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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:45:27 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SENATE BILL: The Public means Public Act (Redraft Law'd)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11
Author Topic: SENATE BILL: The Public means Public Act (Redraft Law'd)  (Read 12073 times)
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #150 on: May 25, 2014, 02:39:11 PM »

You guys are really in the mood to flatter me this week, aren't you?  What can I say.  Thanks. Smiley

Here's my opinion: I think that most efforts in dealing with homelessness and housing, on principle, are best left at the direction of the regions and municipalities, simply because regions and localities are better equipped to plan communities and allocate resources according to demographic trends and needs of the people.  (That's why even though I would like to see the IDS bill enacted in every other region, I would not personally favor a national model or version.)

I applaud Senator Alfred for improving this bill with his amendment.  My only advice to the Senate is if you all think the federal government should have a role in eradicating homelessness, your best bet would be to provide grants and reimbursements for regions looking to (or already have Wink) establish comprehensive poverty and housing initiatives.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,019


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -3.13

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #151 on: May 25, 2014, 03:25:58 PM »

Yes, I think we can do just what Scott is suggestion without the language threatening to strip regions some rights if they don't follow along. We can and should expand free housing for the homeless without any strings attached.

As Nix pointed out, panhandlers =/ homeless in most cases.

Strike 1 and 2 from this bill and it will be one I think most of us can agree on.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #152 on: May 25, 2014, 04:02:58 PM »

Do you think we could cut out all the dilly-dallying and just enact a federal version of the IDS/NE plans right here, right now, in this room, no holds barred? Keeping most of section 1 and all of section 2, of course.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #153 on: May 25, 2014, 04:06:30 PM »

Other regions should come up with their own solutions to the Housing Problem, because otherwise whats the point of having regional governments?
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #154 on: May 25, 2014, 04:11:19 PM »

Other regions should come up with their own solutions to the Housing Problem, because otherwise whats the point of having regional governments?

Oh, so the homeless people of the Midwest, Mideast, and Pacific should be left out in the cold because of muh regions?
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #155 on: May 25, 2014, 04:16:01 PM »

Other regions should come up with their own solutions to the Housing Problem, because otherwise whats the point of having regional governments?

Oh, so the homeless people of the Midwest, Mideast, and Pacific should be left out in the cold because of muh regions?

The officials of the Midwest, Mideast, and Pacific should work on their own proposals and not leave their people in the cold. Just because I want a different solution than you doesn't mean I want "muh regions" to trample over people.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,019


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -3.13

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #156 on: May 25, 2014, 06:00:49 PM »

Do you think we could cut out all the dilly-dallying and just enact a federal version of the IDS/NE plans right here, right now, in this room, no holds barred? Keeping most of section 1 and all of section 2, of course.

What is the $5 billion we are giving to the regions for? We need to make sure that we specify it must be used on housing projects.

And don't be stubborn over section 1 and 2, or this bill won't even become law. I want to expand housing projects, but not at the expense of public safety and health. We can easily appropriate money to the regions to be used for housing projects and nothing else to the regions.
Logged
Cincinnatus
JBach717
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,092
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #157 on: May 25, 2014, 06:21:12 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #158 on: May 25, 2014, 07:27:24 PM »

Do you think we could cut out all the dilly-dallying and just enact a federal version of the IDS/NE plans right here, right now, in this room, no holds barred? Keeping most of section 1 and all of section 2, of course.

What is the $5 billion we are giving to the regions for? We need to make sure that we specify it must be used on housing projects.

And don't be stubborn over section 1 and 2, or this bill won't even become law. I want to expand housing projects, but not at the expense of public safety and health. We can easily appropriate money to the regions to be used for housing projects and nothing else to the regions.

Don't worry, Mr. President, everything's fine. By "sections 1 and 2" I meant of the entire bill (i.e. cars and stuff).

And Maxwell, I'd rather have all the homeless housed than have strong regions, but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #159 on: May 25, 2014, 07:33:25 PM »

Clearly the Feds wouldn't have even thought about this if the IDS and the Northeast hadn't gotten to it.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #160 on: May 25, 2014, 08:03:11 PM »

Do you think we could cut out all the dilly-dallying and just enact a federal version of the IDS/NE plans right here, right now, in this room, no holds barred? Keeping most of section 1 and all of section 2, of course.

