SENATE BILL: Environmental Conservation and Protection Act (vetoed)

[bgwah]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Napoleon

[bgwah]

What an inspiring debate! This is now at a final vote. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

[Napoleon]

Aye

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Aye

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Aye

[Ban my account ffs!]

Aye.  Is Polnut going to sign this?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Didn't we try to pass this a while ago and we decided it was unconstitutional?

Granted, I am all for preserving land, but I am almost positive we had this exact same bill a few months ago from Napoleon and something about the Feds refusing regions the right to control their land was unconstitutional or was dicey enough that we voted it down.

[Napoleon]

No "we" didn't decide anything and the idea that the Senate is capable of determining such a thing is worth scoffing at.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

So whether it's constitutional or not doesn't mean anything? I don't want to pass bills that may be questionable.

[ZuWo]

Didn't we try to pass this a while ago and we decided it was unconstitutional?

Yes. About two months ago. The wording is almost exactly the same. The Vice President broke the tie and voted against it because of constitutional concerns. Here's the link to the debate thread.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=138870.0

[bgwah]

aye

[Napoleon]

So whether it's constitutional or not doesn't mean anything? I don't want to pass bills that may be questionable.

Any bill "may be questionable" Duke. Is this what we should expect from a Duke administration?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

So whether it's constitutional or not doesn't mean anything? I don't want to pass bills that may be questionable.

Any bill "may be questionable" Duke. Is this what we should expect from a Duke administration?

If by this you mean would I be concerned about whether legislation was constitutional or not, then absolutely.

[Napoleon]

So whether it's constitutional or not doesn't mean anything? I don't want to pass bills that may be questionable.

Any bill "may be questionable" Duke. Is this what we should expect from a Duke administration?

If by this you mean would I be concerned about whether legislation was constitutional or not, then absolutely.

Snowgiy and I both crushed the unconstitutional argument to a pulp last time.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Being a legal student myself, I do not see where you two crushed the argument. Article I, Section 6, clause 7 certainly is violated if we took that at face value because we cannot claim there is a right of the people enumerated or a right of the senate at stake here. It would be a reach to suggest so.

The constitutional provision that can be interpreted in more ways than one is clause 31. What it is saying is if this bill is necessary to protect the public health, commerce AND heritage. If all three are being violated, then the Senate can act. But as said in the earlier debate, we may as well do away with the regions, which I suspect is the goal of some people anyway, if we are to pass bills like this. The federal government could overrule whatever checks and balances they wish to overrule.

Plus, Bacon King found a federal statute that already does this type of thing that is constitution, although not exactly the samel. I am not exactly sure why we are still trying to force this through the senate, but barring Polnut vetoing it, it looks like it will pass.  

[Napoleon]

You must not have read anything I posted last time we debated this, because you haven't attemptes to refute any of my points. This is disappointing but whatever. You can vote against it but I ask you refrain from dirtying the debate with statements like that.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Respectfully, I don't think you 'crushed' the Constitutionality question - you presented a strong argument - I had concerns then... and I still have them now.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Hahaha, excuse me?

Snowguy made a good argument for this bill in the previous debate. The link you provided was dealing with a land swap in the Connecticut general assembly. You merely continue to say over and over it is constitutional without citing anything concrete outside of that one isolated case where there was a land swap in Connecticut. It certainly violates the clause JBrase cited and it could violate clause 31 depending on how we interpret the language.

I am not dirtying any debate, but if you do consider having a discussion on the constitutionality of a proposed bill on the senate floor as being dangerous and dirtying the debate, then I have grave concerns about the direct of this senate. From what I can tell, both sides provided compelling arguments about the constitutionality of the bill. No one "crushed it."

I welcome anyone who wishes to engage in a mature discussion about the merits of this bill to step forward, but I am through "debating" with Mr. Napoleon.

Since we are at final vote, I will vote nay for the same reasons I voted nay 2 months ago. Not that it matters. The bill will pass whenever BRTD comes to vote.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Respectfully, I don't think you 'crushed' the Constitutionality question - you presented a strong argument - I had concerns then... and I still have them now.

We are the constitution.

[CatoMinor]

Nay

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Aye

[bgwah]

This has enough votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I will probably be taking close to my full amount of allotted time to make a decision on this.

I will be attempting to gain as much as advice as possible.

My position at present is while it doesn't overwhelmingly appear unconstitutional, if there's even a hint that it might be, which there is, it's my obligation to take my time to consider signing this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay

[bgwah]

With 6 ayes, 3 nays, and 1 non-voting abstention, this has passed and is presented to the President for his signature.