Proposal for the Trolls

[ShapeShifter]

I would make it a CRIME to reply to any of the trolls on this board!



Vote for me in the NE senate race.

[bgwah]

Well the democrats would have problems if they couldn't talk to their chairman!

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

With respect to the trolls:

This seems like a matter that may be appropriate for the Supreme Court to deal with once they are chosen.

In the United States, everyone qualified has the right to vote under the Constitution, but one can forfeit that right by committing a felony (in most states).  

Similarly, I think that if someone commits a "felony" on this forum (such as trolling), there should be a trial in front of the court, and if convicted, they should lose their right to vote.  Under our constitution, the court has the right to "interpret" our laws, and it seems reasonable that they should be able to interpret the right to vote in the same way the real America does.

In the absence of the Supreme Court, we should be able to convict trolls on the basis of a 2/3 vote of the public.

So, anyone with 18 legitimate posts should have the right to vote, but you can forfeit that right by committing a crime.

[Emsworth]

In the absence of the Supreme Court, we should be able to convict trolls on the basis of a 2/3 vote of the public.

Sounds like a bill of attainder to me...

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

In the absence of the Supreme Court, we should be able to convict trolls on the basis of a 2/3 vote of the public.

Sounds like a bill of attainder to me...

Well, OK, but I don't think they are prohibited under our constitution.

Or we can just wait until we have a Supreme Court.

[JohnFKennedy]

In the absence of the Supreme Court, we should be able to convict trolls on the basis of a 2/3 vote of the public.

Sounds like a bill of attainder to me...

Well, OK, but I don't think they are prohibited under our constitution.

Or we can just wait until we have a Supreme Court.

Dan is making a change so they are, I can't remember whereabouts he posted this, it was in one of the really long threads.

[ilikeverin]

Could you imagine what the case would look like in the Supreme Court?

United States v. Jesus... LMAO!

[dunn]

Could you imagine what the case would look like?

United States v. Jesus... LMAO!

rather Atlas v. Jesus

[ilikeverin]

Could you imagine what the case would look like?

United States v. Jesus... LMAO!

rather Atlas v. Jesus

Hmph...  oh well!

[dunn]

Could you imagine what the case would look like?

United States v. Jesus... LMAO!

rather Atlas v. Jesus

Hmph...  oh well!

lol

[Siege40]

Question about the Supreme Court, are three justices selected every election cycle or is there some sort of "for life" clause there too(I hope not)?

Siege40

[dunn]

Question about the Supreme Court, are three justices selected every election cycle or is there some sort of "for life" clause there too(I hope not)?

Siege40

Article III (Supreme Court)

Section 1.

The Judicial Power of the Atlas Forum shall be vested in the Supreme Court. A court consisting of three members, one of whom shall be the Chief Justice of the Atlas Forum. Supreme Court members shall be appointed by the President with Senate approval and may be removed by the President with Senate approval.

Section 2. (Duties of the Supreme Court)

Clause 1. The Supreme Court shall step in on any occasion in which a person or persons preform an unconstitutional or unlawful act.

Clause 2. The Supreme Court may make any ruling they see fit to uphold the Constitution of the Atlas Forum.

Clause 3. The Supreme Court may only interpret the law, and if they pass any ruling that usurps the Senate’s lawmaking authority, they are guilty of abusing their power and therefore subject to impeachment.

[Siege40]

Question about the Supreme Court, are three justices selected every election cycle or is there some sort of "for life" clause there too(I hope not)?

Siege40

Article III (Supreme Court)

Section 1.

The Judicial Power of the Atlas Forum shall be vested in the Supreme Court. A court consisting of three members, one of whom shall be the Chief Justice of the Atlas Forum. Supreme Court members shall be appointed by the President with Senate approval and may be removed by the President with Senate approval.

Section 2. (Duties of the Supreme Court)

Clause 1. The Supreme Court shall step in on any occasion in which a person or persons preform an unconstitutional or unlawful act.