What is the $5 billion we are giving to the regions for? We need to make sure that we specify it must be used on housing projects.

And don't be stubborn over section 1 and 2, or this bill won't even become law. I want to expand housing projects, but not at the expense of public safety and health. We can easily appropriate money to the regions to be used for housing projects and nothing else to the regions.

Don't worry, Mr. President, everything's fine. By "sections 1 and 2" I meant of the entire bill (i.e. cars and stuff).

And Maxwell, I'd rather have all the homeless housed than have strong regions, but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

Unless I am mistaken that would require a subsequent amendment, the text clearly applies only to cclauses 1 and 2. Though I might be mistaken as what you are saying there.

Why the hell do we need choose between strong regions and housing the homeless? Are there not enough lefties to ensure a good bill gets passed in the Pacific and Midwest? Riley is a reasonable guy and I am sure if he has a proposal that is solid, he stands a good chnace of passing that in the Mideast as well.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #161 on: May 25, 2014, 11:18:23 PM »

FTR, I planned on lobbying other regions to pass similar reforms when I drafted the IDS bill, but very rarely am I successful in forming "policy movements" or getting other regions to adopt my ideas (save for a couple of things), so I pretty much abandoned it.

I'm fully in agreement with Yankee and Maxwell on this, though.  By virtue of efficiency I would insist that the regions take the lead on this.  (And hey, maybe other regions will pass similar legislation as a result of this debate.)  It was able to pass in the IDS with a divided legislature, so I don't see why other regions, especially those with Labor-controlled governments, couldn't craft their own initiatives.

Also, for reference, may I please see the Northeast bill, preferably in its debate thread?
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #162 on: May 26, 2014, 06:26:11 AM »
« Edited: May 26, 2014, 10:07:53 AM by Senator bore »

FTR, I planned on lobbying other regions to pass similar reforms when I drafted the IDS bill, but very rarely am I successful in forming "policy movements" or getting other regions to adopt my ideas (save for a couple of things), so I pretty much abandoned it.

I'm fully in agreement with Yankee and Maxwell on this, though.  By virtue of efficiency I would insist that the regions take the lead on this.  (And hey, maybe other regions will pass similar legislation as a result of this debate.)  It was able to pass in the IDS with a divided legislature, so I don't see why other regions, especially those with Labor-controlled governments, couldn't craft their own initiatives.

Also, for reference, may I please see the Northeast bill, preferably in its debate thread?

This is the version that passed - https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=174740.0, and this was the original bill you vetoed- https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=174147.0
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #163 on: May 26, 2014, 08:41:18 AM »

I frankly don't think that we should sit around and wait until the regions can implement a proper solution. If regions are "better equipped" to deal with this sort of thing (and I don't doubt that more local governments are better at dealing with more local issues, since we can hardly legislate every little thing from up on high), then they can go ahead and fill in the details, but we, as a federal legislative body, need to ensure that we do every single thing in our power to bridge the gap. I've said this before, but I don't much care for the idea that we need to defer to regional authority completely. Regions (or whatever smaller deliberative body that may exist in their place) are part of the process, but I will not allow regions to completely dictate the process when we are talking about the needs of the many.

Now, if we are worried that National Parks will become Hoovertowns, I think that is a legitimate worry, and I didn't want my support for sheltering all Atlasians to be interpreted as some desire to see tents all over our national landmarks. But I would rather have people using Old Faithful as a shower (if that particular person likes Sulfur burns) than suffering the worst of homelessness. Hopefully, we can achieve a solution where we see neither.

Nay - public is public, and that applies to regions as well.

Yes and a community that is built on tourism should be able to make decisions for themselves on that regard and differently from one that isn't. I highlight doubt a simple majority in Nyman can best tell them how their public space is to be regulated when we don't have to consider their economic needs for one as well as others.

Call me crazy, but I think you shouldn't be banned from a certain place because your needs are less important than other people's wants.

