Legislation Introduction Thread

[Gabu]

Per the Senate Procedural Resolution on Legislation Introduction, this is the thread for legislation introduction.

All Senators wishing to introduce legislation, please post the legislation here instead of in its own topic.  When a spot opens up, your legislation will be brought to the senate floor in a new topic by me.

Note: To reduce clutter, please do not post in this topic if you are not posting legislation.  Debate time will be given at a later time and will continue until debate has ceased; please resist the temptation to debate something in this thread.

Gustaf, if you could sticky this, that would be good.

[Gabu]

Okay, in light of recent events, I've got one...

Senate Procedural Resolution on the Changing of Votes

§ 1. Until a piece of legislation has garnered enough votes either in favor or against to have it either pass or fail, no senator shall be prohibited from changing his or her vote on the legislation.

§ 2. Following the garnering of enough votes to either pass or fail, the President Pro Tempore shall announce this fact; following this announcement, all senators shall have twenty-four hours during which they shall not be prohibited from changing their votes on the legislation.

§ 3. Following the expiration of twenty-four hours after the announcement, the vote total at that moment shall be declared to be final and shall be applied to the legislation.  All senators shall be prohibited from changing their votes on the legislation after this time.

[Gabu]

As a loophole in my electoral reform legislation has been identified, here is my solution:

Amendment to the Statute of Election Procedures, Certification and Challenges

§ 1. The text, "the last federal election in which he or she voted," is hereby stricken from the Statute of Election Procedures, Certification and Challenges.

§ 2. It shall be replaced with the text, "the last federal election in which he or she had a chance to vote."

[Gabu]

Do I begin my own debate thread for these two bills, or does the PPT do it?

When a spot opens up, I open debate on them.

For now, we're currently waiting for elections to be over so we can get back to business.

[Gabu]

Senator, good bill, however we should add money money into expanstion of wetlands, and wildlife perserves.

Please keep comments off this thread to keep it orderly.  Comments can be made when a bill is given debate time.

[Gabu]

That's not right.

What's not right, that we have procedures in place and go sequentially through the legislation that was introduced?

[Gabu]

I ask Senator Spade if I can have the honor of making some example designs?

I would say it would be better to wait until the idea is actually accepted before getting to work on doing it.

[Gabu]

Tax Relief Act of 2005

Clause #1
For all of Atlasia, taxes will be lowered for all by 50% in the timespan of a year.

Clause #2
For the spending cuts needed to pass this bill, I propose spending cuts on each of the following bills:

~The Health Care Reform Act of 2004
~The Atlasia Concealed Firearm Act of 2004
~The Welfare Reform Bill

Unless the spending cuts on those bills equal half of the total spending of the government, you're asking for MASSIVE deficits if this is implemented.

[Gabu]

Yes indeed. Not excessive spending cuts.

You appear to have missed my point: there is no way in heck those three bills make up half of the spending of the government, so even if you abolished them entirely, you still wouldn't make up for the revenue hit taken from lowering taxes by 50%.

We can cut down the percentage of tax cuts. The Senate is a team. Let's work on some ideas as a team. How does...35% tax cuts sound?

Even at 35%, those bills don't account for 35% of total government spending.  Heck, do they account for 1% of total government spending?  0.5%?  I think we'd to need to slash an awful lot more than just those three bills.

If you want to cut taxes by 35%, Sam Spade is doing a fantastic job in the budget thread; look there to see what all of the spending amounts are currently to find out what we could cut.

[Gabu]

Could we, oh, I don't know, leave this thread for legislation introduction and nothing else. I know it's a lot to ask, being that you all must get the last word in and all, but it would probably be much appreciated.

I've given up attempting to regulate this thead.  It just doesn't work.

[Gabu]

OK....a 10% tax cut. Does that work?

How about you look at the budget, figure out what we could cut, and then fit the tax cut to those numbers?

[Gabu]

I've been thinking about how to formulate this for quite some time, and I think I finally have a form that I'm happy with:

Affirmative Action Criteria Specification Bill

§1. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is hereby amended by increasing the numbers of sections 708 and onward by one and adding the following section immediately after section 707:

"CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION
SEC. 708. (a) Any claim of violation of the guidelines laid out in sections 703 and 704, put forward as a result of the guidelines specified in in sections 705 to 707 with regards to the punishment of discrimination against an individual based on the traits specified in sections 703 to 704 (hereafter referred to as the "Traits"), shall have the standard laid out in subsection (b) applied to it in order to determine whether a violation has occurred.

