SENATE BILL: Environmental Conservation and Protection Act (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I doubt one will be forthcoming at this point. It comes down to one's personal interpretation of the constitution, and the lack of response so far indicates no one has a desire to engage in a pointless debate that will likely not change anyone's minds.

We also can't wait forever for an answer that may never come.

[Napoleon]

I don't think it is pointless, though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In order to debate the interpretations point, you need to find someone who agrees with Jbrase's interpretation and also agrees with you that it isn't pointless to debate it further.

[Bacon King]

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.

As far as I can tell, this bill does indeed violate this section of the Constitution.

The easiest way to make this bill constitutionally sound would be to just do what the the US does for this sort of thing in real life- don't directly force the regional governments to do it, just withhold their highway funds and such if they don't do it.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

No, an answer to my question is desired.

It's not clear to me what you're asking that we didn't already attempt to answer.

[CatoMinor]

No, an answer to my question is desired.

It's not clear to me what you're asking that we didn't already attempt to answer.

I believe he is asking why the section of the constitution he brought up doesn't cover the bill.

As Yankee said this just boils down to interpretation, and currently it appears most agree with me on this being unconstitutional as is.

[Ban my account ffs!]

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT.  READ!


Napoleon is correct in his assessment, Jbrase:

Article 1, section 5, clause 31 states:

To protect the Public Health, commerce and heritage by making such regulations as shall be necessary for the protection and preservation of natural beauty, biological diversity and other natural resources.

Article 2, section 1, clause 7 states:

No Law requiring any action to be taken or to be not taken by a Region shall be passed, except to preserve the rights of the Senate or of the People enumerated under the Constitution.

Clause 31 clearly states the senate has the right to create regulations and laws in order to protect and preserve the natural beauty, biological diversity, and natural resources.

It does not specify that that only applies to federally owned lands... but rather it applies, by implication, to all lands within Atlasia's borders.

The clause you cited protects regions from being forced to do or not to do something if, and only if, it does not contradict the prescribed rights of the senate in article I, section 5.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Furthermore, I think the argument can be made that preventing the sale of protected lands to private individuals is in fact a regulation to protect the natural beauty, biological diversity, or natural resources on said land.

If you want to get picky and argue it is not.. then i will gladly help Napoleon rewrite the bill so that it places direct regulations on the protected lands whether they be federally, regionally, or individually owned.  But that wouldn't be very popular because we could essentially deem any property to be "protected" and basically tie the hands of the owners of the property.

This way, at least, we're keeping the land in regional or federal hands without hurting individual private property owners.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Clause 31 clearly states the senate has the right to create regulations and laws in order to protect and preserve the natural beauty, biological diversity, and natural resources.

It does not specify that that only applies to federally owned lands... but rather it applies, by implication, to all lands within Atlasia's borders.

The clause you cited protects regions from being forced to do or not to do something if, and only if, it does not contradict the prescribed rights of the senate in article I, section 5.

No one is arguing that clause 31 applies only to federal lands.  Endangered species laws, for example, apply everywhere in Atlasia, and are constitutional. At issue is whether the Senate may compel the regions to act in a certain way that does not also apply to other institutions or individuals.

The key word in clause 31 is necessary. The only way this bill could meet that test is if there is no other way for the Senate to reach this goal that doesn't face the problem of article 2 1, sec 6, c 7. I haven't seen any evidence this is the case.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Clause 31 clearly states the senate has the right to create regulations and laws in order to protect and preserve the natural beauty, biological diversity, and natural resources.

It does not specify that that only applies to federally owned lands... but rather it applies, by implication, to all lands within Atlasia's borders.

The clause you cited protects regions from being forced to do or not to do something if, and only if, it does not contradict the prescribed rights of the senate in article I, section 5.

No one is arguing that clause 31 applies only to federal lands.  Endangered species laws, for example, apply everywhere in Atlasia, and are constitutional. At issue is whether the Senate may compel the regions to act in a certain way that does not also apply to other institutions or individuals.

