Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:29:43 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 Protest and Analysis Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 90
Author Topic: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread  (Read 304026 times)
Q
QQQQQQ
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,319


Political Matrix
E: 2.26, S: -4.88

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #200 on: March 25, 2006, 12:04:01 AM »

I've posted to bump it up and now Q just have to agree with it and it'll be next to come up. Smiley

Consider it done.
Logged
Peter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,030


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #201 on: April 14, 2006, 05:30:12 AM »

We presently have the following pieces of legislation on the floor of the Senate according to my count:

Amendment to Introduce a Parlimentary System to Atlasia
Abortion Restriction in Federal Territories Bill
Hate Crimes Statistics Bill
Useless Defense Spending Repeal Bill
Pacifican Statehood Act of 2006

This is obviously five pieces of legislation, so presumably one of these is occupying the "forum affairs" slot. Whilst not explicitly stated, it is strongly implied in our Procedural Rules that the Presiding Officer(s) must state when a piece of legislation is moved into these slots since the Senate is afforded a right to challenge something being moved into these slots.

My question to the Presiding Officers is: Which of these do you claim relates to forum affairs?
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,554
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #202 on: April 14, 2006, 06:36:55 AM »

My question to the Presiding Officers is: Which of these do you claim relates to forum affairs?

You could claim Parliment is but I wouldn't have added another bill.
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #203 on: April 14, 2006, 05:09:38 PM »

Just curious...where does my little Constitutional Amendment stand in the queue?
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,554
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #204 on: April 14, 2006, 05:13:37 PM »

Just curious...where does my little Constitutional Amendment stand in the queue?

You're two bills away. Next is Peter's bill and then your amendment comes up. Smiley
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #205 on: April 14, 2006, 05:21:51 PM »

Just curious...where does my little Constitutional Amendment stand in the queue?

You're two bills away. Next is Peter's bill and then your amendment comes up. Smiley

I thank the Honorable Senator for his response. Smiley
Logged
Q
QQQQQQ
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,319


Political Matrix
E: 2.26, S: -4.88

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #206 on: April 14, 2006, 05:31:51 PM »

My question to the Presiding Officers is: Which of these do you claim relates to forum affairs?

The Parliament bill is forum affairs legislation.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #207 on: April 19, 2006, 04:00:04 PM »

Do you want to destroy nuclear power by repealing the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act?  Given what trial lawyers have done with other controversial industries such as asbestos in state courts, that's what the so-called Energy Policy Reform Act would do.  If this bill passes as written folks, enjoy the rolling brownouts that will start once all the reactors shut down, because no private  insurance company is going to be crazy enough to risk Atlasian state courts, and no private utility could fiscally manage the risk by itself.  Even if you think Price-Anderson is bad policy, simple repeal is even worse policy.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #208 on: April 23, 2006, 08:58:03 PM »

In response to today's decision, I've prepared a draft law.  I'd like feedback on it before I try to corral a Senator next session to introduce it.

Campaigning Bill

§1. Findings
   (a) In the recent case of True Democrat v. Department of Forum Affairs, the Supreme Court found that due to the lack of any definition of what constituted campaigning, only the narrowest of definitions could be used.
   (b) A narrow definition of campaigning allows for some campaigning activities to escape the sanctions intended to curb them.
   (c) The Senate has not only power under Article V Section 1 Clause 3 to punish campaigning under the limited definition ascribed to the term by the Supreme Court, but a broader power under Article I Section 4 Clause 6 and Article II Section 2 Clause 2 to regulate elections so as to prevent campaigning type activities.

§2. Definitions
   (a) The term "criminal campaigning" shall mean content in an ballot post clearly and obviously designed to persuade other voters. It shall include any direct exhortation to voters in general or particular to vote in a certain manner.  It shall also include any use of an image or a hyperlink containing references to one more candidates (including potential write-in candidates), save one copied from the post containing the official ballot for that election.
   (b) The term "civil campaigning" shall mean any expression of the reasons for casting a particular vote that does not constitute criminal campaigning.  The term does not include any expression of the difficulty of deciding how to vote or any unexplained statement that one or more candidates are fit or unfit to serve in an elected office.