Clause 2. The Supreme Court may make any ruling they see fit to uphold the Constitution of the Atlas Forum.

Clause 3. The Supreme Court may only interpret the law, and if they pass any ruling that usurps the Senate’s lawmaking authority, they are guilty of abusing their power and therefore subject to impeachment.

So, if I interpret that correctly there's a new bunch after each election (Except for re-elections)?

[Emsworth]

Question about the Supreme Court, are three justices selected every election cycle or is there some sort of "for life" clause there too(I hope not)?

Siege40

Article III (Supreme Court)

Section 1.

The Judicial Power of the Atlas Forum shall be vested in the Supreme Court. A court consisting of three members, one of whom shall be the Chief Justice of the Atlas Forum. Supreme Court members shall be appointed by the President with Senate approval and may be removed by the President with Senate approval.

Section 2. (Duties of the Supreme Court)

Clause 1. The Supreme Court shall step in on any occasion in which a person or persons preform an unconstitutional or unlawful act.

Clause 2. The Supreme Court may make any ruling they see fit to uphold the Constitution of the Atlas Forum.

Clause 3. The Supreme Court may only interpret the law, and if they pass any ruling that usurps the Senate’s lawmaking authority, they are guilty of abusing their power and therefore subject to impeachment.

So, if I interpret that correctly there's a new bunch after each election (Except for re-elections)?

Not necessarily; the new president could choose instead to keep the same justices from the previous court.

[dunn]

no, the president can remove a judge just with a senate approval, theoreticlly he can be there forever

[??????????]

Jesus is BGWah. Check under the Thread titled Church attendence. Look at all those nice maps he made. Look up properties and read the website. Bingo.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Jesus is BGWah. Check under the Thread titled Church attendence. Look at all those nice maps he made. Look up properties and read the website. Bingo.

OK, I am impressed that he has made a contribution to the forum, and would welcome him as a legitimate voter IF he STOPS TROLLING.  

People who are here to troll should not be allowed to vote, period.  Since no one has convicted Jesus yet, if he quits his trolling now then...fine, he's in.  But I have seen no signs that he intends to do that.

[dunn]

Jesus is a legitemate member and so does his party. the others names he uses are not

[Fritz]

Since I put so much time and energy into this post yesterday on another thread, I'm going to quote myself.  I think I made some good points:

Is there a way to resolve the issue of whether Jesus and Apostle are legitimate voters?  

As I see it, whether or not they are the same person, both of them are trolls and have used the forum only to troll and not to make a meaningful contribution to out discussion of politics.  

No matter how many posts they have, they should not be allowed to vote in our elections if their primary goals are to tear the forum down and not to build it up.

Regarding this, there are some rather sticky constitutional issues.  

Article V, Clause 4: "No one who has attained eighteen posts and have established an avatar from the United States for at least the time span of the election shall be denied the right to vote."

Amendment II, Section 2: "Every member of the forum shall have the right to vote if they have acquired eighteen posts and are registered with an avatar from the United States, and shall not be excluded from any election due to their nationality, race, religion, sex, sexual affiliation, or age. "

I have seen some discussion about changing this language to specify what constitutes valid postings.  IMO, writing language into the Constitution for the specific purpose of excluding Jesus and Apostle will be a very, very bad idea.  As the language is currently written, they cannot be excluded.  All that is mentioned is 18 posts, it does not say 18 high-quality posts or 18 posts that add something to the forum.  Nor should it.

Amendment II, Section 1: "No one shall exclude any person from an election or position on the basis of their political affiliation, whether it be in a federal or regional election."  Excluding anyone from running on the basis of membership in the Jesus Christ Party is therefore unconstitutional as well.

It simply amazes me that these multiple accounts originating from the same person have not been expelled by Dave.  I am sure he has been made aware of this situation (I have even notified him myself about it).  Obviously that is the most expedient resolution to this problem.

