Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[A18]

On Gabu's amendment proposal--

I think it would be better to just take Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, scratch out the word 'Congress,' and add the word 'Senate' in its place.

That would make the game more realistic, anyway.

[Peter]

Replying to Supersoulty's proposed amendment:

Without commenting on the substance of your amendment, I would like to comment that I think we should do the Constitutional Amendments as in the US Constitution for easier reference - i.e. Amendment I, Amendment II, etc., rather than inserting them into the present document.

[12th Doctor]

Replying to Supersoulty's proposed amendment:

Without commenting on the substance of your amendment, I would like to comment that I think we should do the Constitutional Amendments as in the US Constitution for easier reference - i.e. Amendment I, Amendment II, etc., rather than inserting them into the present document.

What Amendment would this be then?

[Peter]

Replying to Supersoulty's proposed amendment:

Without commenting on the substance of your amendment, I would like to comment that I think we should do the Constitutional Amendments as in the US Constitution for easier reference - i.e. Amendment I, Amendment II, etc., rather than inserting them into the present document.

What Ammendment would this be then?

Inserting new clauses on to the bottom of specific sections of the Constitution, but just list them on the bottom of the Constitution and have them numbered.

[King]

Super, it would be nice if your amendments gave more direction on what clauses would be modified (if any).  We don't want to have a contradicting constitution again.

[12th Doctor]

Super, it would be nice if your amendments gave more direction on what clauses would be modified (if any).  We don't want to have a contradicting constitution again.

Acctually, no clause is modified by the passage of this Amendment.  It is simply an addition.

[A18]

It's amendment. No double 'm'.

[12th Doctor]

It's amendment. No double 'm'.

Sorry, I have a tendency to insert double "m's" and "n's" where there are none.

[Peter]

There are presently two gaps on the floor, and we've got a few days, so I'm going to put the next couple of pieces on the floor since they are relatively easy to handle.

I will not be introducing the Assault Weapons Ban Bill from NixonNow because Gabu does not recognise him as a Senator and therefore it has no sponsor, nor the SPR from Naso since he's definitely resigned.

[Sam Spade]

There are presently two gaps on the floor, and we've got a few days, so I'm going to put the next couple of pieces on the floor since they are relatively easy to handle.

I will not be introducing the Assault Weapons Ban Bill from NixonNow because Gabu does not recognise him as a Senator and therefore it has no sponsor, nor the SPR from Naso since he's definitely resigned.

Sounds good to me.

[King]

Do we have a new legislation intro thread for the 7th session or will the current be used until it is 100 pages long?

[Peter]

Do we have a new legislation intro thread for the 7th session or will the current be used until it is 100 pages long?

Hopefully we will get a new one, but we're going to need a moderator to change the sticky over, and I don't want to particuarly delete the old one at this point.

[Gabu]

Do we have a new legislation intro thread for the 7th session or will the current be used until it is 100 pages long?

I plan on making another one.

[Joe Republic]

Candidacy Declaration Bill[/u]

Primary Sponsor:[/b] Senator MAS117

The Senate notes that:

1. Under Article I, Section 4, Clause 6 and Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution the Senate is delegated the power to determine procedures for declaration of candidacy in federal elections.

2. In the interim, Article VIII, Section 2, Clause 3 sets the Candidacy Declaration period at 7 days for Scheduled elections and 2 days for Regular elections.

Clauses:

1. All declarations of candidacy must be submitted to a thread established by the Secretary of Forum Affairs for this purpose in the (Voting Booth ?). This thread shall be linked from the Atlas Forum Headquarters and Government Headquarters threads.

2. The Secretary of Forum Affairs shall post in the thread when the candidacy declaration period for a particular election shall have expired.

3. All declarations must list the office being sought and the party label being used by the candidate. Such declarations of candidacy may be withdrawn or amended up to the end of the candidacy declaration period, and the declaration of withdrawl of a candidacy must be done in the same thread that the candidate declared in.

4. For all declarations of candidacy to the Senate, the candidate must be resident in the relevant District or Region at the time of candidacy declaration, else the declaration shall not be valid.

This bill is unnecessary.  Why regulate something that pretty much already happens?  I really don't see the need for even more rules and regulations.

[Peter]

This bill is unnecessary.  Why regulate something that pretty much already happens?  I really don't see the need for even more rules and regulations.

I think you'll find that the District 5 mess of the last election has presented ample need for this legislation: It was impossible for Sight nor SoFA to really determine in which seats DanielX was still running.

This bill will hopefully also make a less active SoFA's job much more easier come election time.

[Joe Republic]

All it'll invite is people to make an unwitting mistake in declaring their candidacy, and somebody to jump on them saying "no, you're not supposed to do it like that".  Stuff like this really takes the fun out of fantasy elections.

[MasterJedi]

Yes I b elieve that bill is unnecessary and will vote against it!

[Jake]

As to MAS's bill for the procurement of 15 Apache-Ds and 50 Cobra-Zs, why is this necessary and what units specifically require new attack helicopters?

[Peter]

Section 5 of Master Jedi's bill is unconstitutional - you cannot require a supermajority via statute to change a statute - it unconstitutionally binds future Senates.

[A18]

So the Senate is not allowed to set its own rules? What a sh**tty constitution.

[Emsworth]

So the Senate is not allowed to set its own rules?

The Senate can set its own rules, but it cannot bind future Senates.

[A18]

Can someone give me a link to the Constitution?

[Emsworth]

Can someone give me a link to the Constitution?

See here

[A18]

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

I don't see anything about binding future Senates. Heck, that's right out of the U.S. Constitution, and the Congress certainly has many bills requiring a supermajority to raise taxes, consider certain bills, etc.

[Emsworth]

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.