NE3: Scott Doctrine Repeal (Law)

[Deus Naturae]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Representative Deus

Debate on this bill will last for 72 hours, or until Wednesday May 7 at 5:30 PM, unless modified or extended. The sponsor has 36 hours to advocate for this proposed legislation. If he does not, this bill will be tabled as there is other pending legislation in the queue.

[Deus Naturae]

Absolutely not, motion to table, etc.

Only the Speaker or the sponsor may table proposed legislation.

[Deus Naturae]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Scott Doctrine of 2011 was a short-sighted, extremist piece of legislation that prohibited secession in all cases and contained language that would allow the Regional government to engage in mass murder or biological warfare to prevent secession. This is a common sense bill that would allow the Regional government to take a rational, pragmatic approach to difficult situations, and would allow the People of the Northeast to make the decision if the Assembly could not come to a consensus.

[Deus Naturae]

I urge the Assembly to kill this measure.

Why? Killing this bill would mean allowing the Regional government to kill Northeast citizens...

[Deus Naturae]

If the government is bad enough to justify secession it's bad enough that it won't be constrained by any legislation hindering it.

Who does this refer to?

[Deus Naturae]

If the government is bad enough to justify secession it's bad enough that it won't be constrained by any legislation hindering it.

Who does this refer to?

The government

Which government?

[Deus Naturae]

If the government is bad enough to justify secession it's bad enough that it won't be constrained by any legislation hindering it.

Who does this refer to?

The government

Which government?

Any government.

In a secession scenario like the one the Scott Doctrine and my bill address, there are three governments involved: State, Regional, and Federal. I want to know which one Bore was referring to so I can properly address his point.

[Deus Naturae]

Either federal or regional, in other words the government that is being seceded from.

This bill (as well as he one it repeals) addresses a scenario in which a State government has attempted to secede form the Federal government. Under the Scott Doctrine, the Regional government would be forced to side against the State regardless of the circumstance. My bill would allow the Assembly to take a rational look at the situation and come to a decision based on that, rather than simply be forced to resort to violence as our only option.

[Deus Naturae]

A state can't secede from the region based on the Federal Constitution, which the Northeast is required to adhere to.  Not sure how you could argue we have a choice here.  Honestly, I don't know why we have the Scott doctrine, or why we need a Deus doctrine.  This is really a non-issue, speaking regionally.   

Link to relevant text?

[Deus Naturae]

No

Why not?

[Deus Naturae]

I am strongly against this. Any attempt by any state to secede from the region should be met with swift action against it.

This bill has nothing to do with secession from the Northeast. This bill (as well the one it repeals) regards a situation in which a State attempts to secede from the Federal government. I can understand not wanting to have a legal avenue through which the Northeast itself should secede and I would be willing to get rid of that part via amendment but there are way too many possible exceptions for us to be obligated to prevent secession by "any means necessary."

[Deus Naturae]

Either federal or regional, in other words the government that is being seceded from.

This bill (as well as he one it repeals) addresses a scenario in which a State government has attempted to secede form the Federal government. Under the Scott Doctrine, the Regional government would be forced to side against the State regardless of the circumstance. My bill would allow the Assembly to take a rational look at the situation and come to a decision based on that, rather than simply be forced to resort to violence as our only option.

Right, but if the federal government is so bad that states are seceding from it, if the regional government still exists, it's not going to have a choice about which side to back. At best this bill is pointless, at worst unconstitutional.

Not necessarily. The first possibility that comes to mind would be a situation in which the Governor is on the side of the Federal government but a majority of Representatives are not. If this bill fails, the Governor would have legal authority to send troops to the seceding State with no legislative review. If my bill were to pass, the Assembly would have to debate the issue and come to a decision, and could file a lawsuit against the Governor if he/she attempted to use force against the seceding State.

[Deus Naturae]

Either federal or regional, in other words the government that is being seceded from.

This bill (as well as he one it repeals) addresses a scenario in which a State government has attempted to secede form the Federal government. Under the Scott Doctrine, the Regional government would be forced to side against the State regardless of the circumstance. My bill would allow the Assembly to take a rational look at the situation and come to a decision based on that, rather than simply be forced to resort to violence as our only option.

Right, but if the federal government is so bad that states are seceding from it, if the regional government still exists, it's not going to have a choice about which side to back. At best this bill is pointless, at worst unconstitutional.

