Legislation Introduction Thread

[MAS117]

I'm very sorry to this, but I am compelled to do so by the rules.

Pursuant to Article 3, Section 1, Clause 4, I declare that the Unification of Canada and Atlasia Bill is unconstitutional. I find as follows:

1. The Constitution does not in any way, explicitly or implicitly, grant the Senate the power to admit new states to the Union. Instead, it only provides as follows:

"In the event that a new State joins the United States of America, the Senate may apportion this State to a Region and a District via proper legislation."

This Clause clearly suggests that if a state is admitted to the real United States, then it is also admitted automatically to the fantasy Republic. The Senate's only role is to determine the region and district to which the new state belongs. There is no authority to create or admit new states; the Senate, being one of enumerated powers only, cannot constitutionally pass this act.

2. The Constitution does not anywhere grant the Senate the power to create a new region. Therefore, by attempting to create a Region of Canada, the bill violates the Constitution.

Therefore, pursuant to the rules, I find this bill unconstitutional, and with great regret, remove it from the Senate floor. The sponsor may challenge my ruling in twenty-four hours; the challenge requires the approval of one-third of the Senate to override my ruling.

Finally, I wish you would have said something before, during his other 2 idiot bills.

[Emsworth]

Incidentally, this ruling also covers the Pacifican Statehood Act, which is also removed from the Senate floor for reason #1.

[Siege40]

NO!

Well, that sucks. Looks like I'll be registered in Vermont for a while yet.

Siege

[King]

We can always declare war on Canada and win.

[Siege40]

We can always declare war on Canada and win.

No, cause then it would be stuck as Occupied Territory, cause the Senate can't admit them. I've considered my options,

Siege

[Emsworth]

Finally, I wish you would have said something before...

I was not particularly accustomed to looking for technicalities. That, unfortunately, is a part of my job now.

[Colin]

Emsworth, I am sorry to say this, but it is not your job to decide the Constitutionality of laws. IIRC that is only the job of the Supreme Court of Atlasia. Both statehood acts should be able to come up as legislation and be voted upon by the Senate. If their constitutionality is challenged by an Atlasia then the court will decide it's Constitutionality but this is not your power. It is only the courts power. Thus I official protest your striking of the Pacifican Statehood Act and the Unification of Canada and Atlasia Act from the list of items to be debated and voted upon in the Senate. Unless their is a specific clause that allows you not unilaterally decide the Constitutionality of acts of the Senate then I would suggest that you do not strike these bills.

[Sam Spade]

Emsworth, I am sorry to say this, but it is not your job to decide the Constitutionality of laws. IIRC that is only the job of the Supreme Court of Atlasia. Both statehood acts should be able to come up as legislation and be voted upon by the Senate. If their constitutionality is challenged by an Atlasia then the court will decide it's Constitutionality but this is not your power. It is only the courts power. Thus I official protest your striking of the Pacifican Statehood Act and the Unification of Canada and Atlasia Act from the list of items to be debated and voted upon in the Senate. Unless their is a specific clause that allows you not unilaterally decide the Constitutionality of acts of the Senate then I would suggest that you do not strike these bills.

Article 3, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Senate Procedural Resolution

If the PPT determines that a piece of legislation is functionally impractical, frivolous, or is directly unconstitutional, he may, in a public post on the Legislation Introduction thread, remove said legislation from the Senate floor. The sponsoring Senator of the legislation shall have seventy-two (72) hours to challenge this action in a public post, and with the concurrence of one-third (1/3) of office-holding Senators in the affirmative (excluding the PPT), may override the actions of the PPT. (Nasolation clause)

Masterjedi still has 68 hours to challenge Emsworth's decision and afterwards find 3 other Senators to agree with him.  You can be one of the Senators to, Colin, if you want to. 

[Emsworth]

Emsworth, I am sorry to say this, but it is not your job to decide the Constitutionality of laws. IIRC that is only the job of the Supreme Court of Atlasia. Both statehood acts should be able to come up as legislation and be voted upon by the Senate. If their constitutionality is challenged by an Atlasia then the court will decide it's Constitutionality but this is not your power. It is only the courts power. Thus I official protest your striking of the Pacifican Statehood Act and the Unification of Canada and Atlasia Act from the list of items to be debated and voted upon in the Senate. Unless their is a specific clause that allows you not unilaterally decide the Constitutionality of acts of the Senate then I would suggest that you do not strike these bills.

