SENATE BILL: Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty (VS)

[Donerail]

Aye, but I definitely had to think a little bit about this one...

Were you clear in your mine just why it is necessary now to move from a de facto to a de jure alliance with Israel? Just what does that accomplish specifically on the ground in the Mideast?

It reassures Israel that we support them and are fully committed to ensuring their security in light of a nuclear Iran. Basically telling them we've got their back, so they don't need to do anything risky (like attacking Iran, for instance).

[TJ in Oregon]

Aye, but I definitely had to think a little bit about this one...

Were you clear in your mine just why it is necessary now to move from a de facto to a de jure alliance with Israel? Just what does that accomplish specifically on the ground in the Mideast?

Necessary, no. I neither wrote nor sponsored this bill. It likely changes nothing about the situation on the ground.

However, since we already are in a defacto alliance with Israel, I do think it makes sense to formally declare what we are doing anyway. I support Atlasia being forthright and honest about its activities.

[tpfkaw]

Nay.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

SEATOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!

[LastVoter]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Final Passage of the Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty:

Aye (5): AndrewPA, Ben, Clarence, NC Yankee, and TJ in Cleve
Nay (5): ILV, sbane, Scott, Seatown and Wormyguy
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (0):

Vote ends in 15 minutes.


I haven't found a requirement in Article I of the Constitution dealing with Treaties requiring a 2/3rds vote, nor is such in the OSPR. It is possible that such is some obscure place appended to an unrelated matter and thus I missed it. I welcome others to scour the Constitution, OSPR and any related statues as well as collective memories of how these have been done in the past to find out whether this is a tie to be broken by the Veep or a failure to acheive passage.

[tmthforu94]

Let's give it 24 hours, then I get my power!!

In all seriousness, I've also researched into this - couldn't find anything, though I originally thought it did require 2/3's.

[tpfkaw]

Actually, as far as I can tell, the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to ratify treaties.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Actually, as far as I can tell, the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to ratify treaties.

Well, while Article I of the Constitution does not explicitly mention treaties on section 5, it does state that the Senate can-

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tpfkaw]

Actually, as far as I can tell, the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to ratify treaties.

Well, while Article I of the Constitution does not explicitly mention treaties on section 5, it does state that the Senate can-

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A treaty is pretty obviously not the same as an "activity" - an activity is a one-time thing while a treaty is a binding commitment to perform some activity for a set length of time.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Actually, as far as I can tell, the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to ratify treaties.

Well, while Article I of the Constitution does not explicitly mention treaties on section 5, it does state that the Senate can-

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A treaty is pretty obviously not the same as an "activity" - an activity is a one-time thing while a treaty is a binding commitment to perform some activity for a set length of time.

'Activity' means "the condition in which things are happening or being done."  There are no time limits as to what would constitute as an "activity," last I checked, as they can be short term or long term; duration is irrelevant.

[tpfkaw]

Actually, as far as I can tell, the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to ratify treaties.

Well, while Article I of the Constitution does not explicitly mention treaties on section 5, it does state that the Senate can-

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A treaty is pretty obviously not the same as an "activity" - an activity is a one-time thing while a treaty is a binding commitment to perform some activity for a set length of time.

'Activity' means "the condition in which things are happening or being done."  There are no time limits as to what would constitute as an "activity," last I checked, as they can be short term or long term; duration is irrelevant.

A treaty is not an activity, it's a commitment to engage in activity.  The Constitution gives no authority for the Senate to agree to such a commitment with a foreign nation.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Actually, as far as I can tell, the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to ratify treaties.

Well, while Article I of the Constitution does not explicitly mention treaties on section 5, it does state that the Senate can-

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A treaty is pretty obviously not the same as an "activity" - an activity is a one-time thing while a treaty is a binding commitment to perform some activity for a set length of time.

'Activity' means "the condition in which things are happening or being done."  There are no time limits as to what would constitute as an "activity," last I checked, as they can be short term or long term; duration is irrelevant.

A treaty is not an activity, it's a commitment to engage in activity.

...Which would be, in itself, an activity, as it fits under dictionary definition.

[LastVoter]

Wormy, you can challenge this in Tweedist Supreme court and win.

