carolina Yankee
Dirty South Regional Senator

Up-Coming Announcement -

The Senator would like me to announce that he is planning to make a speech on December 31th, 2009 in Charleston, SC. Though not specifically mentioned, there is a chance he might address whether he is running for reelection or not in the speech. The speech is expected to be delivered at the Chamber of Commerce and focus on the economy, deficits, the financial system, and trade. Expected to be in attendence are former Governor and Senator elect AHDuke99, Former Senator and Presidential candidate PiT, Governor Brandonh and Lt. Governor JBrase. 


- The Senator's Chief of Staff

Amendment to the OSPR to Establish Procedures for the Expulsion of Senators

Article 12: Expulsion Procedures

1. A Senator may motion for the expulsion of a sitting Senator at any time by creating a thread, and then motioning by name for the Senator be expelled.

2. If the motion is seconded by another Senator, the PPT shall start another thread to 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 (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_I_of_the_Third_Constitution), two thirds of the Senate to vote in the affirmative to expel the Senator. The vote shall last for 120 hours or until enough Senators have voted in the affirmative (7) or negative (4).

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.

.....over the last two weeks many areas of the Imperial Dominion have been ravaged by storms and Tornadoes and ravaged many communities. I have personally seen quite a lot of the destruction in NC, GA and TN. Such a historic storm, requires a historic level of commitment to both the response and the reconstruction efforts. I have communicated with both His Imperial Highness, the Emperor and our people have coordinated efforts to respond to the storms. I have also been in touch the President and his people on efforts on going and soon to be deployed to help with the response....

.....Storms like these are a reminder that no matter where on lives, they are vulnerable to nature's furry, and when such a storm occurs, it is essential that we not forget to help our neighbors in need. There are instances where people came together to help each other clear the roads of branches and other debris. In these cases we most certainly don't encourage people to mess with down power lines or to hurt themselves, but at the same time we must applaud those who are sacrificing their time to help the neighbors, from the lending of tools, to volunteering their time at local shelters and charitable organizations. Those hit hardest by these storms are often those who are least able to respond and rebuild. These people especially need the help and support they deserve to back on their feet. Of course storms don't discriminate in who they kill, hurt, or whose property is damaged. As such we must rise together as one to meet the challanges that have been foisted uppon us and rebuild for a better tormorrow....

We are for the most part at the whims of the GM/SoIA as to what has happened. They can modify a RL story. If they didn't include Texas, then that is the likely reason for the it not being mentioned by the officials you named. However if the SoIA or GM were to do a story about Texas being affected by the storms or the fires etc, then I would be sure to ensure that they got whatever help they needed from the President, Emperor or any other responsible person or body.

Press Release -

The Senator wishes to express his concern for those who have faced and those who are still to face the brutal storm, Hurricane Irene. The impact of the storm on Puerto Rico has been significant and the Senator plans to travel there, early next week, to tour the damage and offer what assistance he can. As for right now, the Senator is primarily concerned with encouraging those who still have yet to make preparations and to evacuate areas at most risk, to take the necessary precautions to ensure their safety. And for those still close to the shore and on the beach the Senator had these words to say, "GOD DAMNIT, GET THE HELL OUT NOW!!!".


-A previously unseen staffer at Yankee's office, who will probably never be seen there again for releasing this 10 hours late.

Press Release -

The Senator would explain to express his strongest of support to the White House staff as they scramble to deal with the breech of security that occured this afternoon. The Senator also wishes the utmost safety and security for the President of the United States and the fervent desire that the perpetrators be hunted out of whatever New Jersey rat hole they may currently be hiding in and "dealt with". 

The Senator wants to convey this his staff have been fitted with the proper protective gear so that as our motto states, "constituent services will not be interrupted". Especially not by these vermin and their heinous acts.

The Attorney General of Atlasia, Afleitch, has recently announced his resignation from his post following criticisms of his performance regarding the wiki and the updating thereof. While I shared these concerns, my hope was that Afleitch would be able to get the situation under control and not have to resign. I beleive he is a capable individual and it is a shame to see him leave office under such unfortunate circumstances. It is my hope that a competent successor who is both qualified in matters of law and in regards to updating the wiki be appointed so that the confirmation process can commence at the earliest possible time.

I gave my enemies a sword and they twisted it in me

Press Release -


The President has decided to go ahead and label the situation in Egypt as a coup and thus has halted all our aid to that country. Generally, it is my preference to avoid getting entangled in these situations to begin with and it would be a positive development to find ourselves no longer tied in such a fashion to an unstable country. However, what we want the situation to be is one thing, getting there is another. It is my concern that this precipitous action on the part of the new administration risks further destabilizing what could already be a Civil War. It also removes our ability to leverage a desired result, now that we lack this important aspect of our relationship with that country and in the process have also removed a link that tends to motivate various leaders in Egypt to moderate and appease our nation so as to avoid it being pulled. Removing it in this fashion thus risks encouraging radicalism and extremism on the part of these people in question, including removing a restraining effect that worked to prevent violations of civil rights and even war crimes. In my opinion, a better approach would have been to tie the continuance of the aid to a series of demands that need to be met such as the holding of elections and restoring of complete civilian authority, as opposed to the sudden cancellation and the attached risks that the administration has elected to embrace. No one wants to encourage such actions as those that have happened in Egypt in the future obviously, but we must be mindful that there are unique factors present with this situation in question and therefore it is my opinion that a more delicate response and approach should have been adopted.

F.L. 46-7: Regional Legislative Petitions Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Regional_Legislative_Petitions_Act)
Citizens of individual regions may open formal legislative petition threads directed to their Regional Senator.
When 25% of the registered voters of a region add their signature to a proposed federal bill, the Senator of that region shall introduce it to the Senate's legislative que.
The Senator of the region must introduce the petitioned bill to the legislative que within seven (7) days of the quota being fulfilled.
The petitioned legislation shall include "Citizens of the (Region in question)" as an informal co-sponsor when introduced.

Press Release -

Gentleman, our long national nightmare will soon be over, as the Mental Healthcare Reform package will soon be at a final vote.

Acknowledging this major legislative feat, we must also note the unfortunate likely demise of the Education Reform proposal. With any of these items, it is necessary to have the committeed leadership of someone who has a vision or an ultimate set of objectives to be attained. When I started the Mental Health bill, I started with a blank bill and a list of objectives to be attained. The key was to just translate the desired aims into a coherent and functioning piece of legislation that addresses our critical deficiencies but doesn't break the bank. It would have been easier and quicker with more engagement on the issue, and there seems to be a general reluctance to engage even on the most narrowly focused of sub issues. I think there is a growing unwillingness to pay attention, more or less contribute, and that discourages our ability to produce quality reforms.

The Education bill started as the exact opposite, it began a completed text and soon got lost in the weeds debating sub issues and quickly lost focus, thus contributing to its likely demise. I think the lesson though is you cannot have a comprehensive bill, without a comprehensive vision or set of objectives which everyone can agree to and understand "this is what we are seeking to end with" so to speak.

I think the lesson of both is also that there is nothing wrong with a piecemeal approach, along as they fit together well and seek to accomplish a coherent set of objectives once again. Late last year and early this year, we made great strides on education, immigration and technology through this approach.

1. During the course of debate on legislation, any sitting Senator may offer amendments to said legislation. The presiding officer may remove amendments from consideration that are functionally impractical, frivolous, directly unconstitutional, or lack clear intent regarding desired changes. 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. Unless stated otherwise, components of the underlying legislation not referenced will remain unchanged.

2. The legislation's sponsor shall judge the amendment(s) regarding their impact on the intent of the the legislation. If friendly, the presiding officer shall give twenty four hours for objections, after which the amendment shall be considered as passed if no Senator objects.

3. If judged hostile, or a Senator has objected, a vote shall be held as long as the amendment has been on the floor for at least twenty four hours. The vote shall last for five days or until a majority has voted in favor or against the amendment.

Press Release

I would like to congratulate Senators Napoleon and Gass, Governor Maxwell, Fmr. President Tmthforu94 and Pacific Councilor Xahar on their election victories and I look forward to working with them on matters of pressing concerns to Atlasia such as the economy, renewing our efforts on mental health, and bringing reasonable reforms that improve the game. I encourage them to begin participating in the present Senate debates immediately, as opposed to waiting until next week, as a means for them to hit the ground running and to hopefully infuse some life into some rather boring threesomes between myself, The President and the SoIA.

Short Statements on Matters of Importance:


- The last two weeks have been a living hell of epic proportions, thanks to disruptions in my family. I did not ask for this situation nor did I intend for it to occur, but such has been the unfortunate result. I have sought to exert my best efforts to prevent this circumstance from interrupting my internet access and my ability to get on the site frequently, primarily because it has been one of the few opportunities to wind down from the stress. That said after two and a half months of missing not a day on here, it has been difficult to get on more then every other day since this started.

