I am running for President.

[Peter]

People who agree with our ruling:
...
Peter Bell

I remark only to point out that I disagree with your construction of the Equal Protection Clause, though obviously you've already acknowledged you were probably wrong in that regard.

[John Dibble]

People who agree with our ruling:
...
Peter Bell

I remark only to point out that I disagree with your construction of the Equal Protection Clause, though obviously you've already acknowledged you were probably wrong in that regard.

Correct, meant to specify that(and that Jake agreed with us on the section 2 region thing as well) but I forgot.

[12th Doctor]

This is not just a bill.  This is a severe injustice that has been done.  Most people on this forum can recongnize this.

Based on the comments made in the discussion of the ruling

People who agree with our ruling:
Myself
KEmperor
Bono
Peter Bell
NewFoundPolitics

People who outright disagree:
You
Al
TexasGurl

People who mostly disagree, but think the problem is with the Constitution and not the ruling, mainly vagueness of the Constitution.
Beet
Gabu
Jake
John Ford


Seems to me, based on the opinions expressed on the ruling, that most forum members do not take this as an injustice. What I think this is really about is that the bill in question was your 'baby' so to speak - you put a lot of time and work into it, and when it got shot down you got very upset. Perfectly understandable, and I don't begrudge you for it, but I feel you are acting irrationally. Personally I'm suprised you've been acting the way you have. If you wish to fight our decision, that's fine and understandable, just try to be calm and rational about it.

At first, my arguments were calm and rational.  those were laughed off and regarded as "incorrect" that was when I got offended.

Not to mention the fact that I find it to be a serious offense to the spirit of the game.

What really set me off, however, was the notion that the decision was not ideologically motivated.  It clearly was, as most other justices would have ruled the other way.  It clearly seems that the Consitution alludes the the fact that the bill was Constitutional, even if the spending metioned was not specifically mentioned.  The government provides for the "General Welfare".  Regardless of what the powers act says specifically, those ideas that are expressed at the begining of the Constitution still take precedent.  That was the criteria that you should have used to interpriet the bill and the "Powers" Act.  Had you done so, it would have been obvious that my bill was indeed, in the spirit of the Constitution.  

I'm less angry now then I was last night.  Now I am just disappointed with what happened.  I think that your ruling not only violated the spirit of the Constitution, but also the spirit of the game.

Nothing I say will reverse the decision, and when KEmp wins, he will only nominate someone who will be of like mind.

If the bill had failed in Congress or vetoed by the President, I would have been resigned to the fact that I lost.  I didn't lose.  I won.  And it was hard.  After the game was over, three people went into a room, two came out and made a decision about the rules that is in line with their ideological beliefs.  Of course I feel that there might be an alterior motive.  Of course I am disappointed.  You fought me very hard on this before you were a justice and you used a technicallity to kill a bill that you never liked.  Why not just admit that?  Believe it or not, I would rather know that than have you lie to me.

[Sam Spade]

What exactly is the "spirit of the game"?

As I have maintained countless times before, this game will become a bunch of interpersonal squabbles without proper GM action on the bills we create, actions we take, etc.

[minionofmidas]

Okay...
I'm gone for two days and everything starts moving again...
I'll really have to read that decision in a moment, to see what all the fuss is about.
Anyways, welcome to the race Chris.
Whether you win my third preference depends on your running mate, but it's certainly more than 50% likely at this point.

[KEmperor]

I would like you to please point out where in the Constitution the Senate is given the power to pass any laws it has decided are for the "General Welfare".

[John Dibble]

If the bill had failed in Congress or vetoed by the President, I would have been resigned to the fact that I lost.  I didn't lose.  I won.  And it was hard.  After the game was over, three people went into a room, two came out and made a decision about the rules that is in line with their ideological beliefs.  Of course I feel that there might be an alterior motive.  Of course I am disappointed.  You fought me very hard on this before you were a justice and you used a technicallity to kill a bill that you never liked.  Why not just admit that?  Believe it or not, I would rather know that than have you lie to me.

