SENATE BILL: Environmental Conservation and Protection Act (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Napoleon

[CatoMinor]

I am not too sure about the constitutionality of this. The whole banning transfer of land that the federal government doesn't own thing just doesn't seem Constitutional.

[Napoleon]

Where in the Constitution do you see that?

[CatoMinor]

Article 1; Section 6; Clause (7, I think)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not allowing regions and local governments to do with as they wish with the land they own, in my opinion, violates this section.

I would be more supportive if this bill specified that it would only apply to federally owned land.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I hereby request that the Senate filibuster this bill until the Imperial government can privatize its parks. Thank you for your time.

[Napoleon]

This is precisely why this bill is necessary. We need to end the corrupt government practice of giving land set aside for conservation to your buddies so they can make a profit. It is a crime against the people and a crime against nature. I also saw a Mideast Assemblyman express desire to allow oil companies to use these lands.

I don't care who "owns" the land, we need checks and balances. Regional land is still territory of Atlasia and most of Atlasia's land is located within a region. We don't need to do something as destructive as letting regions destroy their natural environment because they feel like it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I would be honored if my buddies were up-and-coming yeoman farmers. It also seems that you have not addressed Senator Jbrase's point. I trust the honorable Senator will quickly address this oversight.

[Napoleon]

Article I, Section 5, Clause 31

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If the federal government desires to protect a land directly, we are capable of buying it ourselves. Otherwise I fear we discourage regions from setting further land aside.

[Napoleon]

If the federal government desires to protect a land directly, we are capable of buying it ourselves. Otherwise I fear we discourage regions from setting further land aside.

It really is a two way street. It gives the regional governments a say over federal conservation and vice versa.

read this

[bgwah]

I support this bill. Let Mother Earth heal!

[CatoMinor]

I still feel this bill as it currently is, is in violation of the powers denied to the Senate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would like to know if the other Senators agree with me. If so then I would like to see it either amended to only apply to federal land or tabled. I respect the goals of this amendment too much to just want to table it right away, so I will not call for that unless we cannot find a way to amend the bill to fix the constitutionality issue.

[Napoleon]

The only part I could see that provision relating to is not going to be found unconstitutional. They wouldn't be required to do anything other than from this unless you consider making regional approval necessary to transfer federal lands. The regions are already required to approve a law to do this dangerous process because they are Democracies and not a dictatorship or anarchy. This is just giving some federal jurisdiction over land within this nation's boundaries.

Furthermore, everything following "exempt" in that clause of yours would be triggered, so to speak, by the clause I posted showing this power belongs to the Senate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am concerned with the language in the paragraph beginning, "The Senate of the Republic of Atlasia...". It puts a ban in place on all land transfers by the federal, state and local gov'ts. Then goes on and establishes a process which allows the transder of "federal" land. I see no other processes established for the local and regional gov'ts. Meaning this is not just a regulation and establishment of procedures, but it is instead the outright prohibition on regions and local gov'ts from engaging a transfers of a certain class of property.

And sadly for the second day in a row, I am driven off by storms.

To be continued...

[Napoleon]

I think that was supposed to say "protected" instead of "federal".

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I still feel this bill as it currently is, is in violation of the powers denied to the Senate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would like to know if the other Senators agree with me. If so then I would like to see it either amended to only apply to federal land or tabled. I respect the goals of this amendment too much to just want to table it right away, so I will not call for that unless we cannot find a way to amend the bill to fix the constitutionality issue.

This bill does look to me like a violation of that clause. Napoleon mentioned Article I, Section 5, Clause 31, which gives the Senate power 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

However, a) it isn't clear this bill meets the test of necessity, and b) that section begins with stating that the Senate only has these powers where not "limited by other provisions in the Constitution."

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I think that was supposed to say "protected" instead of "funeral".

"federal"?

[Napoleon]

I think that was supposed to say "protected" instead of "federal".

"federal"?

Yes but why are we turning this debate into a constitutional law class?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I think that was supposed to say "protected" instead of "federal".

"federal"?

Yes but why are we turning this debate into a constitutional law class?

I believe whether or not a proposed law is constitutional is a valid concern.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Right. If it's not constitutional, it's going to be struck down regardless of whether it passes or not. It's most certainly a valid concern.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Right. If it's not constitutional, it's going to be struck down regardless of whether it passes or not. It's most certainly a valid concern.

Definitely. This bill serves a good purpose and opposing it just for "regional rights" sake would be silly.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Right. If it's not constitutional, it's going to be struck down regardless of whether it passes or not. It's most certainly a valid concern.

Definitely. This bill serves a good purpose and opposing it just for "regional rights" sake would be silly.

But surely you must realize, that to a regional rights supporters, there is legitimate grounds for criticism beyond the constitutional issue. Of course the constitutional concern should take priority though.

[Napoleon]

So anyone want to explain why JBrase's provision is superior to mine and why we should fail to pass a bill we can't say is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt...I think it is constitutionally sound.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It looks like it comes down to ones view of the constitution, and their ideology regarding that.


Is a final vote desired?

[Napoleon]

No, an answer to my question is desired.