Indeed.
Even if what you define as a want is a multi-billion dollar industry that employs thousands of people? Roll Eyes Sounds like a great way to create more homeless people if you ask me. Why are we forcing communities to have to eat a loss of money and jobs potentially, when two of our regions are now providing for this problem in a far more effective manner and another section of this bill further facilitates that effort. Roll Eyes

Because, simply, there are millions of homeless people in the other regions who deserve homes just as much. 60% of homeless people suddenly getting homes just means that we need to direct our efforts to getting that remaining 40% off the streets.

Yankee, I'm not sure what your question about my voting record on smoking bans was, but I'd be glad to clarify my position if you could clarify your question Tongue . But, I'll be honest, my "Indeed" was only snarkiness, not an attempt to make a full-fledged argument.

Shua also brings up an interesting point that there's no precedent for the federal government essentially deleting regional legislation off the books. We would need to explicitly ban things, not make a blanket repeal of regional law, because I don't believe that is constitutional (it might be, but it would have to be pretty convoluted). Technically, the federal government does have the power to override regional law, but I think it has to be explicit.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #164 on: May 26, 2014, 09:35:19 AM »

Do you think we could cut out all the dilly-dallying and just enact a federal version of the IDS/NE plans right here, right now, in this room, no holds barred? Keeping most of section 1 and all of section 2, of course.

What is the $5 billion we are giving to the regions for? We need to make sure that we specify it must be used on housing projects.

And don't be stubborn over section 1 and 2, or this bill won't even become law. I want to expand housing projects, but not at the expense of public safety and health. We can easily appropriate money to the regions to be used for housing projects and nothing else to the regions.

Don't worry, Mr. President, everything's fine. By "sections 1 and 2" I meant of the entire bill (i.e. cars and stuff).

And Maxwell, I'd rather have all the homeless housed than have strong regions, but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

Unless I am mistaken that would require a subsequent amendment, the text clearly applies only to cclauses 1 and 2. Though I might be mistaken as what you are saying there.

Oh, it would be an amendment to this bill. I meant we'd keep the whole thing except for the part that Duke hates and then tack on an IDS/NE-style housing program.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,019


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -3.13

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #165 on: May 26, 2014, 09:57:54 AM »

I'm indifferent about whether we need a federal policy. I'd prefer we just appropriate money to the regions and allow them to design their own policy, but I certainly won't veto a bill that legislates from the federal level either.

I just think if we give the regions money to implement a housing program, they can do it on their own. They're adults too, ya know?
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #166 on: May 26, 2014, 10:20:22 AM »

They are adults, but they may not be my favorite kind of adults. I'm a risk-averse sort of gentleman, you see.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,019


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -3.13

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #167 on: May 26, 2014, 10:29:35 AM »

OK, well discuss it amongst yourselves. I am open to either approach.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #168 on: May 26, 2014, 11:13:36 AM »

I'm indifferent about whether we need a federal policy. I'd prefer we just appropriate money to the regions and allow them to design their own policy, but I certainly won't veto a bill that legislates from the federal level either.

I just think if we give the regions money to implement a housing program, they can do it on their own. They're adults too, ya know?

I'm sure all regions are capable of designing excellent policies, and they all should. I just don't plan on waiting until they do.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #169 on: May 26, 2014, 08:35:24 PM »

I'm indifferent about whether we need a federal policy. I'd prefer we just appropriate money to the regions and allow them to design their own policy, but I certainly won't veto a bill that legislates from the federal level either.

I just think if we give the regions money to implement a housing program, they can do it on their own. They're adults too, ya know?

I'm sure all regions are capable of designing excellent policies, and they all should. I just don't plan on waiting until they do.

Why wait? Shouldn't Governor's DemPGH, Windjammer and Riley have every interest to get the jump on this issue?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #170 on: May 26, 2014, 08:41:43 PM »

I frankly don't think that we should sit around and wait until the regions can implement a proper solution. If regions are "better equipped" to deal with this sort of thing (and I don't doubt that more local governments are better at dealing with more local issues, since we can hardly legislate every little thing from up on high), then they can go ahead and fill in the details, but we, as a federal legislative body, need to ensure that we do every single thing in our power to bridge the gap. I've said this before, but I don't much care for the idea that we need to defer to regional authority completely. Regions (or whatever smaller deliberative body that may exist in their place) are part of the process, but I will not allow regions to completely dictate the process when we are talking about the needs of the many.

