Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[MasterJedi]

Well that part will probably be taken out of the bill when it comes to the Senate floor. But we'll see what happens.

[Colin]

The Senate may establish rules for its own proceedings, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of its number, expel a Senator.

The Senate may certainly establish its own rules, as you say. However, such rules must be made internally, and should not be prescribed by statute.

Exactly. If Senator MasterJedi wants to change the rules to allow for tax changes to be approved by a two-thirds majority than he must do that through a Senate Procedural Resolution and not a bill.

Well that part will probably be taken out of the bill when it comes to the Senate floor. But we'll see what happens.

No we wont see what happens because it must be taken out or you run the risk of the entire bill being struck down, that's a long shot, or that section being struck. Either way I don't want more court cases than we need since they are usually rather crazy affairs.

[A18]

Several bills before Congress would create rules for the entire legislature, and yes, by statute.

When it comes to the Senate floor, he's saying we'll see what happens. Not after it is passed.

[Colin]

Several bills before Congress would create rules for the entire legislature, and yes, by statute.

When it comes to the Senate floor, he's saying we'll see what happens. Not after it is passed.

This ain't Congress dumbass.

We go by different rules than America and you need to learn that.

[Emsworth]

Several bills before Congress would create rules for the entire legislature, and yes, by statute.

These (real life) bills are, in my opinion, unconstitutional, as they clearly violate the provision whereby each house is empowered to determine the rules of its own proceedings. The alleged power of Congress to determine such rules is not enumerated, and does not fall under the necessary and proper clause, except where both houses are involved simultaneously (for instance, counting electoral votes).

[MasterJedi]

When it comes to the Senate floor, he's saying we'll see what happens. Not after it is passed.

Yea this is what I meant, not after it passes. If someone tried to cut it the bill would still pass I'd support that or the way it is now.

[Colin]

When it comes to the Senate floor, he's saying we'll see what happens. Not after it is passed.

Yea this is what I meant, not after it passes. If someone tried to cut it the bill would still pass I'd support that or the way it is now.

I'm just saying it would be alot easier for you to just get rid of that clause just in case, and to make the debate and amending procedure more focused on the tax cuts instead of on that clause.

[A18]

Several bills before Congress would create rules for the entire legislature, and yes, by statute.

These (real life) bills are, in my opinion, unconstitutional, as they clearly violate the provision whereby each house is empowered to determine the rules of its own proceedings. The alleged power of Congress to determine such rules is not enumerated, and does not fall under the necessary and proper clause, except where both houses are involved simultaneously (for instance, counting electoral votes).

Both houses obviously have to pass the bill, and I believe there are already plenty of congressional rules determined by statute, such as how every bill has to begin "Be it enacted by..."

[Emsworth]

Several bills before Congress would create rules for the entire legislature, and yes, by statute.

These (real life) bills are, in my opinion, unconstitutional, as they clearly violate the provision whereby each house is empowered to determine the rules of its own proceedings. The alleged power of Congress to determine such rules is not enumerated, and does not fall under the necessary and proper clause, except where both houses are involved simultaneously (for instance, counting electoral votes).

Both houses obviously have to pass the bill

Of course, I do not contend that this is not the case. However, each House must have absolute authority over its own rules, independent of the other. Changing statute requires the consent of both Houses and, in most cases, the President; changing rules should require nothing more than a simple resolution by the House concerned.

I believe there are already plenty of congressional rules determined by statute, such as how every bill has to begin "Be it enacted by..."

These are not constraints on the internal rules of a House, but are constitutionally permitted generic provisions.

[A18]

I'm not seeing the difference. In both cases, a house's ability to pass a certain law is restricted.

[True Democrat]

I didn't know where to put this, so here.

Can a Senator introduce a bill to change the Government Thread Act, so that the first sentence of Clause 2 reads:

-It is the responsibility of each member of the Cabinet to create and/or maintain a thread in the Atlas Forum Government Board or the public discussion forum relating to their office.

Instead of. . .

-It is the responsibility of each member of the Cabinet to create and/or maintain a thread in the Atlas Forum Government Board relating to their office.

I realize it isn't urgent, but I think it should be done.  I believe Alcon already has his office on the regular board, and it would be better if the Secretary of Forum Affairs could make the General Info thread into their department thread.