§3. Civil Campaigning
   (a) If an administrator of a voting booth determines that a post contains civil campaigning, he shall invaldate the ballot only for those offices for which civil campaigning occured.
   (b) The voter may within 72 hours of the determiniation of an occurance of civil campaigning make an administrative appeal to the Secretary of Forum Affairs, giving his reasons for why the activity should not be considered civil campaigning.
   (c) If the Secretary determines that civil campaigning has not occurred, the ballot shall be counted for that office.
   (d) If the Secretary determines that civil campaigning has occurred, or if the Secretary fails to inform the voter of his determination within 72 hours of the voter making his appeal, the voter may appeal to the Supreme Court.
   (e) The Supreme Court may choose whether or not to hear the case.
   (f) If the result of an adminstrative or judicial appeal could affect the outcome of an election, any Justice of the Supreme Court may issue an injuction barring the carrying out of the effect of that outcome until either all appeals have been exhausted or the result would no longer affect the outcome.

§4. Criminal Campaigning
   (a) If the administrator of a voting booth determines that a post contains criminal campaigning, he shall invalidate the ballot only for those offices for which criminal campaigning occured and refer the evidence to the Attorney General for prosecution.
   (b) If the Attorney General determines that he will not prosecute for criminal campaigning, then the content shall be treated as if it were civil campaigning.
   (c) If the Attorney General fails to determine whether he will prosecute within 24 hours of receiving a referral under subsection (a), then the voter may begin an administrative appeal as if the offense were civil campaigning. Such an adminstrative appeal shall be immediately suspended if the Attorney General determines to prosecute, but any rulings made as a result of the administrative appeal shall stand until overruled by the trial court.
   (d) If the Attorney General fails to determine whether he will prosecute within 168 hours of receiving a referral under subsection (a), then all criminal charges shall be dropped.
   (e) If the voter is found guilty of criminal campaigning, then the court shall invalidate  the ballot only for those offices for which criminal campaigning occured and may additionally impose a penalty of the suspension of voting rights for a period not to exceed 120 days, or in lieu of such penalty, may impose a probationary period of not to exceed 1 year, during which the court may impose the penalty if the voter violates the terms of probation.
   (f)  If the voter is found not guilty of criminal campaigning, then the court shall also determine if the action constituted civil campaigning and order the official results of the election adjusted accordingly.

Logged
Peter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,030


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #209 on: April 26, 2006, 10:34:10 AM »

I have a few issues that I need cleared up:

Clause 3(a) states that the voting booth administrator shall invalidate the ballot for the concerned offices. When does this occur, or more precisely, when is this allowed to occur?

In this past election, you stated an invalidation of TDs vote during the election. Is this when you actually invalidated the vote officially or did this occur at moment of certification. I think this needs to be cleared up because obviously if we impose a 72 hour limitation on appealing the decision, this may be important in the future because an appeal may or may not be untimely according to how we read the statute.

My next significant issue is with an alleged criminal campaigning violation in a close election. Presume for a moment that the administrator determines criminality, and then refers to the AG who promptly decides to prosecute, then we have situation in which the vote's status cannot be determined very quickly. In a case where that vote is decisive, i.e. it has the ability to decide the election, then it could be several days before a formal determination of its status can be made.

A criminal case could go on for several days - the Court must first appoint a presiding Justice, then assemble a Jury, then consider evidence and finally the jury may wish a little time to deliberate privately. Even in a regular election, there are only 11 days between end of election and swear-in, and this could soon fizzle, especially if a runoff might be required, thus leaving a constituency unrepresented.

In such a case I would allow for the Court to make a determination as to whether civil campaigning has or has not occured in advance of a criminal case so as to finesse the case above. Obviously any such ruling will have a significant impact on  a criminal case, but I feel the advantage of having an election able to proceed smoothly to a conclusion outweighs the problems of having a jury exposed to a judicial determination of whether a lesser offence has been commited.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #210 on: April 26, 2006, 02:33:33 PM »

I have a few issues that I need cleared up:

Clause 3(a) states that the voting booth administrator shall invalidate the ballot for the concerned offices. When does this occur, or more precisely, when is this allowed to occur?

In this past election, you stated an invalidation of TDs vote during the election. Is this when you actually invalidated the vote officially or did this occur at moment of certification. I think this needs to be cleared up because obviously if we impose a 72 hour limitation on appealing the decision, this may be important in the future because an appeal may or may not be untimely according to how we read the statute.

