Legislation Introduction Thread

[PBrunsel]

Well I havn't caused an uproar in a while. I dontknow whether the bill's grammar or the bill's intent will cause more anger!

The Atlasian Senate Term Limit Act

Section 1: All Atlasian Senators will be limited to four terms (16 months) in office.

Section 2: Any Senator which has served over four terms when this act takes effect will be allowed to serve the duration of their remaining term.

Section 3: This act will be administered by the Secretary of Forum Affairs.

Section 4: This act will take effect immediately after the Midterm Election of August 2005.

[Emsworth]

(This is not a ruling, but my personal view.)

I feel that this bill is unconstitutional. The Senate only has the power to "determine regulations for the procedure of and the form of Senate elections." There is no constitutional authority, as far as I can see, for the Senate to set qualifications for Senate candidates. This bill's restriction of the right of the People to elect whomever they please to the Senate, therefore, seems unconstitutional.

So, I would suggest introducing it as a constitutional amendment if you wish.

[PBrunsel]

(This is not a ruling, but my personal view.)

I feel that this bill is unconstitutional. The Senate only has the power to "determine regulations for the procedure of and the form of Senate elections." There is no constitutional authority, as far as I can see, for the Senate to set qualifications for Senate candidates.

So, I would suggest introducing it as a constitutional amendment if you wish.

I am aware of that Mr. Vice President, and it is a valid point. I feel that this does determine the form of a Senate election by stating you get four months. The only qualification is, you could argue, is that it disqualifies a Senator after serving Atlasia for 16 months. I think that point is that this is Constitutional because it gives the Senate the power to determine regulations for a Senate election.

[Emsworth]

I am aware of that Mr. Vice President, and it is a valid point. I feel that this does determine the form of a Senate election by stating you get four months. The only qualification is, you could argue, is that it disqualifies a Senator after serving Atlasia for 16 months. I think that point is that this is Constitutional because it gives the Senate the power to determine regulations for a Senate election.

With respect, Senator, I do not agree with this line of reasoning. By the same token, the Senate could set a qualification under which members of the Atlasian Monster Raving Loony Party are disqualified, justifying it under regulating the "form of Senate elections."

My view is that the Constitution permits the Senate to determine procedural matters relating to Senate elections, but it may not disqualify candidates from running.

[MasterJedi]

I see what Emsworth is saying but another reason not to pass it is that we can't have a Senator Gabu forever!

[Sam Spade]

I am fundamentally against term limits in any and all parts of government.  I will be against this bill or amendment, in whatever final form is decided.

I have no problem with "personal" term limits, such as the one that I gave for myself when I first ran for Senate.  I don't like mandated ones, however.

[MasterJedi]

Ok I'm on an environment thing I guess! It may be a little confusing so when it comes up I'll answer any questions.

Oh and Gabu, when this comes up for a vote put the first URL in "animals" for a link and the second URL in "plants" for a link, thanks because I don't know how to do it.


Species Act of 2005

1. Endangered/Threatened Species
   A. Atlasia hereby recognizes the Endangered/Threatened Species List of animals http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSSpeciesReport  and plants http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSSpeciesReport
   B. Any individual wanting to bring an endangered or threatened species into Atlasia shall have to purchase a license allowing them to own said species plus an additional fee of 100,000 dollars for each animal brought in. In addition each individual must have the space they plan to hold said species inspected and approved by a local zoological society.
   C. Any zoo or zoological society may freely bring endangered or threatened species into the US if they haven’t been cited for animal rights as long as they notify the government of Atlasia.
   D. If any endangered or threatened species said offender shall be fined 500,000 on the first offense, 1 million and 5 years in prison for the second offense and 2 million and 30 years in prison for the third offense. If the offender commits a fourth offense life in prison shall be enforced.
2. Invasive Species
   A. Atlasia hereby recognizes invasive species as a problem to the nation’s environment.
   B. An invasive species shall be known as any non-native plant or animal that disrupts or destroys the natural state of the environment.
   C. Only zoos or zoological societies shall be allowed to import invasive species into the US.
   D. Any private company or individual found bringing in an invasive species shall be fined 2 million dollars and serve 30 years in prison for the first offense. If a second offense occurs the offender fine shall double to 4 million and spend life in prison.
3. Species Tracker
   A. Atlasia’s Fish and Wildlife Service shall be required to create a computer system track the import and export of endangered, threatened and invasive species into and out of Atlasia.  In addition this system is required to keep on file the information of any previous offender.
   B. Any endangered, threatened or invasive species import or export must be reported the Atlasia’s Fish and Wildlife Service.
   C. Any individual, company, zoo or zoological society that currently has endangered, threatened or invasive species has two years to report all of said species to Atlasia’s Fish and Wildlife Service to be logged in the computer system.