The key word in clause 31 is necessary. The only way this bill could meet that test is if there is no other way for the Senate to reach this goal that doesn't face the problem of article 2. I haven't seen any evidence this is the case.

If you read my post correctly, I said that we could directly regulate all protected lands.  The regions can sell them off to private hands as they wish... but the lands would still be protected and thus the ability to exploit the lands by private property owners would be severely curtailed.

The point is that the senate has the right to preserve lands that it deems necessary regardless of who owns it. 

If we amend the bill to directly regulate said lands, it will probably all but stop the transfer of lands to private interests anyway... since the private owners would gain no benefit, other than perhaps to charge people to look at the land.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So you are saying that any land set aside for protection by a region would have to be protected as such in perpetuity regardless of future ownership? If so, you are still restricting a region's options in creating protected land and so the constitutional problem remains.

[Ban my account ffs!]

So you are saying that any land set aside for protection by a region would have to be protected as such in perpetuity regardless of future ownership? If so, you are still restricting a region's options in creating protected land and so the constitutional problem remains.

Only if it were deemed a protected land by the federal government as well.  If a region sets aside land for protection apart from the federal government, then that would not fall under the federal regulations.

Don't confuse that with only protecting federal lands.

My proposal would allow the senate to set aside lands for protection... and those lands, regardless of ownership, would be subject to federal regulation.

Real-world examples don't exist because the United States Congress does not have the direct authority to set aside and protect and regulate lands not owned by the federal government.  The feds can try to regulate state owned lands... but states can ignore those regulations without punishment from the feds (except for probably losing federal funding... a creative punishment used by the feds to get their way)

[Napoleon]

I've demonstrated why this bill is necessary through my arguments and my evidence provided via link. I have sufficiently demonstrated how it is constitutional and Snowguy has reinforced that argument. There is, in my opinion, no excuses. This bill preserves a region's right to designate land for protection without fear that the land will be sacrificed for the sake of fulfilling ideological dogma or corrupt cronyism. Either you believe some environmental conservation is necessary or you believe that the environment is to be used solely to advance capitalism via appropriation or cronyism. I am ready for a final vote and hope the Senate can make the right choice.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Then I move for a cloture vote to end debate on this bill.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If there is a piece of land that is we believe is necessary to protect, we have the ability to buy it and make it a federal preserve. I hope the Senate does not pass any bill such as this restricting the ability of regions to create nature preserves on their own terms.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

If there is a piece of land that is we believe is necessary to protect, we have the ability to buy it and make it a federal preserve. I hope the Senate does not pass any bill such as this restricting the ability of regions to create nature preserves on their own terms.

...or remove that status to suit economic needs?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If there is a piece of land that is we believe is necessary to protect, we have the ability to buy it and make it a federal preserve. I hope the Senate does not pass any bill such as this restricting the ability of regions to create nature preserves on their own terms.

...or remove that status to suit economic needs?

Of course that is a possibility. If you restrict the ability of a region to transfer protected land, you are by definition restricting their possibilities in creating protected land. I believe regions will be very reluctant to create new preserves that they have no ability to modify. 
As there are changes in populations and landscape, so there can changes over time in what land most needs protection to protect biodiversity. Regions should be able to redirect their resources to those areas most needing protection at any given time. This bill would prohibit regions from creating protected areas except those that are permanently fixed. If we are not going to allow them any flexibility, we might as well just commandeer all regional protected land.
And we haven't even discussed the inflexibility and impracticality this poses for the management of federal lands.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A motion to invoke cloture and proceed to a final vote has been entered and vote shall commence.  This cloture vote shall require a 2/3rds majority to pass. Senators, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Aye

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Aye

[bgwah]

aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[CatoMinor]

Aye

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Aye

[Antonio the Sixth]

Aye