- The plans I made at the beginning of the Senate are still in place, especially with regards to finishing the Summary Guidebook of Procedures and composing an omnibus OSPR amendment to condense and simplify certain basic functions (part of which has been posted in this thread). However, the time table doing so has been pushed back.

- There has been a lot of discussion regarding interactions between officials, including requests by some of the regions desiring a more formal arrangement. On the flip side we have seen pushback against this by those who seek to avoid complex structures over the past few months. It is a difficult balancing act, but my goal is to find a way to satisfy these desires and also apply a similarly balanced approach to the method for requesting information from the Game Moderation Team.

- Apparently, there have been some lapses in the IDS as of late. Until recently I had made a point to always catchup on the IDS legislature every two or three weeks, but recently the time just hasn't been there. About a month or so ago I began a process to try and re-energize some flailing members and generate enthusiasm amongst newer members through my Constituent Services aparatus. Unfortunately the number of posters in either category was tiny, generating interest wasn't as easy as I figured and then of course sh**t got real two weeks ago (see above).

Resolution Title: Amendment Simplification OSPR Amendment

Article 4, Sections 2-4 of the OSPR are hereby repealed with the text below to be inserted as the new Article 4, Section 2.

1. During the course of debate on legislation, any sitting Senator may offer amendments to said legislation. 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. Unless stated otherwise, components of the underlying legislation not referenced in an amendment will remain unchanged.

2. The legislation's primary sponsor shall judge the amendment(s) regarding their impact. If friendly to the intent of the legislation as desired by the sponsor, the presiding officer shall give twenty four hours for objections to the amendment, in the absence of which, the amendment shall be considered as passed

3. If judged hostile to their intent behind the legislation by the sponsor, or a Senator has objected, a vote shall be held as long as the amendment has been on the floor for at least twenty four hours. The vote shall last for five days or until a majority has voted in favor or against the amendment.

Section 1: Rules on Senate Debate
1. After a piece of legislation is introduced on the Senate floor, debate shall begin immediately. Debate on the legislation shall last for no less than seventy-two (72) hours.

2. On a non-controversial bill, the Senate may waive the seventy-two hour (72) minimum debate requirement via a unanimous consent request. Upon introduction, the PPT may request unanimous consent to waive the minimum debate time requirement. Senators shall have 24 hours to object to this request, after which with no Senator having object, the Senate may proceed to a final vote on the legislation.

3. If debate on the legislation under consideration has halted for longer than twenty-four (24) hours and the amount of debate time that the legislation has been given exceeds seventy-two (72) hours, any senator may call for a vote on said legislation.

4. Debate shall proceed after the first seventy-two (72) hours as long as a senator is posting on the thread which details the legislation under consideration, provided intervals between different speeches are no longer than twenty-four (24) hours.

5. At any time after the first seventy-two (72) hours of debate that are mandated on any and all legislation under consideration, a motion for cloture passed with the concurrence of a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the Senate shall end the debate, and the PPT shall open a vote on the legislation under consideration. If the Senate is presently voting on any legislative Amendments, or if there are any Amendments pending, then the Senate shall not vote on the motion for cloture until said Amendments have been disposed of.

6. After a motion for cloture has been made, no Amendment(s) to the legislation under consideration may be introduced unless said motion is rejected by the Senate.

7. If there is a consensus that work on the bill is finished, the PPT may ask unanimous consent to waive the cloture vote requirement and proceed immediately to a final vote, on a piece of legislation. Senators shall have 24 hours to object to the request, after which with no senator having objected, the Senate shall proceed to a final vote on the legislation.

8. 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, as per the guidelines set out in Clauses 3 and 4 of this Section, any motions brought forth to bring the legislation under consideration to a vote and end the debate shall require the concurrence of a two-thirds (2/3) majority of senators in the affirmative only if a vote is requested by at least 2 members of the Senate prior to the 14th day.

9. After a piece of legislation is introduced on the Senate floor, the original sponsor may motion to withdraw the legislation under consideration at any point prior to a final vote on passage or after the President has vetoed the legislation, but the original sponsor may not motion to withdraw the legislation if the Senate is presently voting on any Amendments to the legislation or is presently voting on a motion for cloture.

10. Co-sponsors of legislation under consideration shall have no power to 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 placed by the Senator who wishes to sponsor the legislation, Senators shall have 48 hours to object to this motion. If any Senator objects to this motion, the PPT shall open a vote on the motion to assume sponsorship. This vote shall last for a maximum of 72 hours during which time the Senators must vote. Voting may be declared final at any time if a majority of office-holding Senators has approved or rejected said motion. Any and all Senators who do not vote will be considered to have abstained. If a motion to assume sponsorship is rejected, the legislation shall be withdrawn from the Senate floor.

11. For the purposes of Articles 3, 4 and 5, the original sponsor shall be defined as the Senator who introduced the legislation in the Legislation Introduction Thread.

Section 1: Rules on Senate Debate
1. After a piece of legislation is introduced on the Senate floor, debate shall begin immediately. Debate on the legislation shall last for no less than seventy-two (72) hours, unless waived by unanimous consent, which shall be motioned for by the President of the Senate and 24 hours given for objections.

2. If debate on the legislation under consideration has halted for longer than twenty-four (24) hours and the amount of debate time that the legislation has been given exceeds seventy-two (72) hours, any senator may call for a vote on said legislation, which the President of the Senate may thus open.

3. Upon the completion of the mandatory 72 hour debate time, a cloture motion passed by a 2/3rds vote of the Senate shall end debate, after which the President of the Senate may open debate. All amendments introduced prior to the motion will be considered, but further amendments will be prohibited.

4. Cloture may be waived on a piece of legislation via a unanimous consent request, in the same method as Article 4, Section 1, Clause 1. Upon the completion of the objection period, with no objections having been filed, the President of the Senate may open a final vote on the legislation.

5. 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, as per the guidelines set out in Clauses 3 and 4 of this Section, any cloture motions shall require the concurrence of a two-thirds (2/3) majority of senators in the affirmative, only if such is requested by atleast 2 members of the Senate prior to the 14th day.

6. 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 on passage or after the President has vetoed the legislation, but the original sponsor may not motion to withdraw the legislation if the Senate is presently voting on any Amendments to the legislation or is presently voting on a motion for cloture unless a motion to assume sponsorship appears likely to be forthcoming.

7. Co-sponsors of legislation under consideration shall have no power to 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 placed by the Senator who wishes to sponsor the legislation, Senators shall have 48 hours to object to this motion. If any Senator objects to this motion, the President of the Senate shall open a vote on the motion, lasting until a majority has voted for or against the motion, but not more then 72 hours. If the motion is rejected, the bill shall be removed from the floor.

Section 1: Rules on Senate Debate
1. After a piece of legislation is introduced on the Senate floor, debate shall begin immediately. Debate on the legislation shall last for no less than seventy-two (72) hours.

2. On a non-controversial bill, the Senate may waive the seventy-two hour (72) minimum debate requirement via a unanimous consent request. Upon introduction, the PPT may request unanimous consent to waive the minimum debate time requirement. Senators shall have 24 hours to object to this request, after which with no Senator having object, the Senate may proceed to a final vote on the legislation.

3. If debate on the legislation under consideration has halted for longer than twenty-four (24) hours and the amount of debate time that the legislation has been given exceeds seventy-two (72) hours, any senator may call for a vote on said legislation.

4. Debate shall proceed after the first seventy-two (72) hours as long as a senator is posting on the thread which details the legislation under consideration, provided intervals between different speeches are no longer than twenty-four (24) hours.

5. At any time after the first seventy-two (72) hours of debate that are mandated on any and all legislation under consideration, a motion for cloture passed with the concurrence of a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the Senate shall end the debate, and the PPT shall open a vote on the legislation under consideration. If the Senate is presently voting on any legislative Amendments, or if there are any Amendments pending, then the Senate shall not vote on the motion for cloture until said Amendments have been disposed of.

6. After a motion for cloture has been made, no Amendment(s) to the legislation under consideration may be introduced unless said motion is rejected by the Senate.

7. If there is a consensus that work on the bill is finished, the PPT may ask unanimous consent to waive the cloture vote requirement and proceed immediately to a final vote, on a piece of legislation. Senators shall have 24 hours to object to the request, after which with no senator having objected, the Senate shall proceed to a final vote on the legislation.

8. 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, as per the guidelines set out in Clauses 3 and 4 of this Section, any motions brought forth to bring the legislation under consideration to a vote and end the debate shall require the concurrence of a two-thirds (2/3) majority of senators in the affirmative only if a vote is requested by at least 2 members of the Senate prior to the 14th day.

