Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[CheeseWhiz]

Yeah I'm here. I, constitutionally, can't do anything, though, unless Emsworth is away so my position is nearly useless. Emsworth has the overall authority to control the bill debates, decide which amendments to dispose of, and when to start votes. I only do it very rarely and when it is needed.

On the contrary, you are perfectly at liberty to act whenever you please. The Senate rules allow it.

Oh good. I thought the Constitution limited me to a purely secondary role.

Nope.  In fact, the OSPR really gives you primary control over internal Senate affairs. 

That's why i was wondering.

Emsworth is by far the most active VP we've had so far, and when I was PPT, he routinely took action so fast that I never had a chance to do a thing.

That's how I'm starting to feel about Jas.  Man, that guy is efficient

Hey, I thought we had an agreement about not badmouthing each other in public!

But I was complimenting you!

Very well, long may it continue.

As long as you keep up the good work

[Јas]

Yeah I'm here. I, constitutionally, can't do anything, though, unless Emsworth is away so my position is nearly useless. Emsworth has the overall authority to control the bill debates, decide which amendments to dispose of, and when to start votes. I only do it very rarely and when it is needed.

On the contrary, you are perfectly at liberty to act whenever you please. The Senate rules allow it.

Oh good. I thought the Constitution limited me to a purely secondary role.

Nope.  In fact, the OSPR really gives you primary control over internal Senate affairs. 

That's why i was wondering.

Emsworth is by far the most active VP we've had so far, and when I was PPT, he routinely took action so fast that I never had a chance to do a thing.

That's how I'm starting to feel about Jas.  Man, that guy is efficient

Hey, I thought we had an agreement about not badmouthing each other in public!

But I was complimenting you!

Very well, long may it continue.

As long as you keep up the good work

I knew there was a catch!

[Platypus]

this asbestos bill is really bad; who proposed it?

[Ebowed]

this asbestos bill is really bad; who proposed it?

MasterJedi

[MAS117]

I urge all Senators to vote down Al's Sealand war bill!!!!

[Platypus]

nobody got anything to protest about or analyse?

[Gabu]

nobody got anything to protest about or analyse?

I'll protest and analyze you.

[Platypus]

feel free, but do it thoroughly; I don't want some little "YOU SUCK COS YOU DIDN'T VOTE LIKE I WANTED"

[Filuwaúrdjan]

On the request of a concerned constituent:

Deregistration Bill

Whereas,
1. Federal Statutes and the Constitution are seemingly silent on the matter of "deregistration".
2. To date the ability to deregister has apparently been at the whim of the Executive, with Presidents apparently changing its status by Executive Order.

The Senate resolves that,
1. A right to deregister, specifically, the right to have oneself removed from the voter rolls, is hereby granted to all citizens of Atlasia.
2. Any citizen who has deregistered shall no longer be able to vote in any federal election or vote.
3. Should a citizen who has deregistered, re-register with Atlasia within sixty days of their deregistration, then they remain bound by the requirements of Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 as amended by the Seventh Amendment.
4. The Department of Forum Affairs may make regulations as necessary to specify how requests for deregistration should be made.
5. Previous deregistration requests that have been honored should remain so, and those that have not been honored should remain so.
6. All Executive Orders issued in contradiction of this Law in the past or future are void.

[Peter]

Presuming thats introduced legislation, I think you are in the wrong thread Al.

[KEmperor]

Perhaps he is protesting the citizen who is concerned himself.

[Sam Spade]

MAS, is there any reason why you are attempting to (badly) rewrite the Official Senate Procedural Resolution and remove the Legislation Introduction Thread and various safeguards and procedures written into the Resolution?

Also, why are you introducing this as a Act, when it is clearly a Senate resolution?

A couple of things you have added here might be nice to add to the Senate rules (such as decorum, unanimous consent and tabling motions), but the other essentially tries to rewrite what has already been written (and not any better, I might add).

I can't help it that the PPT or the VP chooses not to read the document.  That's their problem, not mine.

[MAS117]

MAS, is there any reason why you are attempting to (badly) rewrite the Official Senate Procedural Resolution and remove the Legislation Introduction Thread and various safeguards and procedures written into the Resolution?

Also, why are you introducing this as a Act, when it is clearly a Senate resolution?

A couple of things you have added here might be nice to add to the Senate rules (such as decorum, unanimous consent and tabling motions), but the other essentially tries to rewrite what has already been written (and not any better, I might add).

I can't help it that the PPT or the VP chooses not to read the document.  That's their problem, not mine.

I'm not trying to get rid of the that thread, bills should be introduced in that thread. Like I said, I am very open to all amendments to the bill. I'll edit it to read resolution. I think the rules of decorum, etc. would be good for this legislative body.

[True Democrat]

Isn't there supposed to be a confirmation thread for Ebowed?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Isn't there supposed to be a confirmation thread for Ebowed?

He's still a Senator isn't he?

[MasterJedi]

Isn't there supposed to be a confirmation thread for Ebowed?