Protest noted.

As Sam Spade points out, there is indeed a clause of the OSPR that permits me to remove the bill from the Senate floor. I would never have presumed to take such an action if such a clause did not exist. I actually gave my argument on the constitutionality of the bill first, before making a ruling, to see if there would be any counter-argument. If there was any opposition, then I would not have used the power, and would have left it up to the Senate. However, my argument was not refuted or challenged (except for one post, which I addressed); thus, I felt justified.

I am not aware if the power to declare a bill unconstitutional has been used before. However, Senator Gabu has indeed used the power to declare motions and amendments frivolous, and has struck them from the agenda of the Senate.

I'm sorry if this seems heavy-handed, though.

[King]

Emsworth can declare bills unconstitutional that are on the floor.  Supreme Court can only go as far as passed and signed legislation that is brought to their attention.

[Colin]

Emsworth, I am sorry to say this, but it is not your job to decide the Constitutionality of laws. IIRC that is only the job of the Supreme Court of Atlasia. Both statehood acts should be able to come up as legislation and be voted upon by the Senate. If their constitutionality is challenged by an Atlasia then the court will decide it's Constitutionality but this is not your power. It is only the courts power. Thus I official protest your striking of the Pacifican Statehood Act and the Unification of Canada and Atlasia Act from the list of items to be debated and voted upon in the Senate. Unless their is a specific clause that allows you not unilaterally decide the Constitutionality of acts of the Senate then I would suggest that you do not strike these bills.

Protest noted.

As Sam Spade points out, there is indeed a clause of the OSPR that permits me to remove the bill from the Senate floor. I would never have presumed to take such an action if such a clause did not exist. I actually gave my argument on the constitutionality of the bill first, before making a ruling, to see if there would be any counter-argument. If there was any opposition, then I would not have used the power, and would have left it up to the Senate. However, my argument was not refuted or challenged (except for one post, which I addressed); thus, I felt justified.

I am not aware if the power to declare a bill unconstitutional has been used before. However, Senator Gabu has indeed used the power to declare motions and amendments frivolous, and has struck them from the agenda of the Senate.

I'm sorry if this seems heavy-handed, though.

It's alright I seem to have forgotten that clause of the Senate Procedural Resolution, that's easy to do when the bill is near the size of War and Peace , so I am sorry if I seemed rather harsh. The protest will still remain official since I do not believe that it is frivolously unconstitutional, we aren't talking about giving tax cuts to just the Mideast here, and I believe that it should be given a vote even if it is, in my opinion unconsitutional. 

[Emsworth]

The protest will still remain official since I do not believe that it is frivolously unconstitutional...

I don't think that it needs to be frivolous in order for the power to be exercisable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If there is any doubt about whether the bill is constitutional or not, then I would agree with you. If a bill is directly, plainly, and evidently unconstitutional, however, I would have to demur.

[Colin]

The protest will still remain official since I do not believe that it is frivolously unconstitutional...

I don't think that it needs to be frivolous in order for the power to be exercisable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If there is any doubt about whether the bill is constitutional or not, then I would agree with you. If a bill is directly, plainly, and evidently unconstitutional, however, I would have to demur.

Well it's up to MasterJedi. I don't care how you use your power I just like objecting to things.

[Emsworth]

I don't care how you use your power I just like objecting to things.

So do I! I know that I've probably been irritating a few Senators with my nitpicking on legislation.

[Sam Spade]

And now for something completely controversial (I've gotta keep yall on your toes):

Re-Definition of Marriage and Establishment of Civil Unions Bill[/b]

Article 1 – Purposes

The purpose of this legislation is to clarify badly written legislation of past Senates, to establish a clear and careful definition of the term “marriage”, along with prohibitions and rules concerning the contract of marriage and to provide for the establishment, definition and creation of civil unions within the Republic of Atlasia, with all necessary prohibitions and rules regarding the same.