Oh I know everybody knew this was coming.

Adding States Amendment
The following clause is added to Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution:
6. The Senate may by law admit new States to the Republic of Atlasia. The Senate may apportion this State to a Region and a District via proper legislation; however, the State shall still be liable to all the provisions of this Section and Section 4 of this Article.

[MAS117]

Your such an imperialist Jedi.

[MasterJedi]

Your such an imperialist Jedi.

I figured you'd show up eventually.

[7,052,770]

Your such an imperialist Jedi.

thankfully there's someone

[True Democrat]

I know it's similar to the Voting System Reform Act, but I think it's needed:

The New Members Needed Act

Preamble

Whereas, the need for new members is apparent in Atlasia because of dwindling membership and the unopposed Senate and Gubernatorial races,

The Senate hereby acknowledges the need to attract new members to Atlasia.

Section One: Forming a Commission

1.   The President shall hereby appoint a commission composed the Secretary of Forum Affairs, the Deputy Secretary of Forum Affiars, one Senator, one Supreme Court Justice, and one citizen of Atlasia who holds no position in the federal government.
2.   The commission, after being appointed by the President, must be approved the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
3.   The members of the Commission will decide among themselves who will chair the Commission, by any means they see fit.

Section Two: The Role of the Commission

1.   The Commission shall discuss any way it feels possible to attract new members to the forum including but not limited to sending representatives to other political forums.
2.   The Commission may conduct these discussions in any way that they see fit.

Section Three: Findings

1.   At the time the commission feels it has reached its conclusion it shall draw up a report with all of its findings and present it the Senate of Atlasia.  The Chairman will issue the report for the which the Senate will use to pass further legislation for this issue.
2.   Once the Chairman has delivered his report, the Commission will disband.

[True Democrat]

I took this right out of a real life bill because, well, I thought it was a good idea, and I'm not very good at writing bills that deal with a lot of technical stuff.  I added some stuff though, see if you can figure it out. 

Military Enlargement Bill of 2005

To provide a temporary increase in the minimum end strength level for active duty personnel for the Army, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force, and for other purposes.

      Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia,

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN MINIMUM END STRENGTH LEVEL FOR THE ARMY, MARINE CORPS, AND AIR FORCE.

      1. The size of Army on active duty shall be not less than 522,400 of which no less than 50% of the increase shall be an increase in Special Operations Forces;

     2.  The size of the Marine Corps on active duty shall be not less than 190,000 of which no less than 50% of the increase shall be an increase in Special Operations Forces; and

      3.  The size of the Air Force on active duty shall be not less than 388,000 of which no less than 50% of the increase shall be an increase in Special Operations Forces.'.

I changed it to Emsworth's ideas for how it should be written, but I'm still not sure on how to get the cost.

[Emsworth]

I'm afraid that this bill will have to be revised considerably; it cannot simply be lifted from real life. For one thing, there is no "United States Code" in Atlasia; although U.S. statutes have been "inherited," there is no code as such. Secondly, the bill is not in very clear language (note part (b), for example). Instead of the circumlocutous wording of the bill, I would suggest simple. For example, "the size of the Army is increased by X." And thirdly, and finally, the bill should include an estimate of financial implications for budget purposes.

I would hope that all of these issues can be addressed before the bill reaches the floor of the Senate.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No we still use the USC when referring to the preexisting legislation.  It's merely that we haven't been accepting any modifications made to it since Atlasia began has having any validity.

[Emsworth]

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".

All the party platforms appear to assume that it's "under God." Also, there hasn't been any specific law changing "under God" to "under Dave." That's why I, too, assumed that "under God" is a part of the pledge.