9. After a piece of legislation is introduced on the Senate floor, the original sponsor may motion to withdraw the legislation under consideration at any point prior to a final vote on passage or after the President has vetoed the legislation, but the original sponsor may not motion to withdraw the legislation if the Senate is presently voting on any Amendments to the legislation or is presently voting on a motion for cloture.

10. Co-sponsors of legislation under consideration shall have no power to 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 placed by the Senator who wishes to sponsor the legislation, Senators shall have 48 hours to object to this motion. If any Senator objects to this motion, the PPT shall open a vote on the motion to assume sponsorship. This vote shall last for a maximum of 72 hours during which time the Senators must vote. Voting may be declared final at any time if a majority of office-holding Senators has approved or rejected said motion. Any and all Senators who do not vote will be considered to have abstained. If a motion to assume sponsorship is rejected, the legislation shall be withdrawn from the Senate floor.

11. For the purposes of Articles 3, 4 and 5, the original sponsor shall be defined as the Senator who introduced the legislation in the Legislation Introduction Thread.

Article 4, Section 1 is to be repealed and replaced with the following text:

Section 1: Rules on Senate Debate
1. After a piece of legislation is introduced on the Senate floor, debate shall begin immediately. Debate on the legislation shall last for no less than seventy-two (72) hours, unless waived by unanimous consent, which shall be motioned for by the President of the Senate, who shall thne give 24 hours for Senators to object.

2. If debate on the legislation under consideration has halted for longer than twenty-four (24) hours and the amount of debate time that the legislation has been given exceeds seventy-two (72) hours, any senator may call for a vote on said legislation, which the President of the Senate may thus open.

3. Upon the completion of the mandatory 72 hour debate time, a cloture motion passed by a 2/3rds vote of the Senate shall end debate, after passage of which the President of the Senate may open a vote on the legislation. All amendments introduced prior to the motion will be considered, but further amendments will be prohibited until the motion is rejected.

4. Cloture may be waived on a piece of legislation via a unanimous consent 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 President of the Senate may open a final vote on the legislation.

5. 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, as per the guidelines set out in Clauses 3 and 4 of this Section, any cloture motions shall require the concurrence of a two-thirds (2/3) majority of senators in the affirmative, only if such is requested by atleast 2 members of the Senate prior to the 14th day.

6. 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 on passage or after the President has vetoed the legislation, but the original sponsor may not motion to withdraw the legislation if the Senate is presently voting on any Amendments to the legislation or is presently voting on a motion for cloture unless a motion to assume sponsorship appears likely to be forthcoming.

7. Co-sponsors of legislation under consideration shall have no power to 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 placed by the Senator who wishes to sponsor the legislation, Senators shall have 48 hours to object to this motion. If any Senator objects to this motion, the President of the Senate shall open a vote on the motion, lasting until a majority has voted for or against the motion, but not more then 72 hours. If the motion is rejected, the bill shall be removed from the floor.

8. A motion filed by two Senators and passed with the concurrence of the two-thirds of the members, may strip a Senator of his primary sponsorship of a bill. This vote shall last for two days and after passage, the sponsor shall be replaced in accordance with Article 4, Section 1, Clause 7.

Press Release -
I am forming a working group on the issue of Mental Health. Duke is to be President and I have the same dial up connection I did then and thus I need a larger pool to draw assistance from to get some of the lingering aspects completed. The biggest area of concern is ascertaining more accurately the deficiencies in facilities and resources and more importantly the distribution of such. Therefore I want someone whose task is merely to gather and distil research, maybe even more then one. I also want a more diverse array of ideas and so people with a passion for or interest in the issue will be topping the list. Also, if I determine you have hindered this process at some point, involvement may or may not be optional. >:D

I will be contacting you, so just wait impatiently. >:D

Article 5: Rules for Voting on Legislation, Changing of Votes and Veto Overrides
Section 1: Rules for Voting on Legislation
1. Once a senator calls for a vote on the legislation under consideration, per Clause 2 of Section 1 of Article 4, or once debate time expires, per clauses 3 and 4 of Section 1 of Article 4, the PPT shall open a vote on said legislation. This vote shall last for a maximum of seven (7) days during which time the Senators must vote. Any and all Senators who do not vote will be considered to have abstained for purposes of counting the votes. The PPT shall however list them separately from those senators that actually posted an abstention.

2. If needed, an injunction may be brought by a Senator to keep voting on the legislation under consideration open for another seventy-two (72) hours after which time the voting shall close. This injunction must be seconded by another Senator.

3. In the event that a final vote has started the PPT shall have the power to stop said vote if a proposed amendment to a piece of legislation, resolution or amendment has been missed. If other "special situations" arise requiring an end to a vote, the PPT may halt the vote. Upon doing so, the PPT shall also declare the commencement of a 72 hour objection period, during which any Senator may object to halting the vote and with the concurrence of 2/3rd's of the Senate, overturn the PPT's action.

Section 2: Rules on the Changing of Votes
1. Until a piece of legislation under consideration has garnered enough votes either to pass or fail, no Senator shall be prohibited from changing his or her vote on the legislation.

2. Following the garnering of enough votes to either pass or fail, the PPT shall announce this fact publicly on the debate/voting thread. All Senators shall have a period of time lasting twenty-four (24) hours after this announcement during which they shall not be prohibited from changing their votes on the legislation.

3. Following the expiration of this twenty-four (24) hour time period, the PPT shall publicly declare the vote total to be final and shall apply said vote total to the legislation. All Senators shall be prohibited from changing their votes on the legislation after this time.

4. Clauses 2 and 3 shall not apply in cases where no votes have been cast against a piece of legislation. In these cases, the PPT shall publicly declare the vote total to be final and shall apply said vote total to the legislation. All Senators shall be prohibited from changing their votes on the legislation after this time.

Section 3: Rules on Veto Overrides
1. If a piece of legislation is vetoed by the President, the original sponsor of the bill must let the PPT know publicly on the Senate floor within seventy-two (72) hours of the veto being placed whether he wishes to have a vote to override the veto. If he replies in the negative or fails to reply within the given time, the legislation will be withdrawn from the Senate floor.

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

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

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

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

Section 5: Rules on Motions to Table
1. Any Senator can, during a period of debate, with the support of one other Senator, 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.

Article 5: Rules for Voting on Legislation, Changing of Votes and Veto Overrides
Section 1: Rules for Voting on Legislation
1. Once a senator calls for a vote on the legislation under consideration, per Clause 2 of Section 1 of Article 4, or once debate time expires, per clauses 3 and 4 of Section 1 of Article 4, the PPT President of the Senateshall open a vote on said legislation. This vote shall last for a maximum of seven (7) five (5) days during which time the Senators must vote. Any and all Senators who do not vote will be considered to have abstained for purposes of counting the votes. The PPT shall however list them separately from those senators that actually posted an abstention. Any and all Senators who do not vote will be considered as abstention with regards to the vote count, but shall be listed seperately by the President of the Senate from those who posted an abstention.

2. If needed, an injunction may be brought by a Senator to keep voting on the legislation under consideration open for another seventy-two (72) hours after which time the voting shall close. This injunction must be seconded by another Senator.
 
3. In the event that a final vote has started the PPT President of the Senate shall have the power to stop said vote if a proposed amendment to a piece of legislation, resolution or amendment has been missed. If other "special situations" arise requiring an end to a vote, the PPT may halt the vote. Upon doing so, the PPT shall also declare the commencement of a 72 hour objection period, during which any Senator may object to halting the vote and with the concurrence of 2/3rd's of the Senate, overturn the PPT's action. In any other circumstance a vote may be halted prior to completion with a declaration of a 72 hours objection period upon doing so, during which an objection with the concurrence of 2/3rds of the Senate, shall overturn stopping the vote.

4. No Senator shall be prohibited from changing his or her vote on the legislation during the vote, or during the 24 hour vote change period commenced when a bill has enough votes to pass or fail. This requirement shall not apply to cases where no votes votes have disented from the majority, in which case the vote shall be declared as final without such a vote change period being required.

5. Upon the completion of the 24 hour vote change period, Senators will be prohibited from changing their votes and the results will be declared as final by the President of the Senate.

6. Once a final vote has been concluded by the President of the Senate, he shall thus remove it from its slot and present it to the President for signature, veto or redraft. Upon doing so, he may bring up another piece of legislation and place it the vacated slot in accordance with Article 3 Section 2 of the OSPR.

Section 3 2: Rules on Veto Overrides
1. If a piece of legislation is vetoed by the President, the original sponsor of the bill must let the PPT know publicly , if desired, request an override publically on the Senate floor within seventy-two (72) hours of the veto being placed whether he wishes to have a vote to override the veto of the President's veto having occured. If he replies in the negative or fails to reply within the given time, the legislation will be withdrawn from the Senate floor any subsequent request for an override on the same legislation will be denied.