Not necessarily. The first possibility that comes to mind would be a situation in which the Governor is on the side of the Federal government but a majority of Representatives are not. If this bill fails, the Governor would have legal authority to send troops to the seceding State with no legislative review. If my bill were to pass, the Assembly would have to debate the issue and come to a decision, and could file a lawsuit against the Governor if he/she attempted to use force against the seceding State.

I don't think I'm making myself clear enough. The point is, in a situation where states are seceding the normal rules of government aren't going to apply. It's like that midwest aliens bill a while back. Sure it might be nice to have a procedure like this on paper, but were this event actually to happen, there is no way the procedure would be followed. If the federal government are so bad that a state wants out of the union, they are not going to respect the assembly's dictats.

I realize that, but I don't see what that has to with this bill. This bill is less about trying to stop the Federal government and more about just not using Regional forces against a State that is attempting to secede from a tyrannical Federal government.

[Deus Naturae]

I am strongly against this. Any attempt by any state to secede from the region should be met with swift action against it.

This bill has nothing to do with secession from the Northeast. This bill (as well the one it repeals) regards a situation in which a State attempts to secede from the Federal government. I can understand not wanting to have a legal avenue through which the Northeast itself should secede and I would be willing to get rid of that part via amendment but there are way too many possible exceptions for us to be obligated to prevent secession by "any means necessary."

No there aren't. Get rid of it or keep it, it makes no matter, I don't support the bill.

So...if the Federal government were to attempt to force, say, racial segregation on the Regions, or attempted to outlaw labor unions, and a State attempted to secede as a result, you believe that the Regional government should be bound by law to send troops to that State and coercively prevent it from seceding?

[Deus Naturae]

I am strongly against this. Any attempt by any state to secede from the region should be met with swift action against it.

This bill has nothing to do with secession from the Northeast. This bill (as well the one it repeals) regards a situation in which a State attempts to secede from the Federal government. I can understand not wanting to have a legal avenue through which the Northeast itself should secede and I would be willing to get rid of that part via amendment but there are way too many possible exceptions for us to be obligated to prevent secession by "any means necessary."

No there aren't. Get rid of it or keep it, it makes no matter, I don't support the bill.

So...if the Federal government were to attempt to force, say, racial segregation on the Regions, or attempted to outlaw labor unions, and a State attempted to secede as a result, you believe that the Regional government should be bound by law to send troops to that State and coercively prevent it from seceding?

Don't be silly. That's something that would never happen, which you and I both know. There are other ways to deal with something like that, namely at the ballot box. If something like that did happen, say the legislation to outlaw labor unions came about (A farcical notion considering the political alignments in Atlasia as a whole), then why should a state take such an action? Something like that would cause a national outrage and it would be dealt with on election day or even before that. I'm sorry but I can't envisage a scenario whereby a state may leave Atlasia and it can be considered constitutional.

I still haven't seen any evidence that secession is unconstitutional. It probably is considering this is Atlasia, but I'd like to see the relevant constitutional text.

I realize it's highly unlikely that a State would actually attempt to secede, but that's what the Scott Doctrine addresses so it's not like we're dealing in likely scenarios to begin with. We might as well just repeal the Scott Doctrine and be done with it if we're going to dismiss any legislation that deals with secession as pointless due to the highly improbable nature of the subject it addresses.

[Deus Naturae]

Be my guest then. If the Scott Doctrine is useless, then we should repeal it.

Just because it's unlikely the region will ever have to deal with the secession of one of its states doesn't mean the law is useless.  The law, if my memory serves, was introduced shortly after the IDS had to deal with a secession-related situation of its own.

The game may not be as spontaneous as it used to be, however unexpected things have happened before.  The policy itself has had no negative impact on the Northeast since it was enacted, and unless the supporters of repeal can prove otherwise, I see no reason not to keep it on the books.  Stop repealing good laws that don't need to be repealed.

This law has had no negative effect (in fact, it's had no effect at all) because no secession scenario has come up since its passage. Saying we should keep it for that reason is like saying that it would make sense for us to keep a hypothetical law mandating that the Northeast surrender immediately in the case of a foreign invasion. Neither scenario is likely to occur, but that doesn't mean that the response prescribed by the law is a good one.

Also, if you're going to assert that the Scott Doctrine is a good law, you need to justify that assertion. I have given reasons for why it is a bad law.

