SENATE BILL: The Public means Public Act (Redraft Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

But I think this touches on one of the major game reform issues facing us today. It's virtually impossible to tell what counts as a federal or as a regional issue.

Our side would probably say that is because the Feds have take over so much of what the Regions should be doing.

Well your side might say that, but that answer exactly what the regions should be doing.

At this point, the best approach would be divide up areas of responsbility and then have a limited federal reboot in those areas. I am fully willing to have a discussion on which ones that should be in particular. Certainly regulations of the public space should be considered as close to locally as possible here so thingsl ike this or the smoking bans  would count.

I'm certainly willing to work with you to get something like that done. Would this need to be a constitutional amendment, because I know some of the regional/federal divide are specifically written in the constitution?

No I have not forgotten about this post. I just got delayed in responding to it.

I considered it some on Memorial DAy, but the nof course didn't get on the next day at all and didn't have much time last night. I figure that some of it could simply done by repealing certain laws and leaving or maybe encouraging regional action to fill those gaps, that would cover a signififcant amount of ground. Think like those omnibus repeal bills you have passed. Though getting them to be noticed is an issue.

For the rest and to some extent with the people noticing it problem, if we were to get a convention, it is something that could be addressed there obviously. Though my concern with a con-con is that if it lacks focus going in, chances are it won't produce anything.

There is also the concern that Tyrion have discussed over the past few days in this thread regarding the operation of supremacy on Regional laws that would have to be factored in with regards to determing whether a law or area of laws would need to be so repealed in order to facilitate this process.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Okay so where do we stand. We have to remove clauses 1 and 2 to get the President's support, correct?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Okay so where do we stand. We have to remove clauses 1 and 2 to get the President's support, correct?

Maybe we can replace it with a clause saying homeless people cannot be discriminated against in their use of public space and facilities?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

What do you mean by that? I just want to ensure cities are not forbidden from keeping their streets clean and safe. I won't sign anything that restricts them or allows for panhandling and loitering all over this country.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

It's not "all over", it's only in the ME/MW/PA, and it wouldn't be if they enacted IDS/NE-style housing laws.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What do you mean by that? I just want to ensure cities are not forbidden from keeping their streets clean and safe. I won't sign anything that restricts them or allows for panhandling and loitering all over this country.

I mean if a public space is open to people, it is open to homeless people as well.  If it is closed then it is still closed.  But if any city is going to try to restrict homeless people from entire sections of the city then that is discriminatory and a basic violation of rights. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What do you mean by that? I just want to ensure cities are not forbidden from keeping their streets clean and safe. I won't sign anything that restricts them or allows for panhandling and loitering all over this country.

I mean if a public space is open to people, it is open to homeless people as well.  If it is closed then it is still closed.  But if any city is going to try to restrict homeless people from entire sections of the city then that is discriminatory and a basic violation of rights. 

We are talking in terms of allowing people to establish a domacile (SP?) on public spaces. Of course they are allowed to visit these people like any other person, but the difference is that just like anyone else, they would present not be allowed to stay there permenently if such is presently a restriction. This bill would ban those restrictions.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's not "all over", it's only in the ME/MW/PA, and it wouldn't be if they enacted IDS/NE-style housing laws.

Didn't you need to offer another amendment regarding your previous one's use of the word clause instead of section. I would recommend moving the clause in that case to maybe create a third section on applicability staying the above do not apply those regions that done X.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

It's not "all over", it's only in the ME/MW/PA, and it wouldn't be if they enacted IDS/NE-style housing laws.

Didn't you need to offer another amendment regarding your previous one's use of the word clause instead of section. I would recommend moving the clause in that case to maybe create a third section on applicability staying the above do not apply those regions that done X.

If I said "Sections 1 and 2 do not apply to the IDS/NE", wouldn't that invalidate the whole bill for the IDS and NE? I think what everyone is calling "sections" here are more like clauses. I would be willing, however, to introduce an amendment to that effect (perhaps taking out the hateful parts of the bill, putting them in their own section, and then saying that section doesn't apply to  the IDS/NE)?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

What do you mean by that? I just want to ensure cities are not forbidden from keeping their streets clean and safe. I won't sign anything that restricts them or allows for panhandling and loitering all over this country.

I mean if a public space is open to people, it is open to homeless people as well.  If it is closed then it is still closed.  But if any city is going to try to restrict homeless people from entire sections of the city then that is discriminatory and a basic violation of rights. 

