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

[Lumine]

Aye.

[President Tyrion]

Aye guess

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Goldwater]

AYE

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

abstain

the bill title really doesn't make sense to me, and I don't think that's good for our laws.

[DC Al Fine]

abstain

the bill title really doesn't make sense to me, and I don't think that's good for our laws.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I know guys but the funding for the homeless programs is what I find most important.

We will probably have to start this. Which is a shame becuase of all the time we spent on already.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The results of the vote on Duke's redraft:
Aye (5): Senator Bore, Senator Lumine, Senator Tyrion,  Senator NC Yankee, Senator Goldwater
Nay (2): Senator Griffin, Senator Alfred
Abstain (2): Senator shua, Senator DC
Non voting (1) : Senator TNF

Duke's redraft passes.

I, Windjammer, President of the Senate, certify these results are accurate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Normally five days are given for these like the veto overrides and final votes, thoguh it seems the rules don't actually state that unfortunately. Something we should probably fix.

[windjammer]

Normally five days are given for these like the veto overrides and final votes, thoguh it seems the rules don't actually state that unfortunately. Something we should probably fix.

5 days? That's too much I guess.
I mean, considering the redrafts are most of the time less controversial than the original bills...

[windjammer]

This redraft is now sent to the president for his signature or his veto.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Unless there are problems remaning with the redraft, like the title of tihs one or the redraft that Duke vetoed a week or two ago. They can be quite controversial at times.


I suppose we could do three days on them. We'll need an amendment to set a time length in the text and we can decide thel ength then.

[DemPGH]

Okay, I support striking the sections of Part I that have been struck, but I would like to restore 2.1 and 2.2. This needs to be retitled "Public Housing Act" as well.

If changing anything at this point would constitute another redraft, I'll probably sign it and we'll deal with the privacy stuff in a separate statute. I have no problem with loitering laws, but we need to allow for sleeping in cars and we need to ensure that people aren't pulled out of their cars by police for shoddy reasons. I know there has to be probably cause, but there are complaints and cases all the time about police pulling people out of cars for terrible reasons.

Is it all or nothing at this point? If so, I'll likely sign, because we need to help the homeless. LMK.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Since the redraft has passed, I think it's sign or veto, but I could be wrong. I've never redrafted a redraft, but I have vetoed by own redraft, which apparently was a first. Go figure.

[bore]

The redraft kept section 2:1 in it.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The redraft kept section 2:1 in it.

Oh yeah, Windjammer posted the wrong redraft. I posted a newer on after thinking about section 2:1, and I felt it could be constitutional under the supremacy clause.

[DemPGH]

Thanks, guys! I see that now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

X DemPGH, President

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Attention all current, former and future El Presidentes, especailly Duke.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So the other option in this case to make changes would have been if the sponsor reopened up debate, and then the Senate amend it, which the President could then sign.

[windjammer]

So the other option in this case to make changes would have been if the sponsor reopened up debate, and then the Senate amend it, which the President could then sign.

I think DemPGH could have proposed his own redraft, the president shall have this option "once". And he hasn't used yet that.

[TNF]

Nay, FTR.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So the other option in this case to make changes would have been if the sponsor reopened up debate, and then the Senate amend it, which the President could then sign.

I think DemPGH could have proposed his own redraft, the president shall have this option "once". And he hasn't used yet that.

That is an interesting take on it that I didn't think of it. It dpends on whetheri t refers to the office or the person. If the office, no. if the person, yes.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Whew, my final redraft passes. I was worried I'd finally broke that winning streak (I don't count the veto of my own redraft as a loss).

Thanks for this, I can finally go quiet into the night, well, after I see what happens to that education "bill."

[DemPGH]

My reasoning was that we had to help the homeless, and the bonus was legalizing sleeping in cars. That was the most important part of this (homeless).

This was one of those bills that actually sought to do a number of different things under a title that's vague at best. I actually supported striking Part I. I would have preferred to restore most of Part II, but I really didn't think it worth a redraft and a re-vote. I think we can handle those sorts of privacy concerns and added protections from police in a separate statute or if we draft an omnibus civil rights bill at some point over the summer. That would probably be the ideal place to address when and how police can drag people out of cars, because currently it's kind of sketchy. Police have broad, vague authority in this regard.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Do we have an equivalent to a 4th amendment in our constitution? The reason I struck those parts was because I thought we already had those protections in our constitution. I know in the US Constitution, police have a limited scope of what they can do in regard to searching homes/cars and it all involves needing at least reasonable suspicion and most of the time requiring probable cause.

Of course, you can argue that "probable cause" is a vague term that is hard to quantify, but it has been the tried and true standard for years and years, and I can't come up with a better alternative. That isn't to say police abuse doesn't occur, but Section II here wouldn't really stop any of that.