[Deus Naturae]

Anyway, I motion to extend debate by ten minutes just so I can introduce an amendment.

[Deus Naturae]

Motion granted.

[Deus Naturae]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Deus Naturae]

The debate period is now over. We will now move to a vote on the passage of this bill, as amended:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This vote will last for 48 hours or until all Representatives have voted.

[Deus Naturae]

Be my guest then. If the Scott Doctrine is useless, then we should repeal it.

Just because it's unlikely the region will ever have to deal with the secession of one of its states doesn't mean the law is useless.  The law, if my memory serves, was introduced shortly after the IDS had to deal with a secession-related situation of its own.

The game may not be as spontaneous as it used to be, however unexpected things have happened before.  The policy itself has had no negative impact on the Northeast since it was enacted, and unless the supporters of repeal can prove otherwise, I see no reason not to keep it on the books.  Stop repealing good laws that don't need to be repealed.

This law has had no negative effect (in fact, it's had no effect at all) because no secession scenario has come up since its passage. Saying we should keep it for that reason is like saying that it would make sense for us to keep a hypothetical law mandating that the Northeast surrender immediately in the case of a foreign invasion. Neither scenario is likely to occur, but that doesn't mean that the response prescribed by the law is a good one.

Also, if you're going to assert that the Scott Doctrine is a good law, you need to justify that assertion. I have given reasons for why it is a bad law.

There is nothing unusual about policies that establish how a governing entity will respond to events that directly impact it.  Your suggestion that keeping this policy is akin to passing a law mandating some kind of 'automatic surrender' in the event of foreign invasion is completely ridiculous and not even worth responding to.  You haven't done anything but bring up a bunch of off-the-wall hypotheticals that are not only highly unlikely to occur (Racial segregation?  Give me a break), but that need not be protested by means of secession.

You cannot say that this is "bad law" and admit that it's had no impact since it was put on the books.  Stop trying to have it both ways.

You're misinterpreting my argument. I'm not comparing this law to a law mandating automatic surrender. You basically claimed that, "This law had had no negative effect therefore we shouldn't repeal it." My hypothetical automatic surrender example was intended as an example of another that that in all likelihood would have had no actual negative impact (because the situation it addresses would likely never occur) but should still be repealed nonetheless. I'm not trying to suggest that a law mandating automatic surrender would have any similarities to this one in terms of actual content, I'm just trying to explain to you how a law can have no actual effect but still be bad.

Also, the unlikeliness argument doesn't really work here because it's unlikely that secession would ever occur to begin with. In discussing the hypotheticals of secession, we're necessarily going to be dealing with unlikely scenarios. Also, here's a good point that was brought up when this bill was first being debated: Do you believe that the Atlasian Founding Fathers should have been put to death for their attempts to secede from Britlasia (lol)?

Once again, just because a law has had no negative effect does not mean it is good. This law has had no positive effect either. If you believe that we need to have a law in place, the burden of proof is on you to justify that law. Besides, the reason the law has had no effect is because the situation it addresses has never actually occurred.

[Deus Naturae]

Except that a law which does mandate automatic surrender would be bad in the event that the region is attacked.  You wouldn't enact something like that whether the region was a likely target for foreign offenders or not and just having such a policy on the books would send a signal to foreign entities that the region will not be defended in the event of an attack.  So yes, it would absolutely have an effect.

I admit it wasn't the best example. But you must understand what I'm trying to say here. Even if a law has no negative effect because there has never been any actual need to enforce it, that doesn't negate the possibility that it might have a negative effect if there were a situation that would require its enforcement were to actually occur.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What current law? The Scott Doctrine is a blanket pronouncement because it requires the Regional government to do use military force against seceding States in all cases, which implies that secession is unjustified in every situation. Would you have supported to suppressive military actions of the Britlasians in the name of "holding the empire together?"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have given a reason why the law ought to be repealed: I don't believe that "maintaining unity" justifies the use of completely unrestrained violent force in every situation. Anyway, it's clear we're never going to agree on this because we have radically different views of when violence is justified.

[Deus Naturae]

Aye

[Deus Naturae]

By a vote of 3-2-0, this bill passes and goes on to the Governor for his signature or veto.

[Deus Naturae]

With one week having passed and no gubernatorial action having been taken on this bill, this bill automatically becomes law.