Article 2 – Definition of Marriage with Prohibitions

1.   Marriage is hereby defined as a civil contract between one man and one woman who have each attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable.

2.   Every marriage entered into in which either the husband or the wife has not attained the age of eighteen years is void except where this section has been waived by the presiding judicial officer of the Region in which one of the parties resides on a showing of necessity.

3.   Marriages in the following cases are prohibited:

a.   When either party thereto has a wife or husband living at the time of such marriage;
b.   When the husband and wife are nearer of kin to each other than second cousins, whether of the whole or half blood, whether by blood or adoption, computing by the rules of the civil law; or
c.   When the parties are persons other than a male and a female.

4.   It is unlawful for any man to marry his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter or sister's daughter; it is unlawful for any woman to marry her father's brother, mother's brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son or sister's son.

5.   A marriage between two persons that is recognized as valid in another country is not valid in the Republic of Atlasia only if the marriage is prohibited or made unlawful under Section 3 or 4 of this article.

Article 3 – Establishment of Civil Unions in the Republic of Atlasia

Section 1 – Creation and Definition of Civil Unions

1.   A civil union is hereby defined as a civil contract between one man and another man or one woman and another woman, who has each attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable.

2.   For a civil union to be established in the Republic of Atlasia, it shall be necessary that the parties to a civil union satisfy all of the following criteria:

a.   Not be a party to another civil union or a marriage.
b.   Be of the same sex and therefore excluded from the marriage laws of this country.
c.   Meet the criteria and obligations set forth in Article 4 of this legislation.

2.   The following is a list of void and prohibited civil unions:

a.   A woman shall not enter a civil union with her mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister or mother's sister.
b.   A man shall not enter a civil union with his father, grandfather, son, grandson, brother, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother or mother's brother.
c.   A civil union between persons prohibited from entering a civil union in subsection (a) or (b) of this section is void.

3.   Marriages already contracted by the provisions so laid out in the Civil Unions Act and the Marriage Equity Act, that are no longer legal due to the provisions of this legislation, shall henceforth be defined as civil unions, retaining all the rights and privileges afforded to the parties under this legislation, and shall remain valid and legal until such time as both parties wish to dissolve their civil contract, or their contract is dissolved through the occasion of one of the parties’ death.

4.   Marriages already contracted by the provisions so laid out in the Civil Unions Act and the Marriage Equity Act that are no longer legal under the provisions of this legislation either as a “marriage” or as a “civil union” shall no longer be valid and legal within the Republic of Atlasia.  Said parties to marriages defined as such shall no longer retain any of the rights and privileges afforded to marriages or civil unions in the Republic of Atlasia.

Section 2 – Benefits of Civil Unions

1.   Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage, whether such benefits, protections and responsibilities are enforced at the state, Regional or federal level, with such exceptions exclusively as shall be stated below.

2.   A party to a civil union shall be included in any definition or use of the terms "spouse," "family," "immediate family," "dependent," "next of kin," and other terms that denote the spousal relationship, as those terms are used throughout the law.

3.   Parties to a civil union shall be responsible for the support of one another to the same degree and in the same manner as prescribed under law for married persons.

4.   The law of domestic relations, including annulment, separation and divorce, child custody and support, and property division and maintenance shall apply to parties to a civil union.

5.   The following is a nonexclusive list of legal benefits, protections and responsibilities of spouses, which shall apply in like manner to parties to a civil union, whether such benefits, protections and responsibilities are enforced at the state, Regional or federal level:

a.   laws relating to title, tenure, descent and distribution, intestate succession, waiver of will, survivorship, or other incidents of the acquisition, ownership, or transfer, inter vivos or at death, of real or personal property, including eligibility to hold real and personal property as tenants by the entirety (parties to a civil union meet the common law unity of person qualification for purposes of a tenancy by the entirety);
b.   causes of action related to or dependent upon spousal status, including an action for wrongful death, emotional distress, loss of consortium, dramshop, or other torts or actions under contracts reciting, related to, or dependent upon spousal status;
c.   probate law and procedure, including nonprobate transfer;
e.   group insurance for federal employees;
f.   spouse abuse programs;
g.   prohibitions against discrimination based upon marital status;
h.   workers' compensation benefits;
i.   laws relating to emergency and nonemergency medical care and treatment, hospital visitation and notification;
j.   family leave benefits;
k.   public assistance benefits;
l.   laws relating to taxes imposed by the region, state or a municipality;
m.   laws relating to immunity from compelled testimony and the marital communication privilege;
n.   laws relating to loans to veterans;
o.   state or Regional pay for military service.