When I made the announcement is when it was invalidated.  I did it during the election so that if the determination was disputed, it could be handled with in as timely a fashion as possible.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering that it needs two seperate people to go forward with a criminal campaigning case, I think we can safely assume that it would almost always meet the standard for civil campaigning.  Neither True Democrat's vote in the last election, nor any of the votes mentioned in the case's appendix rise to the standard of criminal camaigning ion the proposed bill, indeed most of the ones in the appendix don't even rise to the standard of civil campaigning.  I could see extending the ability to obtain an injunction for the counting of a vote pending a decision to criminal campaigning, but not a parallel determination of civil and criminal simultaneously.
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,554
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #211 on: April 26, 2006, 03:20:18 PM »

Note: With the Flexi-Time amendment off the floor there is nothing left that is forum affairs legislation, on the Senate floor and in the upcoming legislation list, and as such we shall go back to a 4 slot Senate.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #212 on: April 26, 2006, 05:33:34 PM »

Section 1: Purpose
1. This bill's aim is to remove ethnic-based, corporation-focused, and unnecessary holidays from Atlasian law, and for other purposes.

Section 2: Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month
1. Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month is hereby abolished.
2. Section 102 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 3: Flag Day
1. Flag Day is hereby abolished.
2. Section 110 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 4: Honor America Days
1. The Honor America Days celebration is hereby abolished.
2. Section 112 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 5: Leif Erikson Day
1. Leif Erikson Day is hereby abolished.
2. Section 114 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 6: Loyalty Day
1. Loyalty Day is hereby abolished.
2. Section 115 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 7: National Day of Prayer
1. The National Day of Prayer is hereby abolished.
2. Section 119 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 8: National Disability Employment Awareness Month
1. National Disability Employment Awareness Month is hereby abolished.
2. Section 121 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 9: National Flag Week
1. National Flag Week is hereby abolished.
2. Section 122 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 10: National Forest Products Week
1. National Forest Products Week is hereby abolished.
2. Section 123 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 11: National Hispanic Heritage Month
1. National Hispanic Heritage Month is hereby abolished.
2. Section 126 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 12: Save Your Vision Week
1. Save Your Vision Week is hereby abolished.
2. Section 138 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 13: Steelmark Month
1. Steelmark Month is hereby abolished.
2. Section 139 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 14: Stephen Foster Memorial Day
1. Stephen Foster Memorial Day is hereby abolished.
2. Section 140 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 15: White Cane Safety Day
1. White Cane Safety Day is hereby abolished.
2. Section 142 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.

Section 16: Wright Brothers Day
1. Wright Brothers Day is hereby abolished.
2. Section 143 of the U.S. Code, Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 1 is repealed.
I think that a few other holidays could be abolished:

Carl Garner Federal Lands Cleanup Day (Section 104)

Constitution Week (Section 108): Our Constitution was not adopted in September, which is the month for Constitution Week.

National School Lunch Week (Section 132)

National Transportation Week (Section 133)

Pan American Aviation Day (Section 134)

Parents' Day (Section 135) or Father's Day (Section 109) and Mother's Day (117): Having Mothers' Day, Fathers' Day, and Parents' Day would be redundant.

Thomas Jefferson's Birthday (Section 141): Not Atlasia-centric
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,554
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #213 on: April 26, 2006, 05:36:35 PM »

I think that a few other holidays could be abolished:

Carl Garner Federal Lands Cleanup Day (Section 104)

Constitution Week (Section 108): Our Constitution was not adopted in September, which is the month for Constitution Week.

National School Lunch Week (Section 132)

National Transportation Week (Section 133)

Pan American Aviation Day (Section 134)

Parents' Day (Section 135) or Father's Day (Section 109) and Mother's Day (117): Having Mothers' Day, Fathers' Day, and Parents' Day would be redundant.

Thomas Jefferson's Birthday (Section 141): Not Atlasia-centric

Hey Emsworth, I don't really have the time so I was wondering if you could write in those other holidays to the bill leaving Mother's and Father's day out? Smiley
Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,368
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #214 on: April 27, 2006, 07:51:36 PM »

When I do I have to help you guys with the budget?
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #215 on: April 27, 2006, 09:58:59 PM »

When I do I have to help you guys with the budget?

When the new Senators take the oath.  First Friday in March.
Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,368
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #216 on: April 29, 2006, 01:19:09 PM »

When I do I have to help you guys with the budget?

When the new Senators take the oath.  First Friday in March.

So there's a new budget only once every year?  Or is the every four months?
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #217 on: April 29, 2006, 01:45:25 PM »

When I do I have to help you guys with the budget?

When the new Senators take the oath.  First Friday in March.

So there's a new budget only once every year?  Or is the every four months?