2. Extensions to this time period may only be allowed by the PPT in case of a publicly announced absence from the forum , if such are conducted in accordance with the standards established in Article 12, Section 1.

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

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

4. Upon a piece of legislation being vetoed by the President, if the slot reserved for debating overrides is empty, that legislation shall be moved to that slot and a new piece of legislation, if available, shall be moved into the vacated slot; but if the slot reserved for debating overrides is occupied, then debate shall take place in its current slot and it shall remain there until said debate is concluded, even if the slot reserved for debating overrides should be vacated then subsequent proceedings following the veto will continue in the bill without a slot placement until the veto slot opens up again, in which it shall then be placed, or the final conclusion of such proceedings is attained.

Section 3: Presidential Redraft and subsequent Proceedings:

1. The President of Atlasia shall have in the accordance with the Constitution, the opportunity to submit a redraft within the period allotted by the Constitution before which the bill shall become law automatically.

2. The proceedings for such shall be as established in the Constitution. These proceedings shall continue without slot placement until the completion of the proceedings as established under the Constitution.

Section 5 4: Rules on Motions to Table
1. Any Senator can, during a period of debate, with the support of one other Senator, 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.

Article 5 of the OSPR is Amended in the following fashion:

Article 5: Rules for Voting on Legislation, Changing of Votes and Veto Overrides
Section 1: Rules for Voting on Legislation
1. Once a senator calls for a vote on the legislation under consideration, per Clause 2 of Section 1 of Article 4, or once debate time expires, per clauses 3 and 4 of Section 1 of Article 4, the PPT President of the Senateshall open a vote on said legislation. This vote shall last for a maximum of seven (7) five (5) days during which time the Senators must vote. Any and all Senators who do not vote will be considered to have abstained for purposes of counting the votes. The PPT shall however list them separately from those senators that actually posted an abstention. Any and all Senators who do not vote will be considered as abstention with regards to the vote count, but shall be listed seperately by the President of the Senate from those who posted an abstention.

2. If needed, an injunction may be brought by a Senator to keep voting on the legislation under consideration open for another seventy-two (72) hours after which time the voting shall close. This injunction must be seconded by another Senator.
 
3. In the event that a final vote has started the PPT President of the Senate shall have the power to stop said vote if a proposed amendment to a piece of legislation, resolution or amendment has been missed. If other "special situations" arise requiring an end to a vote, the PPT may halt the vote. Upon doing so, the PPT shall also declare the commencement of a 72 hour objection period, during which any Senator may object to halting the vote and with the concurrence of 2/3rd's of the Senate, overturn the PPT's action. In any other circumstance a vote may be halted prior to completion with a declaration of a 72 hours objection period upon doing so, during which an objection with the concurrence of 2/3rds of the Senate, shall overturn stopping the vote.

4. No Senator shall be prohibited from changing his or her vote on the legislation during the vote, or during the 24 hour vote change period commenced when a bill has enough votes to pass or fail. This requirement shall not apply to cases where no votes votes have disented from the majority, in which case the vote shall be declared as final without such a vote change period being required.

5. Upon the completion of the 24 hour vote change period, Senators will be prohibited from changing their votes and the results will be declared as final by the President of the Senate.

6. Once a final vote has been concluded by the President of the Senate, he shall thus remove it from its slot and present it to the President for signature, veto or redraft. Upon doing so, he may bring up another piece of legislation and place it the vacated slot in accordance with Article 3 Section 2 of the OSPR.

Article 5, Section 2 of the OSPR is hereby repealed to be consolidated in to Section 1 of same article.

Section 3 2: Rules on Veto Overrides
1. If a piece of legislation is vetoed by the President, the original sponsor of the bill must let the PPT know publicly , if desired, request an override publically on the Senate floor within seventy-two (72) hours of the veto being placed whether he wishes to have a vote to override the veto of the President's veto having occured. If he replies in the negative or fails to reply within the given time, the legislation will be withdrawn from the Senate floor any subsequent request for an override on the same legislation will be denied.

2. Extensions to this time period may only be allowed by the PPT in case of a publicly announced absence from the forum , if such are conducted in accordance with the standards established in Article 12, Section 1.

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

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

4. Upon a piece of legislation being vetoed by the President, if the slot reserved for debating overrides is empty, that legislation shall be moved to that slot and a new piece of legislation, if available, shall be moved into the vacated slot; but if the slot reserved for debating overrides is occupied, then debate shall take place in its current slot and it shall remain there until said debate is concluded, even if the slot reserved for debating overrides should be vacated then subsequent proceedings following the veto will continue in the bill without a slot placement until the veto slot opens up again, in which it shall then be placed, or the final conclusion of such proceedings is attained.

Section 3: Presidential Redraft and Subsequent Proceedings:

1. The President of Atlasia shall have in the accordance with the Constitution, the opportunity to submit a redraft within the period allotted by the Constitution before which the bill shall become law automatically.

2. The proceedings for such shall be as established in the Constitution. These proceedings shall continue without slot placement until the completion of the proceedings as established under the Constitution.

Section 5 4: Rules on Motions to Table
1. Any Senator can, during a period of debate, with the support of one other Senator, 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.

Section I: Infrastructure Reforms

1. Reforms in the Profession -
To faciliate a systemic review of the psychiatric and psychological professions, the Mental Health Practices Review Board shall be established, within the Agency for Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services.
                  a. The purposes of this board is to review the impact of all current treatments and practices with regards to the treatment of and response to patients undergoing mental health treatment (defined below), as it pertains to the prompting promoting of a general societal stigmatization of such patients.
                  b. The Board shall propose a set of recommendations to avoid and reduce the impact of the actions of those in the profession as it relates to the stigmatization, with an aim towards improving and refining current practices to achieve said result.
                  c. The Board shall be composed of members selected from amongst the profession within each region by their respective Community Health Partnerships with the aid of the respective nationwide organizations of psychiatric, psychological, and other professionals such as the Atlasian Psychiatric Association, Atlasian Medical Association and others as determined by said Community Health Partnerships. 
                 d. A mental health patient shall be defined as to include anyone who is suffering from a disorder that arises to the level of disrupting the person's life and necessitating treatment.

2. - Applying Electronic Medical Records to Child-Adult Services Transition -
The Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality in the Department of Internal Affairs, shall seek to create a strategy to implement Electronic Health Records in the areas of Mental Health, especially with regards to the transition of patients from children to adult mentle mental health programs.
               a. The Department shall have until August 1st, 2013, October 1st, 2013 to compose said strategy with the help of the Game Moderator.
               b. The strategy shall take no more then one year to implement the necessary changes.
               c.  If the need shall arise, the Secretary of Internal Affairs shall, with the aid of the Game Moderator, inform the Senate of necessary legislative changes in order to facilitate the necessary changes to acheive this desired results.

3. - Expanding/Improving Mental Health Care Facilities and Providers
               a. $25 20 billion shall be appropriated over the next five years to the agency for Health Resources & Services Administration within the Deptarment of Internal Affairs to build and/or expand comprehensive mental health care treatment facilities (as defined by institutions that offer counseling, therapy, managed care, medication management, psychiatrist services, licensed clinical social work services, peer supports, and substance abuse treatment) so as to reduce the deficit of available resources in the federally designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas and other areas of pressing concern as indentifed by the agency in question.
                     1. $7 billion shall be appropriated annually for the purpose of then maintaining any facilities built
                     2. $3 billion shall be appropriated annually for the maintenance costs of any expanded facilities.
               b. Working through the Secretary of Internal Affairs, the previous agencies are authorized to form partnerships with Regional and Local Governments, as well as non-profit groups to provide further resources, and maximize the number of facilities, established in Clause b, that can be built and then maintained. These partnerships may also work to establish Programs of Assertive Community Treatment (PACT) and assisted out-patient care programs to further reduce number of patients requiring in patient care with particular focus on the Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas. $500 million dollars shall be appropriated to the agencies to provide funds to cover a percentage of the costs of these programs, in conjunction with Regional, Local and/or non-profit groups to fund the total amount.
               c. The agency for Health Resources & Services Administration above shall work in concert with the agency for Healthcare Research & Quality to ensure that all facilities and community programs receiving federal money wholly or as part of one of the above partnerships establiced in sub clause c, are of high quality and meet rigourous standards that shall be established by the agency for Healthcare Research & Quality to ensure the both the quality of the equipment and the treatment the patients are receiving.
              d. Any misused funds or cases of failure to follow established guidelines, shall result in the SoIA pulling federal funding until such abuses are corrected. Any instances of direct physical or mental abuse directed towards the patients shall be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
             e. If funds remain unused at the end of the year or otherwise cannot be effectively distributed they shall be returned to the General Fund. At the end of each year the Secretary shall report on progress towards acheiving the above objectives and recommend necessary legislative changes to further resolve remaining deficits in mental health care facilities and resources.