6.   The following is a exclusive list of legal benefits, protections and responsibilities of spouses, which shall not apply in like manner to parties to a civil union, whether such benefits, protections and responsibilities are enforced at the state, Regional or federal level:

Any and all adoption law and procedure.

7.   The rights of parties to a civil union, with respect to a child of whom either becomes the natural parent during the term of the civil union, shall be the same as those of a married couple, with respect to a child of whom either spouse becomes the natural parent during the marriage.

8.   Parties to a civil union may modify the terms, conditions, or effects of their civil union in the same manner and to the same extent as married persons who execute an antenuptial agreement or other agreement recognized and enforceable under the law, setting forth particular understandings with respect to their union.

Section 3 – Dissolution of Civil Unions

The presiding judicial officer of the Region in which the parties of a civil union reside shall have jurisdiction over all proceedings relating to the dissolution of civil unions. The dissolution of civil unions shall follow the same procedures and be subject to the same substantive rights and obligations that are involved in the dissolution of marriage in accordance with Article 5 of this legislation.

[Sam Spade]

continued...
Article 4 – Records and Licenses in Civil Unions

Section 1 - Civil Union Licenses

1.   Upon application in a form prescribed by the department, the chief judicial officer of the presiding Region shall issue a civil union license in the form prescribed by the department, and shall enter thereon the names of the parties to the proposed civil union, fill out the form as far as practicable and retain a copy in the Regional office. Both parties to the proposed civil union shall sign the application attesting to the accuracy of the facts stated.

2.   A civil union license shall be delivered by one of the parties to a proposed civil union, within sixty (60) days from the date of issue, to a person authorized to certify civil unions by Section 3, Clause 1 of this Article. If the proposed civil union is not certified within sixty (60) days from the date of issue, the license shall become void. After a person has certified the civil union, they shall fill out that part of the form on the license provided for such use, sign and certify the civil union. Thereafter, the document shall be known as a civil union certificate.

3.   Within ten days of the certification, the person performing the certification shall return the civil union certificate to the office of the chief judicial officer of the Region from which the license was issued. The officer shall retain and file the original.

4.   An officer who knowingly issues a civil union license without first requiring the applicant to fill out, sign and make oath to the declaration contained therein, shall be fined not more than $50.00 nor less than $20.00.

5.   A person making application to a officer for a civil union license who makes a material misrepresentation in the declaration of intention shall be deemed guilty of perjury.

6.   The chief judicial officer of the presiding Region shall issue a civil union license to all applicants who have complied with the provisions of above-stated clauses of this section, and who are otherwise qualified under the laws of the state to apply for a civil union license.

Section 2 – Restrictions on Civil Unions

1.   An officer shall not issue a civil union license when either party to the intended civil union is:
a.   under 18 years of age;
b.   non compos mentis;
c.   under guardianship, without the written consent of such guardian.

2.   A officer who knowingly violates Clause 7 of this Section shall be fined not more than $20.00. A person who aids in procuring a civil union license by falsely pretending to be the guardian having authority to give consent to the civil union shall be fined not more than $500.00.

Section 3 – Authorization and Certification of Civil Unions

1.   Civil unions may be certified by a supreme court justice, a chief judicial officer of a Region, a superior court judge, a district judge, a judge of probate, an assistant judge, a justice of the peace or by a member of the clergy residing in the respective Region of issuance and ordained or licensed, or otherwise regularly authorized by the published laws or discipline of the general conference, convention or other authority of his or her faith or denomination.

