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

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

What is a municipally administered place? A park? Does this mean municipalities can still enact loitering laws? If so, what is the point of what's added?

[President Tyrion]

What is a municipally administered place? A park? Does this mean municipalities can still enact loitering laws? If so, what is the point of what's added?

I was worried that the federal government does not have the purview to actively repeal municipal or regional legislation.

I'm not sure there's a clean definition of municipally administered spaces, but I want that to include parks but exclude private property.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So where does that leave us on this?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm still not sure about where I stand on this. All I wanted was to decriminalize sleeping in your car, expanding public housing, and be happy. I'm not entirely sure what the first two clauses mean now, or how they affect cities/local governments from keeping their streets clean and safe.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Would you sign the bill as it is now if it were to pass?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Well, I'm not going to sign anything that restricts regions from making anti-loitering or other public heath/safety laws. From the sound of this bill, it will forbid them from making laws but will allow municipalities to set those laws, correct? Just seems like unnecessary rigamarole. Do municipalities even have only municipality-only maintained parks and other areas? We seem to be trying to jump through way too many hoops when just striking clauses 1 and 2 in section I would be easier and less confusing.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well Senators, the President has stated his position, is there a path forward or should we just put this to a vote. WE have been on this a long time now.

[TNF]

As the sponsor, I am ready for a final vote.

[Cincinnatus]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A Final vote is now open on the underlying legislation, Senators please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[TNF]

Aye

[bore]

Aye

[Goldwater]

Abstain

[President Tyrion]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Man this vote is really lagging.

Reluctant Aye

We need the funding if nothing else. Duke can remove the stuff he finds objectionable in a redraft.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Aye.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Aye

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I just don't understand what the first part even means. It needs to be cleaned up at the very least because I'm not going to sign a piece of legislation that could ban regions or municipalities from outlawing loitering and the like.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I will try to get on later and close this vote, but unfortunatley I have to get off in mere minutes.

[Cincinnatus]

Vote on The Public Means Public Act :

Aye (6): TNF, bore, Tyrion, Yankee, Alfred, and shua
Nay (0):
Abstain (1): Goldwater

Didn't Vote (3): Griffin, Lumine, and DC

With six votes in the affirmative, and no opposition, the bill passes the Senate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Mr. President?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't know if any of the mandates in this count, but considering what was said in the Child Custody law, it should be reviewed with those concerns in mind as well.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Oh sorry. I didn't know this passed. I'll redraft. The first two clauses are too vague for me, but I do want us to fund housing projects for the poor.

[TNF]

Are you redrafting, signing or vetoing? Because if you're going to veto it, I'm prepared to ask for an override.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, a few things after actually taking time to read this.

First, the parts on restricting regions from making loitering laws is unconstitutional. The federal government doesn't have the power to do that absent an overwhelming interest, and unlike the rapist law we just passed, one does not exist here. We could potentially tie it to funding for housing projects, like we have attempted, but even then, I'm not willing to hurt local economies by forbidding anti-loitering laws, which is difficult to construe from harassment, which these places use to keep their streets clean and people safe. If we give regions $5 billion for housing projects, I expect they will do just that without this threat of forcing them to turn their cities into shanty-towns. The power of the purse can be used but not in coercive or unreasonable ways, and this seems unreasonable to me.

Second, I don't particularly understand what the last 2 clauses of section 2 mean. Police cannot enter anyone's vehicle without their presence. They are not allowed to break into it. That's an unconstitutional search, just like police cannot search a home without someone with authority to allow them in to be there, absent exigent circumstances like the flight of a victim, potential for destruction of evidence, or if someone's life is in danger. Police may search a vehicle if they have probable cause FOLLOWING a lawful arrest or a lawful traffic stop, and it has to be more than a mere hunch. If it isn't based on some evidence, the court will always throw out any evidence gathered. The second clause in section 2 contradicts the first clause. Probable cause leads to a warrant, so this is saying they can search a car with probable cause but then it says only with a warrant right above it. Police cannot search cars of people they do not suspect are committing criminal acts. They may only seize something in plain view, if an individual has contraband laying out on their passenger seat, for example, and nothing more.

Disclosure: I just finished my criminal law and criminal procedure lectures a day ago.