Why will I not admit that my decision was politically motivated? Because that would be a lie. I am a strict constructionist - this was a known factor when I was confirmed for my position, and it is the only ideological motivation I have in my job as well as the only possible valid one I could have, I do not let the issue of the day get personal. You did not even bother to show up for my confirmation hearing, you did not debate against my appointment in the least, even knowing where I stood and what would probably happen to your bill should I be appointed - so why did you not do so?

Also of note, I've stated that Section 6 of your bill(in a thread which was conveniently deleted), which I opposed along with the rest of it, was not ruled unconstitutional - it's clearly constitutional under Clause 15 of the Powers Amendment, and I've made no secret of it. You could easily stuff that into it's own bill, probably needing a few tweaks for information purposes, and get it passed - I would oppose it in the debate, of course, and even if passed and then opposed in the court by a plaintiff, I would rule it constitutional because it would be so. If you really want to know, it was originally my intention to strike down only the unconstitutional sections of bills, but a previous court precedent(Texasgurl vs. Fritz) made ruling one section of a bill unconstitutional strike down the entire bill - if you don't believe me ask Texasgurl, I did ask about this subject in our first meeting.

[PBrunsel]

The President endorses Supersoulty for President.

[KEmperor]

The President endorses Supersoulty for President.

The President needs to pay more attention to if people are still running.

[Josh/Devilman88]

got my vote

[Gustaf]

What? :S

I am off celebrating for a weekend or so and the world is falling apart. :S

What is GOING ON?

[Nym90]

This is not just a bill.  This is a severe injustice that has been done.  Most people on this forum can recongnize this.

Based on the comments made in the discussion of the ruling

People who agree with our ruling:
Myself
KEmperor
Bono
Peter Bell
NewFoundPolitics

People who outright disagree:
You
Al
TexasGurl

People who mostly disagree, but think the problem is with the Constitution and not the ruling, mainly vagueness of the Constitution.
Beet
Gabu
Jake
John Ford


Seems to me, based on the opinions expressed on the ruling, that most forum members do not take this as an injustice. What I think this is really about is that the bill in question was your 'baby' so to speak - you put a lot of time and work into it, and when it got shot down you got very upset. Perfectly understandable, and I don't begrudge you for it, but I feel you are acting irrationally. Personally I'm suprised you've been acting the way you have. If you wish to fight our decision, that's fine and understandable, just try to be calm and rational about it.

At first, my arguments were calm and rational.  those were laughed off and regarded as "incorrect" that was when I got offended.

Not to mention the fact that I find it to be a serious offense to the spirit of the game.

What really set me off, however, was the notion that the decision was not ideologically motivated.  It clearly was, as most other justices would have ruled the other way.  It clearly seems that the Consitution alludes the the fact that the bill was Constitutional, even if the spending metioned was not specifically mentioned.  The government provides for the "General Welfare".  Regardless of what the powers act says specifically, those ideas that are expressed at the begining of the Constitution still take precedent.  That was the criteria that you should have used to interpriet the bill and the "Powers" Act.  Had you done so, it would have been obvious that my bill was indeed, in the spirit of the Constitution. 

I'm less angry now then I was last night.  Now I am just disappointed with what happened.  I think that your ruling not only violated the spirit of the Constitution, but also the spirit of the game.

Nothing I say will reverse the decision, and when KEmp wins, he will only nominate someone who will be of like mind.

If the bill had failed in Congress or vetoed by the President, I would have been resigned to the fact that I lost.  I didn't lose.  I won.  And it was hard.  After the game was over, three people went into a room, two came out and made a decision about the rules that is in line with their ideological beliefs.  Of course I feel that there might be an alterior motive.  Of course I am disappointed.  You fought me very hard on this before you were a justice and you used a technicallity to kill a bill that you never liked.  Why not just admit that?  Believe it or not, I would rather know that than have you lie to me.

Don't worry Soulty, hopefully the new Constitution will provide this power to the federal government to enact this bill, and then we can pass it again. If not, we can pass a Constitutional Amendment.

[minionofmidas]

Unless someone has beat me to it, I shall propose it today.