2.   Persons authorized by Clause 1 of this Section to certify civil unions shall require a civil union license of the parties before certifying the civil union. The license shall afford full immunity to the person who certifies the civil union.

3.   A person who certifies a civil union shall be fined not less than $10.00, if such person:
a.   certifies a civil union without first obtaining the license; or
b.   fails to properly fill out the license and, within ten days from the date of the certification, return the license and certificate of civil union to the clerk's office from which it was issued.

4.   A copy of the record of the civil union received from the chief judicial officer of the Region shall be presumptive evidence of the civil union in all courts.

Article 5 – Statement Concerning Recognition of Regional and State Law per Constitutional Responsibilities

1.   The federal government shall continue to recognize and uphold all Regional and state laws and statutes concerning marriage, divorce, adoption and emancipation of minors, marital property law, child custody, alimony, child support or any other subject so covered by Article 1, Section 5, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia that do not directly or indirectly conflict with the laws and statutes so laid out in this legislation and future legislation concerning the above-stated subjects and Constitutional clauses.

Article 6 – Repealed Legislation

1.   The Civil Unions Act is hereby repealed in full.

2.   The Marriage Equity Act is hereby repealed in full.

[Emsworth]

Marijuana Criminalization Act

Section I
The Marijauana Legalization and Taxation act is hereby repealed.

Section II
Regions shall be given the right to decide the status of Marijuana legaliziation in their state.

I believe that this bill is redundant. Section II, as others have noted, is already a part of the Marijuana Legalization and Taxation Act. No marijuana tax has yet been imposed; thus, this bill does not actually affect anything.

Therefore, I would respectfully request Senator Cosmo Kramer to withdraw it from the floor.

I am definitely not inclined to declare it frivolous and remove it from the Senate floor on my own. As a general note (not on this bill in particular): Frivolity is a more subjective standard than unconstitutionality. Thus, I don't think that I would act in such a case unless actually requested to do so by the senators.

[Gabu]

I'm introducing this on behalf of Emsworth:

Pledge of Allegiance Act of 2005

§ 1.  The words "under God" shall cease to form a part of the pledge of allegiance of Atlasia.  The new pledge of allegiance shall read as follows:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of Atlasia, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

Questions and comments may be directed in his direction.

[Sam Spade]

I'm introducing this on behalf of Emsworth:

Pledge of Allegiance Act of 2005

§ 1.  The words "under God" shall cease to form a part of the pledge of allegiance of Atlasia.  The new pledge of allegiance shall read as follows:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of Atlasia, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

Questions and comments may be directed in his direction.

I always thought it was "under Dave" not "under God".

[MasterJedi]

I'm introducing this on behalf of Emsworth:

Pledge of Allegiance Act of 2005

§ 1.  The words "under God" shall cease to form a part of the pledge of allegiance of Atlasia.  The new pledge of allegiance shall read as follows:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of Atlasia, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

Questions and comments may be directed in his direction.

I always thought it was "under Dave" not "under God".

Yeah I thought that too, so it's really unecissary. And if it isn't, by God this better not pass!!!!!!!!!!!

[Siege40]

I was wondering why we swear to a flag, couldn't we swear directly to the Republic... or a personal vow to me?

Siege

[PBrunsel]

I was wondering why we swear to a flag, couldn't we swear directly to the Republic... or a personal vow to me?

Siege

I already tried that, called the Old Glory Act.

[DanielX]

Joke Bill. Yes, i'm completely kidding :

Midwest Pork Handout Act:

1. The Federal Government shall pay each voting citizen in the midwest $100.00.
2. This money has absolutely nothing to do with popularity ratings .
3. The money shall be taken out of HUD budgets for inner-city development, as long as the inner cities are outside the Midwest .

[ilikeverin]

Hooray

[King]

Joke Bill. Yes, i'm completely kidding :

Midwest Pork Handout Act:

1. The Federal Government shall pay each voting citizen in the midwest $100.00.
2. This money has absolutely nothing to do with popularity ratings .
3. The money shall be taken out of HUD budgets for inner-city development, as long as the inner cities are outside the Midwest .

I co-sponsor this bill as long as the Northeast Region is also added to the handout.