Every four months.  For some reason I typed "first Friday in March" when it should be "first Friday in May".
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #218 on: May 02, 2006, 04:55:42 PM »

Now that three regions have requested a constitutional convention, I would suggest the following resolution to the Senate, and request a Senator to introduce it:

Constitutional Convention Resolution
Whereas, the Mideast, Southeast, and Pacific Regions have applied for a Convention to amend the Constitution:

1. The Senate advises and consents to the calling of a Convention to amend the Constitution.
2. The President of Atlasia and the Governors of the Regions shall each appoint three delegates to the Convention.
3. The Convention may, with a two-thirds majority, expel a delegate for inactivity.


If I am not mistaken, the Senate procedures allow for such a resolution to be considered immediately upon introduction.
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,554
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #219 on: May 03, 2006, 10:21:27 AM »

Now that three regions have requested a constitutional convention, I would suggest the following resolution to the Senate, and request a Senator to introduce it:

Constitutional Convention Resolution
Whereas, the Mideast, Southeast, and Pacific Regions have applied for a Convention to amend the Constitution:

1. The Senate advises and consents to the calling of a Convention to amend the Constitution.
2. The President of Atlasia and the Governors of the Regions shall each appoint three delegates to the Convention.
3. The Convention may, with a two-thirds majority, expel a delegate for inactivity.


If I am not mistaken, the Senate procedures allow for such a resolution to be considered immediately upon introduction.

I believe we can bring this up right away but there isn't enough time for the 3 days and the like for it to pass. I'd suggest bringing it up at the beginning of next session after the budget and PPT stuff is through. I'll introduce your resolution but I'll also try and make it so the convention will look at a bunch of specific things instead of being allowed to have a full reign.
Logged
Q
QQQQQQ
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,319


Political Matrix
E: 2.26, S: -4.88

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #220 on: May 06, 2006, 06:37:07 PM »

As a reminder to Atlasia, per Article 3 of the Official Senate Procedural Resolution:

Section 1: Rules on Legislation Introduction

1. The PPT shall establish and maintain a thread for Senators to introduce legislation, to be further known in this document as the Legislation Introduction Thread. Only Senators who presently hold elected office may be allowed to post in this thread. Any Citizens or Individuals who post in this thread may be subject to legal action pursuant to the relevant clauses in federal Criminal Law legislation so passed by the Senate.

2. The PPT shall also establish and maintain a thread for all Citizens and Individuals of Atlasia to give opinions, thoughts, suggestions and ideas about recently introduced legislation or legislation presently under debate on the Senate floor. This clause is not meant to deny Citizens or Individuals their right to post on Senate debate threads dealing with specific legislation presently being debated on the Senate floor.

In other words, you've come to the right place if you want to comment on legislation that has been proposed in the Legislation Introduction Thread.

Thank you for abiding by these rules.
Logged
Q
QQQQQQ
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,319


Political Matrix
E: 2.26, S: -4.88

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #221 on: May 06, 2006, 06:52:36 PM »

I think this one will be replaced, as well.  Look for a new 'commentary' thread soon.
Logged
Q
QQQQQQ
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,319


Political Matrix
E: 2.26, S: -4.88

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #222 on: May 07, 2006, 06:12:46 PM »

I would like to see legislation to the effect that those violating the rules of the Senate be reprimanded in some way.  Current law provides no meaninful consequence to violation of these rules.

Does anyone have any ideas on this?
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #223 on: May 07, 2006, 07:12:19 PM »

I would like to see legislation to the effect that those violating the rules of the Senate be reprimanded in some way.  Current law provides no meaninful consequence to violation of these rules.

Does anyone have any ideas on this?
There are several alternatives we could use:

- The Senate could be allowed to punish those who violated its rules. This was, traditionally, the practice of the U.S. Congress.
- The Senate could be allowed to issue a contempt of the Senate citation. However, the party would have to be tried in a court of law before he can receive any particular punishment. This is the modern practice of the U.S. Congress.
- A combination of the above two could be used. The Senate (or the President/ President pro tempore) could be allowed to reprimand an offender. However, only a court of law would be allowed to impose actual punishments, such as suspensions of voting rights.
Logged
Q
QQQQQQ
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,319


Political Matrix
E: 2.26, S: -4.88

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #224 on: May 08, 2006, 07:29:27 PM »

Thank you, Emsworth.

- The Senate could be allowed to issue a contempt of the Senate citation.

- The Senate (or the President/ President pro tempore) could be allowed to reprimand an offender.

Can either of these be done now, or would the Senate first need to implement new rules to allow this?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 90  
« 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 0.071 seconds with 11 queries.