[Ebowed]

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 don't like this one.  This liberal mentality that assumes we can fix this pledge "issue" by removing "under God" is silly.  Why do we need a nationalist pledge at all?

[Emsworth]

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 don't like this one.  This liberal mentality that assumes we can fix this pledge "issue" by removing "under God" is silly.  Why do we need a nationalist pledge at all?

I was not under the impression that the Senate would agree to the abolition of the pledge. If it is, however, that's fine as well.

[Speed of Sound]

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 think that we should change to say "Under Dave". if that would fail i support this bill.

[Ebowed]

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 don't like this one.  This liberal mentality that assumes we can fix this pledge "issue" by removing "under God" is silly.  Why do we need a nationalist pledge at all?

I was not under the impression that the Senate would agree to the abolition of the pledge. If it is, however, that's fine as well.

It's just one of those things that sets me off.  It comes across as so bent on "seperation of church and state" that it looks almost anti-religious, not neutral.  On a tangible note, the bill makes no provisions for any use of the pledge-- if we have to alter it, what will the pledge be used for?  Continued recitation in schools & workplaces?  A little national motto?  I don't see the point.

[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 don't like this one.  This liberal mentality that assumes we can fix this pledge "issue" by removing "under God" is silly.  Why do we need a nationalist pledge at all?

I was not under the impression that the Senate would agree to the abolition of the pledge. If it is, however, that's fine as well.

It's just one of those things that sets me off.  It comes across as so bent on "seperation of church and state" that it looks almost anti-religious, not neutral.  On a tangible note, the bill makes no provisions for any use of the pledge-- if we have to alter it, what will the pledge be used for?  Continued recitation in schools & workplaces?  A little national motto?  I don't see the point.

I'll fight to keep it "under God" but if it changes to "under Dave" I wouldn't be too happy but I'd be ok with it. But there is no way that I  would support the removal of the pledge.

[Ebowed]

I'd rather keep it the way it is or abolish it.  I oppose removing "under God" from the pledge.

[Emsworth]

It's just one of those things that sets me off.  It comes across as so bent on "seperation of church and state" that it looks almost anti-religious, not neutral.

Yes, I take your point about how it comes across. Of course, it's not anti-religious; that would be adding "under no God" to the pledge, for example.

[Ebowed]

It's just one of those things that sets me off.  It comes across as so bent on "seperation of church and state" that it looks almost anti-religious, not neutral.

Yes, I take your point about how it comes across. Of course, it's not anti-religious; that would be adding "under no God" to the pledge, for example.

Of course, I'm aware, and I don't think your intentions are malicious.  But, and I was referring more to those who want the Plede altered in general, it seems that the fact that this pledge is blatant nationalism is no cause for concern, only getting a reference to God removed.

(Of course, the Pledge was altered to include the reference to God in the 1950s... I simply don't support changing it back because of what that would stand for.  I'm much more worried about forcing people to pledge allegiance to a country than to a God.  One who opposes "Under God" in the interest of Atheists should, if he is intellectually consistent, oppose the whole pledge in the interest of Jehovah's Witnesses.)

[Emsworth]

Of course, I'm aware, and I don't think your intentions are malicious.  But, and I was referring more to those who want the Plede altered in general, it seems that the fact that this pledge is blatant nationalism is no cause for concern, only getting a reference to God removed.

(Of course, the Pledge was altered to include the reference to God in the 1950s... I simply don't support changing it back because of what that would stand for.  I'm much more worried about forcing people to pledge allegiance to a country than to a God.  One who opposes "Under God" in the interest of Atheists should, if he is intellectually consistent, oppose the whole pledge in the interest of Jehovah's Witnesses.)

The inclusion of the phrase "under God" is an explicit acknowledgement of a Supreme Being, and is therefore IMHO unconstitutional. The pledge as a whole, however, is not unconstitutional. So that's why I suggested the bill in its current form.

[Ebowed]

Right, but I'm not simply debating the constitutionality of it, but the intellectual consistency of anyone who supports removing "under God" but not the entire pledge.  Even if a pledge of allegiance to a country is not unconstitutional, it still should not be permitted as its officiality as endorsed by the government could be interpreted as an infringement of the rights of those who refuse to pledge allegiance to any government, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses or other similar religious groups.