[tpfkaw]

Actually, as far as I can tell, the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to ratify treaties.

Well, while Article I of the Constitution does not explicitly mention treaties on section 5, it does state that the Senate can-

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A treaty is pretty obviously not the same as an "activity" - an activity is a one-time thing while a treaty is a binding commitment to perform some activity for a set length of time.

'Activity' means "the condition in which things are happening or being done."  There are no time limits as to what would constitute as an "activity," last I checked, as they can be short term or long term; duration is irrelevant.

A treaty is not an activity, it's a commitment to engage in activity.

...Which would be, in itself, an activity, as it fits under dictionary definition.

No, a treaty is a document.  A document is not an activity.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Actually, as far as I can tell, the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to ratify treaties.

Well, while Article I of the Constitution does not explicitly mention treaties on section 5, it does state that the Senate can-

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A treaty is pretty obviously not the same as an "activity" - an activity is a one-time thing while a treaty is a binding commitment to perform some activity for a set length of time.

'Activity' means "the condition in which things are happening or being done."  There are no time limits as to what would constitute as an "activity," last I checked, as they can be short term or long term; duration is irrelevant.

A treaty is not an activity, it's a commitment to engage in activity.

...Which would be, in itself, an activity, as it fits under dictionary definition.

No, a treaty is a document.  A document is not an activity.

Yet engaging in one is.

Merely stating that you plan on partaking in a certain activity is an activity.  I fail to see what it would be otherwise.

[Donerail]

Hey look, a treaty ratified by the Senate (with 6 Ayes & 3 Nays).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem is that predates the current constitution. But it appears that Jedi treated it like any other piece of legislation. What we would need to do is find out whether or not the second constitution had the same language as the third, to see if the precedent is valid.


Also, I suggest contacting Marokai Blue and anyone else involved in the crafting of this current constitution. I beleive that would also include Senator Ilikeverin, as well as many others.

[Donerail]

The problem is that predates the current constitution. But it appears that Jedi treated it like any other piece of legislation. What we would need to do is find out whether or not the second constitution had the same language as the third, to see if the precedent is valid.


Also, I suggest contacting Marokai Blue and anyone else involved in the crafting of this current constitution. I beleive that would also include Senator Ilikeverin, as well as many others.

I attempted to PM the 5 people who didn't miss any votes in the Constitutional Convention (assuming those 5 would be the most involved in the creation and thus the most knowledgable about such matters). I have not received word back yet from Marokai Blue, Bacon King, Afleitch, Hashemite, or PiT.

In the Constitution, the only things that changed in Powers of/Powers Denied to the Senate is the addition of:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It appears that the language that would apply to this is the same and thus the precedent is valid.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I plan to be back on tomorrow morning, if no further feedback is given then I shall proceed as best as I understand the precedent and current procedures with regards as to how to handle this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Final Passage of the Atlasia-Israel Defense and Security Cooperation Treaty:

Aye (5): AndrewPA, Ben, Clarence, NC Yankee, and TJ in Cleve
Nay (5): ILV, sbane, Scott, Seatown and Wormyguy
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (0):

As it appears that no such 2/3rd's requirement exists, I am determined that this is to be treated as any other piece of legislation. Therefore, I am declaring the voted tied, with time having expired on the legislation and the Vice President is thus charged with breaking the tie.

[ilikeverin]

The problem is that predates the current constitution. But it appears that Jedi treated it like any other piece of legislation. What we would need to do is find out whether or not the second constitution had the same language as the third, to see if the precedent is valid.


Also, I suggest contacting Marokai Blue and anyone else involved in the crafting of this current constitution. I beleive that would also include Senator Ilikeverin, as well as many others.

The same clause existed in the Second Constitution as in the current one, fwiw.  I don't remember treaties ever being discussed, really.

[tmthforu94]

Well, I've had plenty of time to think about this. I have decided to vote for the treaty and sent it to the President to make the final decision.

Aye

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'll assess this in the next few hours... but I honestly haven't seen any good reasons as to why I shouldn't sign this. I see a lot "nope"s and proclamations, but no concrete reasons...

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

So, does Polnut still get to sign/veto this?