Back in February, the administration led a bipartisan effort to create a territorial corporate tax code.

Just a few weeks ago, the President signed into a law the first ever cut in the healthcare payroll tax since it was hiked to cover the exorbinant costs of the original Fritzcare law.

Now joining with a coalition of DRs, Federalists and People Party Members, the President has signed into law the Long-Term Unemployment Relief Act. This bill, the product of a long debate, creates a payroll tax holiday for the long-term unemployed, fixes a glaring contract law issue in the FLSA of 2013 and restores the previous minimum wage statute of $12.50 indexed to inflation.

Working with the President, we will continue to fight for these and other proposals to create jobs and and improve the economy, with projects presently in the works on education, energy, healthcare and many other issues.

Article 3: Rules on Legislation Introduction and Reintroducing Expired Legislation
Section 1: Rules on Legislation Introduction

5. If the PPT determines that a piece of legislation addresses two or more divorced subjects, he may, in a public post on the Legislation Introduction thread, remove said legislation from the Senate floor, strike any Sections from said legislation that deal with unrelated subjects, or split said legislation into multiple pieces of legislation which deal with only one subject individually. The sponsoring Senator of the legislation shall have seventy-two (72) hours to challenge this action in a public post, and with the concurrence of two-thirds (2/3) of office-holding Senators in the affirmative (excluding the PPT), may override the actions of the PPT.

Section 2: Rules on Introducing Legislation to the Senate Floor
4. In the case of legislation introduced that is claimed by the PPT to address forum affairs that has at least one piece of legislation in front of it in the queue, senators shall have seventy-two (72) hours to challenge this action in a public post, and with the concurrence of two-thirds (2/3) of office-holding Senators in the affirmative (excluding the PPT), may override the actions of the PPT.

Article 4: Rules on Senate Debate and Amendment(s) to Legislation
Section 2: Rules on Amendment(s)
1. During the course of debate on legislation, any sitting Senator may offer amendments to the legislation. The President of the Senate 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. Unless stated otherwise in the amendment, components of the underlying legislation not referenced in an amendment will remain unchanged

Article 5: Rules for Voting on Legislation, Changing of Votes and Veto Overrides
Section 1: Rules for Voting on Legislation
3. In the event that a final vote has started the President of the Senate shall have the power to stop said vote if a proposed amendment to a piece of legislation, resolution or amendment has been missed. In any other circumstance, the President of the Senate may halt a vote prior to completion, but must allow 72 hours for objections to the halt. If such an objection is filed, the President of the Senate shall administer a vote, open for no longer than 72 hours but no less than 24 barring unanimity in a majority, and shall proceed with the halt only with the consent of 2/3 of the Senate.

Article 8: Rules on the Overriding of Sections of this Procedural Resolution
Section 1
1. Only the PPT and the President of the Senate, acting in unison publicly on the Senate floor, can override these specific provisions (stated below) in this Procedural Resolution:

a. Article 3, Section 2, Clauses 1 through 5
b. Article 4, Section 1, Clause 1
c. Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1
d. Article 6, Section 2, Clause 1
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.

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.

4. If the PPT or the President of the Senate has publicly announced absence from the Senate or is absent from the Atlas Forum in general for a period longer than seven (7) days, then the powers provided by Clause 1 of this Article may be applied by the PPT or the President of the Senate in conjunction a simple majority vote in approval by the Senate at large.

5. The purpose of this Article is to provide for situations where a particular piece of legislation is of utmost National importance and requires an immediate debate and vote by the Senate at the soonest possible instance, and also in situations where any legislation under consideration is being blocked from receiving a cloture vote by a group of Senators. It is also designed to provide some checks and balances to the power of the PPT and/or the President of the Senate in the realm of Legislation Introduction and debate.

Section 2: Rules on Introducing Legislation to the Senate Floor
1. The PPT will designate each piece of legislation debate time on the Senate Floor in the order of which it is posted in the Legislation Introduction thread.

2. There shall be fifteen slots available for debating legislation on the Senate floor. Of these slots, five shall be available for any purpose; one shall be available for any purpose except the debating of Amendments to the Constitution; three shall be available only for legislation that the President of the Senate considers to be related to forum affairs or emergency legislation which can be introduced pursuant to Article 8, Section 1 of this resolution; two shall be available for any piece of legislation, regardless of its location in the queue, at the President of the Senate's discretion; one shall be available for debating veto overrides pursuant to Article 5, Section 3; one shall be available for legislation related to foreign policy and international affairs; and two shall be available for bills submitted for the Senate's consideration by the President or Vice President.

3. In the event that one Senator has introduced four or more bills is succession, and another Senator has introduced another bill subsequent to the Senator, the PPT shall place no more than three of the original Senator's bills on the Senate floor at a time. Emergency legislation, considered as such by the PPT and placed in either the Emergency slots, or the PPT slot if they are occupied, shall be exempted from this limitation.

4. In the case of legislation introduced that is claimed by the PPT to address forum affairs that has at least one piece of legislation in front of it in the queue, senators shall have seventy-two (72) hours to challenge this action in a public post, and with the concurrence of two-thirds (2/3) of office-holding Senators in the affirmative (excluding the PPT), may override the actions of the PPT.

5. Pursuant to Clauses 1 and 2 of this Section, legislation may only be introduced on the Senate floor by the PPT after another piece of legislation currently on the Senate floor is either:

a. signed into law by the President or simply becomes law (by executive inaction for seven (7) days).
b. in case of a Bill or Resolution, rejected by a majority of the Senate after a vote is called.
c. in the case of a Amendment to the Constitution, rejected by more than one-third (1/3) of the Senate.
d. 72 hours after a motion to withdraw by the original sponsor or after a motion to assume sponsorship has failed unanimous consent.
6. If the Senate has formally approved an Amendment to the Constitution, legislation may only be introduced after the PPT has posted a thread notifying the Governors of the Senate's approval of the Amendment in question.

Section 2: Rules on Introducing Legislation to the Senate Floor
1. The PPT will designate each piece of legislation debate time on the Senate Floor in the order of which it is posted in the Legislation Introduction thread, this requirement shall not apply to the Forum Affairs/Emergency, President of Senate's Discretion, Foreign Policy and Executive Agenda slots.

...

5. Pursuant to Clauses 1 and 2 of this Section, legislation may only be introduced on the Senate floor by the PPT President of the Senate after another piece of legislation currently on the Senate floor is either sent to the President for executive action, rejected at vote or withdrawn in accordance with the rules for such. If a constitutional Amendment has passed the Senate, the President of the Senate may bring another piece of legislation to the floor in its slot, once he has informed the Regional Executives of the said Amendment's passage. :

a. signed into law by the President or simply becomes law (by executive inaction for seven (7) days).
b. in case of a Bill or Resolution, rejected by a majority of the Senate after a vote is called.
c. in the case of a Amendment to the Constitution, rejected by more than one-third (1/3) of the Senate.
d. 72 hours after a motion to withdraw by the original sponsor or after a motion to assume sponsorship has failed unanimous consent.
6. If the Senate has formally approved an Amendment to the Constitution, legislation may only be introduced after the PPT has posted a thread notifying the Governors of the Senate's approval of the Amendment in question.

Article 8: Rules on the Overriding of Sections of this Procedural Resolution
Section 1
1. Only the PPT and the President of the Senate, acting in unison publicly on the Senate floor, can override these specific provisions (stated below) in this Procedural Resolution:

a. Article 3, Section 2, Clauses 1 through 5
b. Article 4, Section 1, Clause 1
c b. Article 4, Section 3 2, Clause 1
d c. Article 6, Section 2, Clause 1
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 following the joint public action to post an objection to the rule(s) being overriden.

3. If this resolution passes by a two-thirds (2/3) vote in the affirmative (excluding the PPT), the Senate concurs with the objection, this joint action by the PPT and the President of the Senate shall be overruled.

4. If the PPT or the President of the Senate has publicly announced absence from the Senate or is absent from the Atlas Forum in general for a period longer than seven (7) days, then the powers provided by Clause 1 of this Article may be applied by the PPT or the President of the Senate in conjunction a simple majority vote in approval by the Senate at large.

5. The purpose of this Article is to provide for situations where a particular piece of legislation is of utmost National importance and requires an immediate debate and vote by the Senate at the soonest possible instance, and also in situations where any legislation under consideration is being blocked from receiving a cloture vote by a group of Senators. It is also designed to provide some checks and balances to the power of the PPT and/or the President of the Senate in the realm of Legislation Introduction and debate.