[True Democrat]

I didn't know where to put this, so here.

Can a Senator introduce a bill to change the Government Thread Act, so that the first sentence of Clause 2 reads:

-It is the responsibility of each member of the Cabinet to create and/or maintain a thread in the Atlas Forum Government Board or the public discussion forum relating to their office.

Instead of. . .

-It is the responsibility of each member of the Cabinet to create and/or maintain a thread in the Atlas Forum Government Board relating to their office.

I realize it isn't urgent, but I think it should be done.  I believe Alcon already has his office on the regular board, and it would be better if the Secretary of Forum Affairs could make the General Info thread into their department thread.

Does anyone care?

[King]

It also says the SoFA has to manage it and I am.  I'll introduce  an amendment later.

[MasterJedi]

Well I guess this is the best place to ask it but does anyone think they can help me that lets Atlasians buy percription drugs from Canada. I asked Ford if it's the same problem as America, he said yes so I want to go ahead!

[Gabu]

As requested of me by former Senator Bono, I will introduce two Amendments to the Constitution (in separate posts) that he has asked me to introduce.

If there are any problems or changes with either of these, Bono, please let me know and I will do so.  I have modified the wording very slightly to make it sound in keeping with the rest of the document.
Addition to the Bill of Rights, Article VI

16.  Each individual shall have the inherent Right of defending the life, liberty and property of any individual using whatever force is necessary, through whatever means available, including the use of deadly force.

The vague wording of this makes it seem kind of dangerous in my eyes.  What's to stop someone from murdering someone else and then just saying, "Well, I was defending my liberty"?

[Sam Spade]

As requested of me by former Senator Bono, I will introduce two Amendments to the Constitution (in separate posts) that he has asked me to introduce.

If there are any problems or changes with either of these, Bono, please let me know and I will do so.  I have modified the wording very slightly to make it sound in keeping with the rest of the document.
Addition to the Bill of Rights, Article VI

16.  Each individual shall have the inherent Right of defending the life, liberty and property of any individual using whatever force is necessary, through whatever means available, including the use of deadly force.

The vague wording of this makes it seem kind of dangerous in my eyes.  What's to stop someone from murdering someone else and then just saying, "Well, I was defending my liberty"?

Fwiw, I have made the same points. 

I will be introducing an amendment on this, as I have already told Bono, to make it so that an individual can only protect his/her own life, liberty, property through whatever means necessary.

That would be sort of like the Florida "Castle Law'.

[MAS117]

Why the hell is Cosmo Kramer trying to expand fantasy government and add positions which are CLEARLY not needed? I hope all Senators vote in the negative on this rather dumb bill. We have talked about this at least twice before, each time deciding against it.

[KEmperor]

As a Justice, I try not to comment on legislation.  However, expanding the court to 5 justices is NOT a good idea.  It's hard enough to work with just three of us.  Five would be increadably unwieldy.  I urge all Senators to please vote AGAINST this amendment.

[jokerman]

I urge my fellow Senators to pass the bill and thus let the people decide on the fate of the supreme court and it's decisions.

[King]

I urge my fellow Senators to pass the bill and thus let the people decide on the fate of the supreme court and it's decisions.

Stuffing the court to pass a populist agenda while voters have defeated populist candidates across the board is bad taste, no?

[Nation]

I urge my fellow Senators to pass the bill and thus let the people decide on the fate of the supreme court and it's decisions.

Stuffing the court to pass a populist agenda while voters have defeated populist candidates across the board is bad taste, no?

ZING

[JohnFKennedy]

I urge my fellow Senators to pass the bill and thus let the people decide on the fate of the supreme court and it's decisions.

Stuffing the court to pass a populist agenda while voters have defeated populist candidates across the board is bad taste, no?

Don't worry, Siege is one of us........

[jokerman]

I urge my fellow Senators to pass the bill and thus let the people decide on the fate of the supreme court and it's decisions.

Stuffing the court to pass a populist agenda while voters have defeated populist candidates across the board is bad taste, no?

It's a constitutional amendment.  If the voters don't like it they can vote against it.

[Peter]

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.

[MAS117]

Why the hell is the Senate moving so damn slow?