He's still a Senator isn't he?

It's at the start of the next session that Defarge will resign on so that's when the hearing for Ebowed will have to be.

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm aware that I'm prohibited from using the Senate Legislative Introduction Thread as I'm not yet a sitting Senator

However, can someone confirm for me whether this thread is the place for me to comment or make suggestions -as a Citizen re-current Senate Debate or do I use the appropriate thread as a Citizen for designated for any particular legislation? For example, were I to make a suggestion on the Tennessee Valley Authority Privatisation Act

I just thought I'd ask with this thread being inactive of late

Thanks

Dave (currently trawlling his way through wads and wads of Atlasia stuff )

[Gabu]

I'm aware that I'm prohibited from using the Senate Legislative Introduction Thread as I'm not yet a sitting Senator

However, can someone confirm for me whether this thread is the place for me to comment or make suggestions -as a Citizen re-current Senate Debate or do I use the appropriate thread as a Citizen for designated for any particular legislation? For example, were I to make a suggestion on the Tennessee Valley Authority Privatisation Act

I just thought I'd ask with this thread being inactive of late

Thanks

Dave (currently trawlling his way through wads and wads of Atlasia stuff )

Techinically speaking, this is the thread to use until the legislation is on the floor, at which point you use the legislation's private thread.

Practically speaking, however, you can basically just talk about it wherever.  Restrictions are not followed religiously, if at all.

[Sam Spade]

I'm aware that I'm prohibited from using the Senate Legislative Introduction Thread as I'm not yet a sitting Senator

However, can someone confirm for me whether this thread is the place for me to comment or make suggestions -as a Citizen re-current Senate Debate or do I use the appropriate thread as a Citizen for designated for any particular legislation? For example, were I to make a suggestion on the Tennessee Valley Authority Privatisation Act

I just thought I'd ask with this thread being inactive of late

Thanks

Dave (currently trawlling his way through wads and wads of Atlasia stuff )

Techinically speaking, this is the thread to use until the legislation is on the floor, at which point you use the legislation's private thread.

Practically speaking, however, you can basically just talk about it wherever.  Restrictions are not followed religiously, if at all.

There is a section in the OSPR which says something to the effect that "individuals that post in the legislation introduction thread may be subject to prosecution under relevant statute in criminal laws", but since no relevant statute has been added, the phrase is pretty much meaningless, though I would still hope most comments on legislation would remain in this thread.

[ilikeverin]

I think we should divide the SoFA into three positions:

Department of Elections, for actually counting ballots
Department of AIM Handling, for dealing with assorted candidates and concerned citizens yammering on AIM at the SoE during the election
Department of Forum Affairs, for dealing with assorted candidates, concerned citizens, and Southeasterners yammering on the forum at the SoE during the election

[MasterJedi]

That AIM one is a waste of a position and makes the government too big.

[ilikeverin]

That AIM one is a waste of a position and makes the government too big.

You're a waste of a position and make the government too big

In case you can't tell, this is all sarcasm... and if you can't, yet another reason to elect me President... so people will stop taking everything so darn seriously!

[Peter]

Discussion moved from Page 43 of the Introduction Thread:

While I think banning asbestos is overkill, Section 1 of the Act falls under clause 3 of the Enumerated Powers section of the Constitution; Section 3 falls under clause 10,; Section 4 and 5 falls under clause 9; and Section 6 is a statement of what the Act doesn't do.  The only potentially dicey section is Section 2, but if you can't sell, transport, or make something from the Asbestos once you've mined it, I think a reasonable intrepetation that it falls under clause 30 as a means to enforce the other Constitutional provisions can be made.  In short, while the Asbestos Ban Act has its faults, I don't think Constitutionality is among them.

Whilst I agree that Sections 1 and 3 of the act are justified by enumerated powers you cite, I have been long of the opinion that Sections 2, 4 and 5 are not, hence my explicit singling out of those in my preamblatory clauses.

Article I, Section 5, Clause 9 of our Second Constitution reads thus:
To fix standards of weights and measures and of such items of commerce as it deems needful throughout the Republic of Atlasia.
It is this you cite as justification for at least 4 & 5 of the Act.

To "fix standards ... of such items of commerce as it deems needful" does not convey to me a general commerce power - it articulates a specific commerce power that regulates actual standards, e.g. health and safety standards, water quality standards, etc. It does not cognize the authority to outright ban particular items of commerce, but to regulate particulars of those items.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

But if an item of commerce is such that it cannot be reasonably used in a safe and healthful manner, does not it follow that the regulation of its standard effectively must be a ban?  One can of course argue the case as to whether it could be reasonably used and whether such a decision should be left to a branch other than the legislative, but those are political not constitutional questions, in my opinion.

[WMS]

Let me just say that on the bill involving cutting off aid to the Palestinians, while I agree in principle that a Hamas-led government should definitely not receive any Atlasian funding, I have some concerns over governmental flexibility. Thus I abstained.