Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Alcon]

Preston, although Siege is a populist, he seems willing to compromise, especially on economic issues, and I would be unsurprised if he nominated libertarians to the court if he got a chance, as they are the vast majority on the board.

[Emsworth]

Preston, although Siege is a populist, he seems willing to compromise, especially on economic issues, and I would be unsurprised if he nominated libertarians to the court if he got a chance, as they are the vast majority on the board.

Siege is certainly willing to compromise here - for instance, he chose me as his running mate, although I'm not exactly a populist.

[Joe Republic]

The Mideast has the right idea:

Signature and Avatar Amendment
1.  The Senate of the Republic of Atlasia hereby recognizes that a mandatory statement of a voter's registration in a person's avatar or signature is no longer necessary to aide the administrator of an election to determine the state in which a voter is registered.

2.  Upon this recognition, the Senate of Atlasia with the formal consent of the Regions shall repeal Article V, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Atlasian Constitution effective on August 18, 2005.

I thank the Senator for this much needed reform.

As do I. 

[Sam Spade]

Why the hell is the Senate moving so damn slow?

Recent bills (Social Security Bill, Secret Ballot Bill) have produced much debate and tons of amendments from Senators.

All in all, we have voted on 16 pieces of legislation this session, as compared to the rapid fire pace of 28 pieces of legislation last session.

One of the main problems has been is that the quality of legislation introduced this session has not been anywhere near the quality of legislation introduced last session.

This session, I've voted Nay six times and Abstain once.  Compare this to my voting Nay only three times last session and two of those were against Mike Naso bills.

All in all, I predict we'll end up voting on around 20 pieces of legislation this session, give or take a few.

[Bono]

Why the hell is the Senate moving so damn slow?

Recent bills (Social Security Bill, Secret Ballot Bill) have produced much debate and tons of amendments from Senators.

All in all, we have voted on 16 pieces of legislation this session, as compared to the rapid fire pace of 28 pieces of legislation last session.

One of the main problems has been is that the quality of legislation introduced this session has not been anywhere near the quality of legislation introduced last session.

This session, I've voted Nay six times and Abstain once.  Compare this to my voting Nay only three times last session and two of those were against Mike Naso bills.

All in all, I predict we'll end up voting on around 20 pieces of legislation this session, give or take a few.

That's because you people are so picky.

[Colin]

Why the hell is the Senate moving so damn slow?

Recent bills (Social Security Bill, Secret Ballot Bill) have produced much debate and tons of amendments from Senators.

All in all, we have voted on 16 pieces of legislation this session, as compared to the rapid fire pace of 28 pieces of legislation last session.

One of the main problems has been is that the quality of legislation introduced this session has not been anywhere near the quality of legislation introduced last session.

This session, I've voted Nay six times and Abstain once.  Compare this to my voting Nay only three times last session and two of those were against Mike Naso bills.

All in all, I predict we'll end up voting on around 20 pieces of legislation this session, give or take a few.

I attribute this lack of good bills to Peter not being as involved in the production of legislation as before. If you look at a lot of the major bills passed in the last Senate Peter Bell was behind most of them and wrote a good majority of them. Seriously though we've had a little slump in the writing of bills during this Senate but it should pick up later in the Summer when more people are active and less people are either away or busy.

[Peter]

Replying to Sam's latest rendition of War and Peace:

Article 2, Clause 5:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thats a bit like Naso's 'I support abortion except in cases of rape and incest' position isn't it? I look forward to welcoming the Cows recently wed in Thailand to Atlasia.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously, if this passes, I'm suing Atlasia in a federal court under the Ex Posto Facto clause.

[Sam Spade]

Replying to Sam's latest rendition of War and Peace:

Article 2, Clause 5:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thats a bit like Naso's 'I support abortion except in cases of rape and incest' position isn't it? I look forward to welcoming the Cows recently wed in Thailand to Atlasia.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously, if this passes, I'm suing Atlasia in a federal court under the Ex Posto Facto clause.

Look, I know that you don't like this and I occasionally put a wrong word here or there when I'm dealing with transferring state law to the federal level (which I did in this case).  Obviously it provides for good material to attack, I don't deny that.

If anyone is curious, I essentially stole the language of article 2 from a combination of Arizona and Washington family law.  Article 3-4 come from Vermont's Civil Union statute.

[The Dowager Mod]

I urge both of my senators to vote against Senator Wixteds amendment(s) to the voting system reform bill.
By trying to lessen the number of ordinary citicenzes
and increasing the number of bureaucrats the proposed commision will lose most if not all credibility.

[Sam Spade]

I urge both of my senators to vote against Senator Spades amendment(s) to the voting system reform bill.
By trying to lessen the number of ordinary citicenzes
and increasing the number of bureaucrats the proposed commision will lose most if not all credibility.