Article 6: Rules on Presidential Nominations
[edit] Section 1: General Statements on Nominees
1. From time to time, various nominations may be made by the President requiring the advice and consent of the Senate for approval.

2. These nominations may be brought to the floor of the Senate immediately by the PPT and may skip the processes dealing with Legislation Introduction, as so laid out in Article 3 of this Resolution.

3. Nominees under consideration specifically do not count towards the restrictions laid out towards in Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 in limiting the amount of legislation on the Senate floor at one time.

[edit] Section 2: Rules on Senate Debate of Nominees
1. For each Presidential nomination, the PPT must give each Nominee under consideration an amount of debate and question time in front of the Senate of no less than twenty-four (24) hours and no greater than seventy-two (72) hours.

2. If debate and questions with regards to the Nominee under consideration have halted for longer than twenty-four (24) hours, any Senator may call for a motion to vote on the presumptive Nominee.

3. After seventy-two (72) hours time, debate and question time shall cease, and the PPT must call for a vote on the Nominee under consideration.

4. If needed, an injunction may be brought by a Senator to keep debate and question time on the Nominee under consideration open for another forty-eight (48) hours, after which time the debate and question time shall end for good and a vote shall be called. This injunction must be seconded by another Senator.

[edit] Section 3: Rules for Voting on Nominees and the Changing of Votes
1. Once a motion has been brought to bring the Nominee under consideration to a vote or debate and question time has publicly ended, the PPT shall open a vote on said Nominee. 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.

2. If needed, an injunction may be brought by a Senator to keep voting on the Nominee under consideration open for another forty-eight (48) hours after which time the voting shall close. This injunction must be seconded by another Senator.

3. Until a Nominee under consideration has garnered enough votes to pass or fail, no Senator shall be prohibited from changing his or her vote on the Nominee. Once said Nominee has garnered enough votes to pass or fail, all Senators who have voted will be prohibited from changing their votes.

Article 6 of the OSPR is repealed in full and replaced with the following text:

Article 6: Rules on Nominees
1. Once a nomination is made by the President, it shall be brought to the floor immediately by the President of the Senate without any of the Article 3 Restrictions on legislation introduction applying.

2. Nominees shall be questions for at least 24 and not more than 72 hours. If 72 hours has elapsed or prior to that if questioning has ceased for 24 hours, then a vote shall be started by the President of the Senate. An injunction may be offered, with the second of another Senator, extending this time by 48 hours, after which a vote must be started.

3. The vote shall last for a maximum of five days during which Senators must vote, and those who do not, will be considered as having abstained. An injunction may be brought, with the second of another Senator to extend this time by 48 hours, after which the vote must be concluded. No Senator shall be prohibited from voting until after the nominee has received enough votes to pass or fail confirmation, at which point vote changes shall be prohibited.

Press Release -

Last week we went from having no text with which to reform healthcare on Sunday to having a bill passed and signed into law on Friday morning as I recall, certainly a record setting performance relative the importance of the measure, and its size as well. I wish to thank El Presidente AHDuke99 for his support and assistance in crafting the law as well as the critical contributions from Senator shua, which made the key aspects of various sections functional. I also wish to thank Senator Lumine for his assistance with crafting the final text and also key roles provided by Secretary of External Affairs and Vice President and Secretary of Internal Affairs Cincinnatus, whose dire warning about time set the wheels in motion. I also thank Senators DC al Fine, Goldwater and TyriontheImperialist for lending their support. Before I forget, I should also thank former President Averroes Nix for his unbeknownst assistance in the form of explaining various agencies present in his Cabinet Restructuring Act of last summer.

The Reforming Public Health Care act is a substantial reform that resolves most of the problems plaguing our public healthcare system. On that I should note that whilt substantial in its addressing of such, it is narrowly focused on that solely to the exclusion of other aspects of health policy such as laws on liability, doctors, and prescription drugs, all of which and more such as the areas of Mental Health will need further work and more legislation. This approach was necessitated by the length of a text needed and a desire to not get bogged down in tangentially related items.

The Act transforms Fritzcare (ANHC) into a market competiting public option and creates regional exchanges in which it is required to be offered. Act also contains provisions to subsize the poor and limits the out of pocket expenses, as well as to ensure that preventative care is maintained as free. It also contains previsions ensuring care to our veterans and active duty military personel, our Seniors and those with pre-existing conditions, including of course those with mental illnesses through the risk pools including in ANHC. Finally I will note the presence of a savings option to allow people to save up the cost of the significantly limited but still present co-pays and deductibles.

The bill contains in it a regional component that allows for the Regional law making functionaries to determined whether or not there is any competition to ANHC in their region's exchange as well as what forms that competition may manifest itself in. A few days ago I contacted all such responsible officials in the IDS Gov't and encouraged them to beging looking at various options and I am pleased to note that His Imperial Highness, Supreme God-like Being, Tsar Emperor and Autocrat of all the Southerners, Scott, has announced a proposal for our glorious region, the Imperial Domion of the South. I look forward to assisting His Imperial Hignhess and any members of the Imperial Legislature in the crafting of such proposals to ensure their compliance with the act in question as well as all other Federal law.

I would also encourage the other regional executives and their legislative chambers to begin formulating options and presenting proposals for consideration as well. There is a multitude of options to potentially provide in the exchanges alongside ANHC.  

Press Release -

Last Saturday I had the unforunate displeasure of having to withdraw from the election for PPT. It was not my preference to drop out of a race in such a manner, but it is unfortunately the case that managing the Senate would be virtually impossible for the next few weeks as my access to the internet will be reduced to just two or three times a week for the foreseable future. I would have preferred a more fitting circumstance of one where I had a complete choice, and such was not the case here for my present circumstances forced the decision to withdraw.

I do have confidence that TNF can be a good PPT, but the question of whether he will or not is an entirely different manner. The role of impartial administrator is not a natural one for TNF nor will the transformation of the position into something that it has not been for at least five years under multiple PPTs both right and left, but into something that is more suited to his style find anything but disappointment and discouragement for all those involved in the Senate including I would wager, himself. There are many Laborite Senators who are more suited to the position as it has been constituted and I told the then Vice President Windjammer, that if Labor wanted the PPTship, they would be better off with bore, Tyrion or even Adam and let TNF continue as a policy leader something he is most skilled at. I can say from experience that service as PPT can be limiting, if for no other reason then time constraints, on the ability to craft and pass a legislative agenda.

I also will say that seeing as I now am out of the position can speak frankly, I think the desire on the part of some to transform the PPTship into something that it is not merely for the sake doing so, or to effect some real life false equivalency is a mistake. Some on the left have come to regard holding the PPTship as necessary to advance an agenda, or stop one from being blocked. I have never blocked a bill because of what side it come from and I have administered Senates that were rather left wing including presiding over the Senate that banned capital punishment or in the case of last year passed numerous pieces of TNF's legislation that I had issues with. This is probably because the first example of a PPT I witnessed was MasterJedi, and him being PPT did nothing to stop or prevent the passage of Fritzcare, which he opposed. He brought it up, administered it efficiently and effectively, and the vast majority of the Senate of passed what it wanted regardless of his personal views. People like MasterJedi, like bgwah, and many others with a long history of strongly held personal and political view have held the post in the past five years, yet have not fundamentally transformed the general character of the position or sought in an aggressive fashion to manipulate the existing rules to make it so, leaving the position what it is, an administrator who operates with minimal bias and the maximum amount of efficience and more often then not has elected PPTs far more based on merit then on politics or party. For most all of 2012, I was PPT and yet was the only IB (and also IHJ ;)) Senator in the chamber.   

There are some who have stated a belief that the transformation of the position into a partisan office will increase the competativeness of elections. Whilst this theory is understandable, it fails to account for the fact that the left has typically dominated the Senate more often then not and likely result of a partisan administration would be more often then not a partisan leftwing Senate administration as well. This would in turn mean that fewer Conservatives would be motivated to run and vote, not more, leading to less competativeness. While I am on this topic, I will acknowlege that old Nixy baby has recently crafted a complete overhaul of the rules. Hopefully, with the man whose era witnessed the end of Comprehensive Projects as a practical tool leading the charge, the chances of such an overhaul happening are good. However, I have not had a chance to review the details in full and I will be sure do just that. Nixy has long been a proponent of a partisan administration on the basis of the justification included of above, and whilst I have slipped some, I have not fallen so far as to let him slip such through in a giant overall. :P

This gets me to another point and I am pleased to hear that my old friend is now leading a charge on a separation of powers issues considering his past on the matter. I realize many, even in my own party were concerned about the role that now former Vice President Windjammer had taken on. I share that concern to some extent, but on the flip side, I worry that the reaction to this will turn back the clock and leave us back where we were before MaroDuke and before Nix/DemPGH when Vice Presidents ran for the office as a means to retire from Atlasia. The knowledge that Vice Presidents will have to be active participants has I think led to a change in the calculus made for VP selections and I think we can see that with Tyrion's selection, considering his background with OSPR amendments and rule changes. I will also be reviewing the rules proposal to ensure that the Vice President is maintained in an important capacity and an active one at that. I would say this that if the bicameral legislation were to go into effect, a scale back role for the VP with the Senate would be necessary since most have desired that he be a liason between the two chambers, between the PPT and a possible Speaker. This also concerns me because Nix's rules contain a Speakership for the Senate, and such would be out of place, particularly if we end up with a People's House, where a Speaker would be far more fitting. I should note at this point that Nix's original plan for post-consolidation was a unicameral twelve member legislation so I am not certain as to whether or not this is a subtle poke at the Bicameral proposals of Duke and Adam or if this fits into that matter of bicameralism at all. At the very least we should consider the potential now and thus minimize the needed rule changes if a bicameral system goes into effect.