Now, if we are worried that National Parks will become Hoovertowns, I think that is a legitimate worry, and I didn't want my support for sheltering all Atlasians to be interpreted as some desire to see tents all over our national landmarks. But I would rather have people using Old Faithful as a shower (if that particular person likes Sulfur burns) than suffering the worst of homelessness. Hopefully, we can achieve a solution where we see neither.

That is not only dangerous to those who take up residence ther,e but also likely to damage the environment by disrupting the natural habitats and so forth. There is no reasonable justification for us to eat this kind of sacrifice when we have solutions before and there is no reason for the IDS to be forced to be so sacrificed when we have taken care of the responsbility already. At the very least the IDS should be exempt and the NE as well.

Nay - public is public, and that applies to regions as well.

Yes and a community that is built on tourism should be able to make decisions for themselves on that regard and differently from one that isn't. I highlight doubt a simple majority in Nyman can best tell them how their public space is to be regulated when we don't have to consider their economic needs for one as well as others.

Call me crazy, but I think you shouldn't be banned from a certain place because your needs are less important than other people's wants.

Indeed.
Even if what you define as a want is a multi-billion dollar industry that employs thousands of people? Roll Eyes Sounds like a great way to create more homeless people if you ask me. Why are we forcing communities to have to eat a loss of money and jobs potentially, when two of our regions are now providing for this problem in a far more effective manner and another section of this bill further facilitates that effort. Roll Eyes

Because, simply, there are millions of homeless people in the other regions who deserve homes just as much. 60% of homeless people suddenly getting homes just means that we need to direct our efforts to getting that remaining 40% off the streets.

Yankee, I'm not sure what your question about my voting record on smoking bans was, but I'd be glad to clarify my position if you could clarify your question Tongue . But, I'll be honest, my "Indeed" was only snarkiness, not an attempt to make a full-fledged argument.

Shua also brings up an interesting point that there's no precedent for the federal government essentially deleting regional legislation off the books. We would need to explicitly ban things, not make a blanket repeal of regional law, because I don't believe that is constitutional (it might be, but it would have to be pretty convoluted). Technically, the federal government does have the power to override regional law, but I think it has to be explicit.

The first paragraph about 60% and 40% does not justify a job loss that is unnecessary.

It was stated that needs of some are more importance than the wants of others. Surely smoking in public is a want at the expanse of the needs of those desiring to breath clean air. I was merely asking whether you voted in favor of making it impossible for localities to enact public smoking bans.

Shua may be right but I would be hessitant to take a risk in that fashion with supremacy being the powerfull thing that it is and the Constitution in this game being different from that of the RL document in certain ways.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,019


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -3.13

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #171 on: May 27, 2014, 11:30:00 PM »

I'm indifferent about whether we need a federal policy. I'd prefer we just appropriate money to the regions and allow them to design their own policy, but I certainly won't veto a bill that legislates from the federal level either.

I just think if we give the regions money to implement a housing program, they can do it on their own. They're adults too, ya know?

I'm sure all regions are capable of designing excellent policies, and they all should. I just don't plan on waiting until they do.

Why wait? Shouldn't Governor's DemPGH, Windjammer and Riley have every interest to get the jump on this issue?


Presumably, if we give them the money, surely they can craft policies. I simply feel that the punishment does not fit the crime when we mandate they do something or else we will force them to basically destroy their local economies and public parks.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #172 on: May 28, 2014, 08:22:46 PM »

The amendment appears to have been adopted unless I missed an objection.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #173 on: May 29, 2014, 12:29:14 AM »

I frankly don't think that we should sit around and wait until the regions can implement a proper solution. If regions are "better equipped" to deal with this sort of thing (and I don't doubt that more local governments are better at dealing with more local issues, since we can hardly legislate every little thing from up on high), then they can go ahead and fill in the details, but we, as a federal legislative body, need to ensure that we do every single thing in our power to bridge the gap. I've said this before, but I don't much care for the idea that we need to defer to regional authority completely. Regions (or whatever smaller deliberative body that may exist in their place) are part of the process, but I will not allow regions to completely dictate the process when we are talking about the needs of the many.