We are talking in terms of allowing people to establish a domacile (SP?) on public spaces. Of course they are allowed to visit these people like any other person, but the difference is that just like anyone else, they would present not be allowed to stay there permenently if such is presently a restriction. This bill would ban those restrictions.

Right. I'm not saying they aren't allowed to go in parks and the like, but I'm not about to allow them to set up homes, tents, or loiter/harass people on public streets.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What do you mean by that? I just want to ensure cities are not forbidden from keeping their streets clean and safe. I won't sign anything that restricts them or allows for panhandling and loitering all over this country.

I mean if a public space is open to people, it is open to homeless people as well.  If it is closed then it is still closed.  But if any city is going to try to restrict homeless people from entire sections of the city then that is discriminatory and a basic violation of rights. 

We are talking in terms of allowing people to establish a domacile (SP?) on public spaces. Of course they are allowed to visit these people like any other person, but the difference is that just like anyone else, they would present not be allowed to stay there permenently if such is presently a restriction. This bill would ban those restrictions.

But what about a non-discrimination clause instead?  There are some places that have tried to get rid of homeless from hanging out in downtown areas, even though others are able to. Would you support making such policies illegal?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's not "all over", it's only in the ME/MW/PA, and it wouldn't be if they enacted IDS/NE-style housing laws.

Didn't you need to offer another amendment regarding your previous one's use of the word clause instead of section. I would recommend moving the clause in that case to maybe create a third section on applicability staying the above do not apply those regions that done X.

If I said "Sections 1 and 2 do not apply to the IDS/NE", wouldn't that invalidate the whole bill for the IDS and NE? I think what everyone is calling "sections" here are more like clauses. I would be willing, however, to introduce an amendment to that effect (perhaps taking out the hateful parts of the bill, putting them in their own section, and then saying that section doesn't apply to  the IDS/NE)?

Okay now I am confused. Clauses 1 and 2 are the worst in my view if they are not limited, but the President also has issues with Section 2 so reorganization of the bill might be in order. I think.

What are you considering a section and what a clause herE?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

It's not "all over", it's only in the ME/MW/PA, and it wouldn't be if they enacted IDS/NE-style housing laws.

Didn't you need to offer another amendment regarding your previous one's use of the word clause instead of section. I would recommend moving the clause in that case to maybe create a third section on applicability staying the above do not apply those regions that done X.

If I said "Sections 1 and 2 do not apply to the IDS/NE", wouldn't that invalidate the whole bill for the IDS and NE? I think what everyone is calling "sections" here are more like clauses. I would be willing, however, to introduce an amendment to that effect (perhaps taking out the hateful parts of the bill, putting them in their own section, and then saying that section doesn't apply to  the IDS/NE)?

Okay now I am confused. Clauses 1 and 2 are the worst in my view if they are not limited, but the President also has issues with Section 2 so reorganization of the bill might be in order. I think.

What are you considering a section and what a clause herE?

Original text:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The things labeled "Section 1", "Section 2", etc. are sections. The little numbered points in them are clauses. My amendment limited clauses 1 and 2 of section 1 to the MW/ME/PA to mollify you folks.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Forget what I said about Duke and Section II, I was thinking of something else. For some reason I though there was a loitering clause in that as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just in case Alfred posting the original text as part of his example confused anyone.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Thx bby u no ily 5ever

[President Tyrion]

Would the opposition support a bill that allowed homeless people to sleep or whatever in municipally-administered parks (i.e., not state or federally administered parks)?

[bore]

Where are federal parks located? My hunch was that they were all in rural areas like Yosemite or Yellowstone, so I don't see how an amendment only legalising loitering there would actually help the homeless.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Would the opposition support a bill that allowed homeless people to sleep or whatever in municipally-administered parks (i.e., not state or federally administered parks)?

As long as such a standard does not apply to those regions that have responsible policies for the homeless.


You would have to ask the President what his thoughts are on the option, thoguh probably the same as before.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So what are we doing here?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Should we have a vote or do some people still have concerns?

[President Tyrion]

Ok, I think this is more likely to pass.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

Amendment is friendly.

[Cincinnatus]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Feedback: Friendly
Status: 24 hours to object.

[Cincinnatus]

Amendment 61:45 has been adopted with no objections.