(b) For the claim of discrimination to be sustained, it must be proven, by the accuser,

(1) if a discrimination in hiring has occurred, that the hired applicant and the receiver of the alleged discrimination were exactly equal in ability and competenece, or that the receiver of the alleged discrimination was more able and competent than the hired applicant, and that the choice to not to hire the receiver of the alleged discrimination was based soley on that individual's Traits; or

(2) if an other form of discrimination has occurred, that the action against the receiver of the alleged discrimination was not warranted by any procedures laid out by law, by any form of arrangement or agreement between the accused and the receiver of the alleged discrimination, or, if the discrimination was towards an employee of a company, by any form of company code or regulation, and that the choice to take the action against the receiver of the alleged discrimination was based soley on that individual's Traits.

(c) The burden of prove shall be on the accuser.  If any part of the relevant requirements in subsection (b) cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the accusation shall be regarded as without merit and shall be consequently disregarded."

I'll explain what this is exactly doing in the topic provided.

[Gabu]

What about disabled people?

I'm just using what's already in the Civil Rights Act of 1964; if we want to add "disabled people" to the list, that's an entirely different thing.

[Gabu]

What about disabled people?

I'm just using what's already in the Civil Rights Act of 1964; if we want to add "disabled people" to the list, that's an entirely different thing.

I wonder what the Americans with Disabilities Act says on that.

That might answer your question, though I must admit I've never read the bloody thing.

I have no idea whether or not the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been amended to include other things that were not present in the copy I found, and quite frankly I don't really feel like looking it up, so I've modified the text of my bill to include a catch-all "see above" line instead of what was there before.

[Gabu]

What's wrong with it?

Legislation is supposed to present distinct, quantifiable specifics that can be followed to the letter, not vague, essentially unimplementable guidelines.

Your "legislation" sounds more like a resolution than a bill.

[Gabu]

Well, I take it from the third-person phrase "NOTE FROM WRITER" that he didn't write it, but hey, one good bill is certainly a start.

[Gabu]

I've always said that I'm in support of regional rights in things that don't concern the nation as a whole, so I think it's time to put my money where my mouth is.  The following is an amendment to the new Constitution; I'm assuming we'll have it in place by the time this comes up for a vote.  I recognize that we're not going to get to this; this is just so it'll be here for the next session of the Senate.

Restriction of Definitions Amendment

§ 1. The text "Marriage and Divorce, and Adoption" is hereby stricken from section 5, clause 5 of the Constitution.

Given the current mess we're in, these three things are what I feel we can do without the federal government regulating them against the regions' will.

[Gabu]

For Gabu, I am preparing to add another section to the Official Senate Procedural Resolution, detailing the vote rules on Cabinet members and Justices (since I missed that somehow).

I would like, if possible, for this not to be introduced now, if you're thinking about introducing more legislation and introduce it at the beginning of the next session when we have a full Senate as part of the Expired legislation.

Okay, although I'm not entirely sure whether or not we'll be able to get to any more legislation.  We only have until this Friday before the sixth session ends.

[Gabu]

For Gabu, I am preparing to add another section to the Official Senate Procedural Resolution, detailing the vote rules on Cabinet members and Justices (since I missed that somehow).

I would like, if possible, for this not to be introduced now, if you're thinking about introducing more legislation and introduce it at the beginning of the next session when we have a full Senate as part of the Expired legislation.

Okay, although I'm not entirely sure whether or not we'll be able to get to any more legislation.  We only have until this Friday before the sixth session ends.

I understand.  I was just giving a headsup.  Besides, a monster like this one is something that should be debated by the whole Senate, not just by a few, imo.

Yes, I fully agree.

I think you kind of beat out my dual electoral reform amendment and statute in terms of legislation size.

[Gabu]

Can we finally get a new legislation introduction thread?  This one is getting wayyy too big!

How is it getting too big?  I can still follow what's going on and senators don't need to; you just append your legislation onto the end.

[Gabu]

(If we have enough co-sponsors, do we actually need a vote.) 

Yes, we do, just to make sure and to make it official.  Simply saying "this has enough support; let's just pass it" would create a bad precedent, to say the least.

[Gabu]

I'm not paid to be funny, I'm paid to be a Senator.

You get paid?

[Gabu]

I'm not paid to be funny, I'm paid to be a Senator.

You get paid?

Yep. What you didn't recieve your paycheck?

Yes, but it was in the form of Monopoly money, and I already own Park Place and Boardwalk with hotels on each spot.

[Gabu]

Supreme Court Adjustments of 2005

Section 1:  Article III, Section I, Clause II of the constitution will now read as follows:

The Supreme Court shall consist of five Justices who shall all be registered voters, one of whom shall be the Chief Justice. Justices shall hold their office during good behavior.

Section II:
This will take effect upon ratification by the regions, as specified in the constitution.

What is the rationale for having five justices?

Packing it with people who will overturn Bono vs. Atlasia and render Supersoulty's unwed mothers protection bill constitutional.

Well, I suppose at least you're very open about your extremely Machiavellian motives.

[Gabu]

I dont think it would hurt to add a few Governors in there to rep. the regions, Master.

Er, why would we include the regions in a reform that only affects things at the federal level?