Now, if we are worried that National Parks will become Hoovertowns, I think that is a legitimate worry, and I didn't want my support for sheltering all Atlasians to be interpreted as some desire to see tents all over our national landmarks. But I would rather have people using Old Faithful as a shower (if that particular person likes Sulfur burns) than suffering the worst of homelessness. Hopefully, we can achieve a solution where we see neither.

That is not only dangerous to those who take up residence ther,e but also likely to damage the environment by disrupting the natural habitats and so forth. There is no reasonable justification for us to eat this kind of sacrifice when we have solutions before and there is no reason for the IDS to be forced to be so sacrificed when we have taken care of the responsbility already. At the very least the IDS should be exempt and the NE as well.


Well, I don't oppose the IDS and NE being exempt.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes and a community that is built on tourism should be able to make decisions for themselves on that regard and differently from one that isn't. I highlight doubt a simple majority in Nyman can best tell them how their public space is to be regulated when we don't have to consider their economic needs for one as well as others.
[/quote]

Call me crazy, but I think you shouldn't be banned from a certain place because your needs are less important than other people's wants.
[/quote]

Indeed.
[/quote]
Even if what you define as a want is a multi-billion dollar industry that employs thousands of people? Roll Eyes Sounds like a great way to create more homeless people if you ask me. Why are we forcing communities to have to eat a loss of money and jobs potentially, when two of our regions are now providing for this problem in a far more effective manner and another section of this bill further facilitates that effort. Roll Eyes
[/quote]

Because, simply, there are millions of homeless people in the other regions who deserve homes just as much. 60% of homeless people suddenly getting homes just means that we need to direct our efforts to getting that remaining 40% off the streets.

Yankee, I'm not sure what your question about my voting record on smoking bans was, but I'd be glad to clarify my position if you could clarify your question Tongue . But, I'll be honest, my "Indeed" was only snarkiness, not an attempt to make a full-fledged argument.

Shua also brings up an interesting point that there's no precedent for the federal government essentially deleting regional legislation off the books. We would need to explicitly ban things, not make a blanket repeal of regional law, because I don't believe that is constitutional (it might be, but it would have to be pretty convoluted). Technically, the federal government does have the power to override regional law, but I think it has to be explicit.
[/quote]

The first paragraph about 60% and 40% does not justify a job loss that is unnecessary.

It was stated that needs of some are more importance than the wants of others. Surely smoking in public is a want at the expanse of the needs of those desiring to breath clean air. I was merely asking whether you voted in favor of making it impossible for localities to enact public smoking bans.

Shua may be right but I would be hessitant to take a risk in that fashion with supremacy being the powerfull thing that it is and the Constitution in this game being different from that of the RL document in certain ways.
[/quote]

Well, if the job loss is indeed "unnecessary", then it would not be justified, no. But I suppose we disagree on that point.

I don't remember how I finally voted on the bill (I know it was more nuanced than a simple ban on smoking bans), but I know I was very, very reluctant to allow public smoking in the first place. It's just not something I like, and I know I differ from many on that point. So I guess I am consistent.

It certainly sets a dangerous precedent that the Senate might annul regional law without judicial recourse.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #174 on: May 29, 2014, 06:58:52 PM »

It certainly sets a dangerous precedent that the Senate might annul regional law without judicial recourse.

Theoretically the regions would be protected so that those powers which are theres, they cannot be overriden. However, there are not set areas where the Regions have exclusive authority or at the very least they are not clearly understand by I think most of the players. And I know you guys like to throw around Regional budgets as an example of what Regions can and should be doing, but budgets are not things unto themselves but merely a collection, or should I say, a list of things the Regions does and what amongst those items do they hold exclusive authority over? If it is not exclusively a regional thing, then the supremacy clause would cause all Federal laws to override regional laws when they do conflict, no?

Does this fall under one of the few items that the Region's hold exclusive jurisdiction over?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 13 queries.