Press Release -


I started the last one to be a short mentioned about recent events in the Senate regarding is rules and such but got carried out. This one will be shorter and will concern more the policy matters that have come before the SEnate, particularly since my postings in the individual threads have become less NC Yankee and more Goldwater (no offense man ;)).

First the Senate passage of the Bicameral Amendment is a good thing. I have not changed my views on Consolidation since I soured on the matter last November-December, but I applaud the passage of a framework for a post-consolidation gov't that suits most of my concerns and answers most of my questions. I like that the structure contains an all regional Senate and ensures the continued 50-50 balance of legislative interests. If Consolidation itself is hostile to regional interests, I am confident at least that the post-consolidation gov't does not add to that being so. I wish that more effort had been placed in the House's election methods and I fear we will struggle for some time on that should it ever go into effect. I think that the best method probably would have been some form of PR, but the public is firmly against that at this point and once it was realized, moving forward with a different option was unavoidable. I wouldn't be surprised should this come to be put into effect, that we end up changing from districts to that or back to At-Large for the second chamber at some point down the road.

Secondly, the recent passing of Robin Williams should not be ignored with regards to Atlasia. I am not quite sure how celebrity news works in the game but assume it happened unless Nappy has said otherwise. The other day on the news I heard about a phenomenon called suicide copy-cats and so I have introduced legislation to beef up the guidelines for media agencies to follow in coverage of such events. There is a difficult but critical balancing act because informing the public is essential to reducing stigma, but on the flip side the how of that informing process needs to be done with care and follow guidelines based on the best research in the field. I recall including this in the comprehrensive Mental Health bill, which failed just over a year ago (and yes I had planned to make a big fuss over the anniversary but losing my internet access forced me to drop such snarkiness in favor of bigger priorities like not becoming homeless) but I cannot recall if it was included in a subsequently passed bill or not. I am open to any revisions, or expansions if deemed appropriate once it comes to the Senate floor.

Lastly for now, I must touch on this issue of nationalizations since the esteemed former GM and alleged AG (:P) Simfan took issue with me "reluctant Nay" on the Power Bill. I want a system of locally opperated co-ops and preferably locally formed that can take advantage of recently deployed Smart Grid technoloy (Smart Grid Act something or other, its linked someone in the Public Fuel and Power Something or Other Thread), and thus provide competition to the privately owned companies that in many cases enjoy a monopoly like that of Duke-Energy Progress here in NC. I was thinking about this the other day, but technology has removed the monopoly of the phone companies. Many don't even have a landline and some use VoIP technology through companies like Vonage, using their broadband internet connections (because everyone has broadband surely ;). Technically speaking, I am "no longer on dial up". Lauging at the situation helps :(). Anyway, I am convinced, that with a Smart Grid already deployed by the Federal Government and with the Co-Op legislation of both Seatown and more recently TNF (both of which I supported), a complex federal power system like that in the public fuel and power act is unnecessary. What is needed are minor changes to the Smart Grid act and seed money to the Regions and local gov'ts as well as non-gov't organizations to encourage them to form Co-Ops. There is already a group in NC that is seeking alternatives in real life and it spans both right and left, so they surely exist in Atlasia.

Press Release -
I just want to say before the current Suicide Copy-cat act thing, that I am grateful for the productive involvement of Senator Cranberry (purely coincidental but I seem to be eating a loaf cake with cranberries in it as I type this), and the patience of Comrade PPT TNF in allowing me a chance to get back on the internet (through my neighbors, If I actually had my actual internet restored, lets just say Yank's Front would be rockin all night. Would need the police on speed dial ;)) before he proceeded to a vote.

Though I must express one last time my disappointment by the response from when the bill hit the floor. I must also say that the approach taken by some, particularly with regards to the title demonstrate just much people are at a loss for comprehending this issue and have thus fallen for the obvious mistaken approach, one that I tried (though in brief) to point out with my opening post in the thread.

You cannot, I repeat you cannot solve or improve the situation with regards to the mental health by silence. Removing Robin Williams from the bill title will gain nothing in suicide prevention and to claim its presence is counter-productive illustrate the backwards approach to this issue. Unless you plan to censor all our media and purge all mention of the celebrity or at least the means of his departure, the dissemination of the knowledge of what happened is going to be thorough regardless of the Bill title. Instead, honoring his memory by addressing the issue, and using the general public awareness that his loss has created to do aid in that educating and informing process is not only going to be more effective, but is more in tune with a full understanding of the issue. Avoiding of discussion, is what creates the very stigma we need to reduce and even more so, helps create the very assumption that underlies many suicides, that of solitude and that of them feeling alone in their pain. We need discussion, we need information, we need education and we most certainly need to convey that in fact you are not alone. There is one justifiable objection to the title and were it merely on that grounds it would have been perfectly fine and that is out of respect for the privacy of the actor and his family. Were such the only motivation given, I would not have had a problem, hell I would have been rather gung ho about its being changed rather then reluctantly accepting it for the sake of moving forward.

This is a complex issue and it is clearly one that Atlasia struggles with and that is because the initial reaction is often wrong if you are not familiar with the issue and it is with exceeding rareness that anybody asks first and shoots second here. :P

Fortunately, I never give up. >:D (How long a distance would you walk to put up with this? :P)

Press Release -

I am soon going to attempt to construct a federal legislative act that advances my preferred approach to reforming the system of power utilies in a way that brings greater competition and not less. It is difficult to form some massie federal act on this because it is primarily going to be a local construction, therefore the the limite action required at the Federal level willc consist first of any necessary alterations to the Smart Grid Act. It may be necessary to spend some money on technology or research as well. Going from there, some administrative and procedural stuff through the SoIA, and possibly some as of yet unknown changes or additions to further facilitate the process may be realized to be necesssary to effect the result in question. With both the Smart Grid thing and the Co-op bills, a vast bulk of the ground work has already been laid and that in conjunction with the localized nature (meaning any region could even now pursue such), limit significantly the amount of action to be taken by Federal Gov't to achieve the desired aim, a competative power market.

I hope to contact some of our newer Senators on this matter, but correspondance is somewhat difficult for obvious reasons, particuarly of the detailed variety.

Press Release-

As much as I hate the present situation, there appears to be nothing that I can do immediately. All I can say is that if things do not improve by the end of the month, I will not only have to retire from the Senate, but I may have to leave the game entirely for several months as I struggle to get things back on track.

Press Release -


In the aftermath of the Ferguson situation, one issue of concern has arisen and a possible solution has as well. The former would of course be the militarization of the police forces, which on the day of the 911 anniversary, we must be mindful of the reason in large part for why this has come to be. On the other hand we must acknowledge the disturbing trend as well the distance it has served to create between both the public and the Police. We must ensure that we are continuing to provide the necessary resources for all our first responders including the police. However, we must also take measures to ensure that we are ensuring that our Police don't end up in a defacto war with our own people.

One solution to this is the possibility of filming all encounters between the Police and the Public. This provides a video record of all such encounters that can be reviewed to determined what happened, and thus protect civilians from Police brutality and the violations of procedures that can lead to such tragedies, whilst at the same time protect the Police from danger and discourage false claims of Police brutality. Where this has been implemented on a small scale, as in Palo Alto, California, there has been a substantial reduction on both counts to the tune of something like 80% - 85% with similar success in other localities that have tried it. Therefore I have introduce the Police Militarization and Civil Rights Act. I am open to negotiating the exact amount and period of time that such funding is to be redirected and since people seem to take issue with the titles of my bills, I am open to changing that as well. :P

When I first heard of this, my first concern though was one of privacy and was rather dubious at best as there definitely needs to be safeguards to ensure such is protected. At first I was rather skeptical but I came to the conclusion that if a Policemen's eyes are on you already, adding a camera does little to further reduce privacy but does provide an incentive for both sides of the encounter to act appropriately and ultimately ensure the protection of the civilian's civil rights in the process more than anything else. If I am not mistaken, even the ACLU is on board with these type of programs for much the same reason, though it was some weeks ago, so I might have heard wrong. I am open to what my colleagues think on how best to improve clause four to further remove any remaining concerns in this regard.

