Department of Housing and Urban Development Reduction Bill

[Colin]

I have one problem with the CheeseWhiz bill. It repeals all bills that even mention the Office of Public and Indian Housing which could include several bills that have very little to do with the agency but are nontheless mention the department within their text. I much better means of doing something like this is to strike the the phrase Office of Public and Indian Housing from all bills and to repeal sections of bills that pertain to the Office of Public and Indian Housing.

Personally I think we should do this. If the court has already ruled that this office is unconstitutional, and I do believe that was a unanimous ruling, then it is only logical that we do away with the infrastructure of the unconstitutional department.

[Colin]

Aye

[Colin]

Aye

[Colin]

Aye

[Colin]

Why are people voting nay on this one?  It's just a clarification of a previous amendment to make it not have unfortunate consequences.

^^^^^

My last amendment was worded kind of badly, as Colin pointed out.  Do you really wish for every bill that just mentions the Office of Public and Indian Housing to be repealed?

No its just Texasgurl who always votes no on everything.

[Colin]

Why are people voting nay on this one?  It's just a clarification of a previous amendment to make it not have unfortunate consequences.

^^^^^

My last amendment was worded kind of badly, as Colin pointed out.  Do you really wish for every bill that just mentions the Office of Public and Indian Housing to be repealed?

No its just Texasgurl who always votes no on everything.

Jake voted nay on it as well.

Well he sucks too.

[Colin]

Why are people voting nay on this one?  It's just a clarification of a previous amendment to make it not have unfortunate consequences.

^^^^^

My last amendment was worded kind of badly, as Colin pointed out.  Do you really wish for every bill that just mentions the Office of Public and Indian Housing to be repealed?

No its just Texasgurl who always votes no on everything.

Jake voted nay on it as well.

Well he sucks too.

Way to show a little respect.

Hey I didn't mean it Texasgurl. I have nothing against Jake or you I was just stating a relatively true statement that you rarely vote in the affirmation of anything.

[Colin]

Aye

[Colin]

Mr. Vice President,
Noting that the decision has been made and that you have officially vetoed this bill I would like to object to your actions in a public manner. Whilst if this program was still operational and currently using the funds provided to it by the federal government I could see a reason why such a measure such as a veto could be taken.

But since the Supreme Court ruled in Bono v. Atlasia that the main cut in this bill, the Office of Public and Indian Housing, is unconstitional and thus not using the funds appropriated to it by this legislature which to me makes your veto seem rather odd.

Secondly I would like to ask an open question to all those who voted in the negation of this proposal. Would you support a bill such as this if it only did away with the Office of Public and Indian Housing which was declared unconstitutional in Bono v. Atlasia or would you still be opposed?

I would also like to protest the actions of PPT MasterJedi. According to the OSPR Article V Section 3 the sponsor of this bill has 72 hours to decide whether he wants the Senate to vote again on overidding the Presidents veto. Your actions in unanimously declaring that their shall not be a veto overide vote is illegal according to the OSPR. The final decision rests in the current sponsor of the bill, ie Senator CheeseWhiz, and he has to publically state whether or not he wants their to be a veto overide vote. I would hope that the PPT in any future instance of such a situation occuring would use his powers in the way that the OSPR subscribes.

[Colin]

I would also like to protest the actions of PPT MasterJedi. According to the OSPR Article V Section 3 the sponsor of this bill has 72 hours to decide whether he wants the Senate to vote again on overidding the Presidents veto. Your actions in unanimously declaring that their shall not be a veto overide vote is illegal according to the OSPR. The final decision rests in the current sponsor of the bill, ie Senator CheeseWhiz, and he has to publically state whether or not he wants their to be a veto overide vote. I would hope that the PPT in any future instance of such a situation occuring would use his powers in the way that the OSPR subscribes.

I just said that the bill doesn't have enough votes for a veto override so I won't go for it. I didn't say the sponsor can't.