Constitutionally, then, here is how we can proceed:

Jesus and Apostle must be permitted to vote and run for office, having fulfilled the constitutional requirements for doing so.

In order for Apostle to actually get elected, Jesus will have to be very, very busy posting posts from Saint Christopher, Brother Ian, etc. to get them up to 18 posts.  Okay, let's assume he actually does this.  The Senate immediately expels Apostle, under the terms of Article I Section 4.  The Governor of the Wetern region would hopefully appoint the person who would have won absent all the Jesus votes.  This is somewhat unfair to Western region voters, but hopefully the Governor would do the right thing.

Whether or not Apostle gets elected to the Senate, the Supreme Court, once established and convened, will bring charges against Jesus, Apostle, and all other incarnations of this persona, the charge being creating multiple accounts in the forum.

I know this seems a long-winded way to proceed.  I hope that Dave will intervene, and make all this unnecessary.  But if the rule of law is going to prevail in the forum, as opposed to anarchy, I can see no other way.

[Emsworth]

Since I put so much time and energy into this post yesterday on another thread, I'm going to quote myself.  I think I made some good points:

Is there a way to resolve the issue of whether Jesus and Apostle are legitimate voters?  

As I see it, whether or not they are the same person, both of them are trolls and have used the forum only to troll and not to make a meaningful contribution to out discussion of politics.  

No matter how many posts they have, they should not be allowed to vote in our elections if their primary goals are to tear the forum down and not to build it up.

Regarding this, there are some rather sticky constitutional issues.  

Article V, Clause 4: "No one who has attained eighteen posts and have established an avatar from the United States for at least the time span of the election shall be denied the right to vote."

Amendment II, Section 2: "Every member of the forum shall have the right to vote if they have acquired eighteen posts and are registered with an avatar from the United States, and shall not be excluded from any election due to their nationality, race, religion, sex, sexual affiliation, or age. "

I have seen some discussion about changing this language to specify what constitutes valid postings.  IMO, writing language into the Constitution for the specific purpose of excluding Jesus and Apostle will be a very, very bad idea.  As the language is currently written, they cannot be excluded.  All that is mentioned is 18 posts, it does not say 18 high-quality posts or 18 posts that add something to the forum.  Nor should it.

Amendment II, Section 1: "No one shall exclude any person from an election or position on the basis of their political affiliation, whether it be in a federal or regional election."  Excluding anyone from running on the basis of membership in the Jesus Christ Party is therefore unconstitutional as well.

It simply amazes me that these multiple accounts originating from the same person have not been expelled by Dave.  I am sure he has been made aware of this situation (I have even notified him myself about it).  Obviously that is the most expedient resolution to this problem.

Constitutionally, then, here is how we can proceed:

Jesus and Apostle must be permitted to vote and run for office, having fulfilled the constitutional requirements for doing so.

In order for Apostle to actually get elected, Jesus will have to be very, very busy posting posts from Saint Christopher, Brother Ian, etc. to get them up to 18 posts.  Okay, let's assume he actually does this.  The Senate immediately expels Apostle, under the terms of Article I Section 4.  The Governor of the Wetern region would hopefully appoint the person who would have won absent all the Jesus votes.  This is somewhat unfair to Western region voters, but hopefully the Governor would do the right thing.

Whether or not Apostle gets elected to the Senate, the Supreme Court, once established and convened, will bring charges against Jesus, Apostle, and all other incarnations of this persona, the charge being creating multiple accounts in the forum.

I know this seems a long-winded way to proceed.  I hope that Dave will intervene, and make all this unnecessary.  But if the rule of law is going to prevail in the forum, as opposed to anarchy, I can see no other way.

A problem would arise if the Governor is a Jesuit.

[Apostle]

Yes accually i do, and your insisting to post things that say DOn't respond are just asking for an answer.  Once again, if you don't like the topic, go to another thread.  It is not that difficult of a concept.  Lets learn.

[Apostle]

sorry wrong section