I haven't proposed any amendments to the Voting System Reform Bill, Texasgurl. 

As far as I know, Colin's the only one who has.

[DanielX]

You know, I just realized I oppose the next three bills in succession.

1. Pledge of Allegiance Bill of 2005
  - Bah, the resulting pledge sounds dumb. Frankly, 'under God' breaks it up a little.

2. Atlasian Senate Term Limit Bill
  - Why bother? No one seems to have been around 16 months anyway...

3. Species Bill of 2005
 - Yeah, me no like environment.

[Emsworth]

1. Pledge of Allegiance Bill of 2005
  - Bah, the resulting pledge sounds dumb. Frankly, 'under God' breaks it up a little.

Let us, then, abolish the pledge itself.

[MasterJedi]

1. Pledge of Allegiance Bill of 2005
  - Bah, the resulting pledge sounds dumb. Frankly, 'under God' breaks it up a little.

Let us, then, abolish the pledge itself.

No, let us just leave it the way it is.

[Emsworth]

1. Pledge of Allegiance Bill of 2005
  - Bah, the resulting pledge sounds dumb. Frankly, 'under God' breaks it up a little.

Let us, then, abolish the pledge itself.

No, let us just leave it the way it is.

That would fly in the face  of the notion of religoius freedom. For the government to presume that a God exists, or that everyone believes or should believe in God, is the height of arrogance. And therefore, the pledge should be abolished, or the phrase "under God" taken out.

[MasterJedi]

1. Pledge of Allegiance Bill of 2005
  - Bah, the resulting pledge sounds dumb. Frankly, 'under God' breaks it up a little.

Let us, then, abolish the pledge itself.

No, let us just leave it the way it is.

That would fly in the face  of the notion of religoius freedom. For the government to presume that a God exists, or that everyone believes or should believe in God, is the height of arrogance. And therefore, the pledge should be abolished, or the phrase "under God" taken out.

You're not required to say that part or the whole pledge in general. For all I care (as well as most people) you could say "under Allah" or "under Budda" and nobody would really care. If it needs to be changed (which it shouldn't be anyway) it should be done so that it doesn't reguire you to say God but whatever God or Goddess you worship.

[Emsworth]

You're not required to say that part or the whole pledge in general. For all I care (as well as most people) you could say "under Allah" or "under Budda" and nobody would really care.

That is not relevant. The point is that the government is making a categorical statement that God exists, by including such an assertion in the pledge. Moreover, the government is associating allegiance to religion: which is, in my opinion, the very concept which the Framers would have abhorred.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That presumes that everyone worships a deity, which presumption is untrue.

[True Democrat]

Can I motion to bring bills to the front of list?

[Emsworth]

Can I motion to bring bills to the front of list?

Only the PPT and VP, acting together, can bring bills to the front of the list.

[True Democrat]

Can I motion to bring bills to the front of list?

Only the PPT and VP, acting together, can bring bills to the front of the list.

Well, may I suggest you bring the Peter's voting code bill to the front, along the with the Niger bill.

[MasterJedi]

Can I motion to bring bills to the front of list?

Only the PPT and VP, acting together, can bring bills to the front of the list.

I wouldn't mind this, come on Gabu, on your feet!

Well, may I suggest you bring the Peter's voting code bill to the front, along the with the Niger bill.

[Sam Spade]

Can I motion to bring bills to the front of list?

Only the PPT and VP, acting together, can bring bills to the front of the list.

Technically, if you wanted to make a motion and have the Senate vote on such a matter, you could bring it forward with the support of a majority of Senators.

[Emsworth]

Can I motion to bring bills to the front of list?

Only the PPT and VP, acting together, can bring bills to the front of the list.

Technically, if you wanted to make a motion and have the Senate vote on such a matter, you could bring it forward with the support of a majority of Senators.

Yes, of course, but that would tend to be a rather cumbersome process. It's much simpler just to leave it to us

[Emsworth]

With regard to the Sealand Recognition Bill, I would have to state my unequivocal opposition.

"Sealand" is actually not an island or a territory, but merely a man-made structure: a partially sunken Royal Navy barge in the North Sea. The structure was built by the British government, and lies within the limit of British waters; thus, by any reasonable interpretation of international law, it is the property of the United Kingdom (albeit abandoned).

Recognition of this place with a population of five would be, in my opinion, a very unfortunate idea. So, I would request Sen. King to withdraw the proposal.

[King]

Recognition of this place with a population of five would be, in my opinion, a very unfortunate idea. So, I would request Sen. King to withdraw the proposal.

Huh?  Did I submit this?

[Emsworth]

Recognition of this place with a population of five would be, in my opinion, a very unfortunate idea. So, I would request Sen. King to withdraw the proposal.

Huh?  Did I submit this?

Yes: see here.