Well you can't open up the vote without the consent of the sponsor in the first place so that seems to make your statement rather superfluous. I thought that by what you said you meant that you wouldn't bring a veto overide vote to the floor. I'm sorry if I was mistaken.

[Colin]

Ebowed, as Ernest and Bono have already said, that program has been ruled unconstitutional, and, I could be wrong, but doesn't that mean we're actually paying people to do nothing?  If that is the case, then this is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be cut first.

Additionally, I have re-read both Bono vs. Atlasia decisions and can find no inkling relating to Indian affairs.  The only mention I can find of it being ruled unconstitutional is that the GM said so when he was preparing budget figures for the Senate in January.

This is taken from the text of the decision in the case of Bono v. Atlasia II available on the AtlasWiki; emphasis mine:

VII.  Chapter 34 of title 42 of the US code
There remain only three portions of this chapter that have not been repealed, Part C of subchapter I, and subchapters VIII, and X.

Subchapter I Part C - Federal Work-Study Programs

A clear usage of the Senate's power under Article I Section 5 Clause 15.

Subchapter VIII - Native American Programs

Programs that provide benefits to people based solely on their
ethnicity are generally unconstitutional as they deny people equal treatment under the law.

Subchapter X - Legal Services Corporation

Subchapter X of chapter 34 employs a means test based of income level in order to determine eligibility of persons to gain assistance under it.  In keeping with the precedent of the first Bono v. Atlasia case, a program employing such tests is inherently unconstutional.  This court does not rule at this time on the constitutionality of this program absent of such test.

That overall is the only mentioning of Native Americans in Bono v. Atlasia II though if it was the GMs decision that it was made unconstitutional then I would believe it is final. Also since Bono v. Atlasia and Bono v. Atlasia II both made any program that used a test as a basis for application unconstitutional which could be constued to also mean the Office of Public and Indian Housing.

[Colin]

Aye

[Colin]

OK, I found the relevant section of Bono v. Atlasia II:

   Subchapter VIII - Native American Programs
Programs that provide benefits to people based solely on their
ethnicity are generally unconstitutional as they deny people equal treatment under the law.

   Subchapter X - Legal Services Corporation
Subchapter X of chapter 34 employs a means test based of income level in order to determine eligibility of persons to gain assistance under it.  In keeping with the precedent of the first Bono v. Atlasia case, a program employing such tests is inherently unconstutional.  This court does not rule at this time on the constitutionality of this program absent of such test.

I should add that the wording in that section of the ruling is highly vague, does anyone have a list of what exactly was ruled unconstitutional?

That section is highly vague but a section further up in the ruling, as well as the precedent set in Bono v. Atlasia I, declared any program that uses a test as a basis for application is unconstitutional.

The section that I have found is concerning Chapter 8 of title 42 of the US code. The actual text of the decision, emphesis my own:

V.  Chapter 8 of title 42 of the US code
Subchapter II of chapter 8 has already been repealed, leaving subchapters I, II-A, II-B, III, and some sections prior to subchapter I that are not part of any subchapter.

The sections of chapter 8 prior to subchapter I and section 1439 of subchapter III of chapter 8 deliniate various procedural aspects of administrating the law and are in of themselves constitutional under Article I Section 5 Clause 28.

The programs administered under section 1440 of subchapter III of chapter 8 and subchapters I, II-A and II-B of chapter 8 employ a means test based of income level in order to determine eligibility of persons to gain assistance under it.  In keeping with the precedent of the first Bono v. Atlasia case, programs employing such tests are inherently unconstutional.  This court does not rule at this time on the constitutionality of such programs absent of such test.

Granted I probably would not have decided that such test based welfare programs were unconstitutional but we must respect the court's decision or else the independence and power of the judiciary might be called into question. If you, Ebowed, feel that this ruling was unfair and distorted the meaning of the constitution then I, by all means, would suggest that you bring up a new case before the Court once it is completely filled that might overturn some of the rulings in Bono v. Atlasia II.