Press Release - Military Personal Reassignments and Vehicles

I recently heard a story that our service men and women are facing intollerable wait times for their private vehicles to be shipped from their former posts to their current one. I know first hand what not having a vehicle can do, particularly when in places like where most of our bases are where there isn't as much public transportation (though this isn't as bad in Atlasia obviously). But for those who serve the country to be so limited, I find this disgraceful and therefore I am composing legislation that will seek to make the contract with a private company, a competative one and one that incentivizes both speed and quality of delivery to ensure that red tape is minimized and that the cars get delivered quickly and in tact. There will also be the need to make changes to Customs procedures to ensure these cases are expedited and quickly processed.

Press Release - IDS Ratification of Federal Amendments and some other Federal Bills.

I have come to conclusion that one year and some change after Rimjob it is a mistake for the IDS to allocate the ability to ratify the amendments to the Federal Constitution, to the Imperial Legislature. I approve of us having the ability to do so, but feel it is not the right decision at this time. I understand that the hope is that it will generate interest in the elections,and either for the content of future amendments or for opposition to the mere act of having so allocated the responsibility, I hope that such is forthcoming at least as I desire for this region to survive and thrive.


Job Guarrantee Act - Nice to think about, but once again it promises to borrow and print trillions to obtain an elusive goal, if for no other reason than the means by which it will attempt to achieve such will render that the inevitable result. As I stated in the thread, the effect of this will be to move job creation from the private sector to the gov't and thus create few if any new jobs. On the other hand the massive inflation and interest rates created both now and down the road from such funding mechanisms as have been suggested would hamper the ability of business to get loans and expand, not to mention lead to massive countering job cuts for those that are gained.

Though I must say a job guarrantee sounds appealing on the surface if for no other reason than my present poverty. Of course the devil is in the details, and here at least, the facts do not have a liberal bias.

Energy Bill Thing - The Polnut bill I think not the other one. I am supportive of this or at least parts of it, if for no other reason than it will redirect money taken from the carbon tax back into the hands of the consumers it hits so hard. I have long thought a unilateral carbon tax a bad way to address a global problem, for the pollution will just move to places with far less regulation and thus make the problem worse, not better, and cost us jobs and revenue in the process not to mention hit the poor and working class the hardest. For all the problems of a Carbon tax though, a cap and trade system has the same problems and the added bonus (if you are Enron or Bernie Maddoff w/ all yo money), of it being a corrupt financial scheme.

The Capital Freedom Act - I have several issues with this, but I do like the idea of amending the Labor Rights Act of 2013 to remove section two as I don't like the idea of card check or similar systems of labor organization. I was the only Senator to vote for the redraft by then President Napoleon, which did not include this section and I think it was a mistake for the Senate to have rejected that redraft.

The Support for Carers - The return of Polnut has also meant the return of this bill that unfortunatley died after valient efforts on the part of numerous Senators to keep it alive even after Polnut departed from the Senate. I have already voiced my opinions several times on his premature departure last September, so I will refrain from so so again. cough...should've run again...cough cough. (I must be getting sick :P).

Anyway I am unsure about the bill as of right now and will need to review the details of the cost and the text closely before making a judgement on the matter. I will say that last time issues with the GM served to severely hamper efforts in the way of this and I hope that such is not the case again. My hope is that a solid bill will be crafted with a reasonable price tag and if such is the case, I lean towards supporting it.

Press Release -

I congratulate Senator HagridoftheDeep on his election to the Senate and hope for him to have a rather successful term. However, I must say that in spite of any hopes to the contrary, this "palatial" office is privately owned and therefore will not go into the rotation of offices amongst the Senators. Enjoy your broom closets Senators!!! >:D

Press Release -

Throughout my four times as PPT of the Atlasian Senate, I dedicated myself an active and non-partisan Senate administration that was open and fair. For the longest time I had hope for someone amongst Labor that would take the same approach as me, for the only way to ensure that my legacy of administering the Senate in this fashion lived on through shifting majorites was with the presence of someone of like mind on the matter in each of the other Parties. Sooner or later I would not have been able to continue as PPT (I wasn't) and someday I would leave the Senate (THATS CRAZY!!!).

I have a lot of respect for both of the candidates who are running for the position of Speaker and though I cannot offer either of them a vote in the election, I will say I support Windjammer for the position. Last year when he was VP, I found in him, if a little unpollished and somewhat inflexible, someone whose dedication to the rules, to fairness and most of all to the activity necessary to keep the chamber running, was similar to that of my own. I therefore have full confidence in his ability to run the Senate in a fair and bipartisan fashion just as now President bore did before him and President Lumine did before him.

Press Release -

Recently, I was going through the wiki after having taken it upon myself to write these depressing words into my own wiki page, "A former member of the Atlasian Senate representing the Imperial Dominion of the South from July 3, 2009 until March 6, 2015", and I somehow ended up linked back to Nix's office thread as President.

It is hard to believe that it has been almost two whole years since he was President and I was posting every other post in his thread, as PPT, to notify him of passed legislation. As President and myself as PPT, we had some ups and downs to be sure and times when we probably both wanted to strangle the other. However, I think he is a good guy and that he was a great President. I have full confidence in his ability to be a successful Vice President, even in spite of himself gutting the office of any real tangible responsibilities. I encourage the Senate to confirm him, provided he is thoroughly grilled before hand as all nominees should be, and wish him the greatest of success as Vice President.

Press Release -

I will be traveling to Raleigh to make an important announcement, tomorrow evening. I am sure everyone will be in for a big surprise so I encourage you to attend.

Press Release -

Since 2014, I have desired an out from the Senate dictated neither by inconvenience in real life or by the vast Rimjobian and leftwing conspiracy (Clinton ref ftw :P), here in Atlasia. As Party Chairman, I felt obligated to not leave in such a way that risked it being lost. This meant that neither June,  nor October of 2014 were acceptable. It also meant that February was not either, though it ended up being forced on me in the exact opposite of circumstances.

A year ago we were on a very bad path and it seemed like few grasped just how bad it would be, how desperate the above mentioned conspiracy would get and and how badly the game would suffer as a result. We had an administration making terrible choices, we had a Senate with eight left-wing Senators and an aspiring opposition that seemed dedicated to replacing Laborite left-wingers, with non-Laborite leftwingers. An aspiring opposition that spent years propping up, promoting and electing as many Socialists (and Laborite at that) to the Senate as possible to further their anti-Atlasia agenda, only to then turn and accuse as being soft on Labor, the one person trying coordinate everyone from Libertarian to Simfan in a direction that sought Laborite defeat for two years.

Of course I was likewise accused of working with Napoleon before I actually was. As I said in a PM to someone recently about this very matter, its kind of like having to go to prison to become a crook. The Rimjob conspiracy was started as a means of destroying the Liberal Party, and its actions eventually forced me to cooperate on shared positions with Napoleon. Likewise, nearly the same group forced me to do the same with Adam to save Atlasia from them. Neither would have happened if not for them going to far. I have always said, they are their own worst enemies.

That is not to say that Labor shouldn't be opposed or disagreed with. Conservatives should have a bold issue based alternative to challenge the left. I was never a big policy guy and certainly not one that could compete with Senator TNF on the left. I was always more of an administrator and coordinator in that sense, and we did a great job of keeping them out of control until fationalism crippled the right, factionalism I had always worked to discourage in favor of the primary objective of defeating Labor. Of course this didn't matter, I had thwarted them since 2013 and I was going to be their target. I would have destroyed their lies and deceitful propaganda just as I had been doing for over a year, had I the means to destroy them in real time, which in late summer and fall of 2014 having no internet access and facing homelessness, I did not.

Turning to the present, a substantial decline was baked into the pie as a result of what happened last summer, but we are moving in the right direction reform wise. We are slumping again in an anticipation of the legislative reboot, but that same slump should hopefully turn into a V-shaped recovery once as a result of said reboot and the revival of issue based discussion. It is my hope that such issue based disagreements will form the basis of the divides in Atlasia going forward, sidelining the transpartisan personality and clique based divides that have so weakened the game for the last three years.

Today, I get to leave the Senate having accomplished what I wanted and with the circumstances that I desired. I look forward to the completion and ratification of the new Constitution, of which I plan to fully assist in the accomplishment of such, and then immediately turning to shaping the conservative opposition in the new chapter of Atlasia's history.