Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Colin]

Are any of the other cuts going to involve the military, which has seen a sharp increase in funding by the last few Senates?

Do you seriously believe that we should be cutting funds from the military when we are already stretched militarily as it is. When many have said that we don't have the proper equipment in Iraq and that we are not ready for future military endeavours if the need must arise. We cannot cut back on military funding at this time, we need to expand the military to fight the War on Terror and to make sure that we stabilize Iraq.

[Colin]

I personally do not like the idea of a three man committee. It is too susceptable to cronyism and corruption. The committee could stop rightist or leftist or centrist, depending on who controls the committee, legislation from being debated on. It could also be used against opponents of the committee. People that the committee doesn't like could not have any of their legislation approved. This can also be used to sway elections by not allowing the Senator to seem active. Also the committee could twist and amend the bills so much that they go against their original purpose. All of these things could harm the activities of the Senate and lead to an increase in corruption.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Colin]

Is there even a PPT anymore?

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.

[Colin]

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.

[Colin]

Does anyone know where Porce is?
He hasn't logged on since the 10th and I haven't come across any post of his indicating an intended absence.

He was having some trouble with his parents, at least that was what he told me around the time he left, so that might have something to do with it.

[Colin]

Can someone point me towards Everett's resignation?

Yes, please, I never saw this posted anywhere on either boards.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would have to agree as well. While his lack of presence is concerning the limited amount of time left in his term basically makes this a moot point. It probably also would have been a better idea to try and contact the President via PM to remind him of his duties and to tell him to sign or veto the pending legislation instead of coming directly to the Senate and calling for him to be expelled. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only time when he was needed was during Porce's short absence, for whatever reasons I was just giving my opinion of what it could be in the above posts, but beyond that he has no real job in these proceedings.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes absolutely. Senators like Gully Folly and DWPerry especially have been very inactive in the proceedings of this legislature and that is something that I cannot stand for.

[Colin]

Enforcement of Half Plus Seven Rule Bill

1. No marriages after the effect of this bill shall be recognized in which one party to marriage's age is less than half the age of the other party plus seven years.
2. All current marriages covered by the law will remain valid, but upon divorce or death of one of the parties, the parties will be subject to the law as anyone else.

I don't see why this is necessary?

It borderlines on frivolous but I ask that when it comes up it be brought to an immediate vote to put shut down.

It infringes on the right of consenting adults.

Well of course it does.

I would like the PPT to strike this as frivolous as it is in no way within the stated powers of the Senate nor is it a serious or respectful bill for the Senate to vote and debate on.

[Colin]

I would like the PPT to strike this as frivolous as it is in no way within the stated powers of the Senate nor is it a serious or respectful bill for the Senate to vote and debate on.

Actually, this bill falls squarely within the powers of the Atlasian Senate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I stand corrected, this is, oddly, constitutional since the Constitutional Convention added that portion in their to stop regions from having different marriage policies. I still stand by my statement that this bill is entirely frivolous.

[Colin]

Friendly Amendments Senate Procedural Resolution
1. Insert new clause 2 into Article 4, Section 3 of the OSPR with following text:

During this debate time the main sponsor of the legislation may motion to accept the proposed Amendment as a Friendly Amendment. The PPT shall then allow 24 hours for any other Senator to object to accepting the Amendment as a Friendly Amendment. If no other Senator objects then the Amendment shall be ajudged to have been unanimously passed by the Senate and will be automatically incorporated into the Bill. If a Senator objects to accepting the Amendment in this fashion then it shall be voted upon as specified in the rest of this Section.

2. Subsequent clauses in Section are re-numbered to retain consistency.

I suggest this already and most thought it was a bad idea

I brough this forward at the request of a constituent. Personally I find it a sound and reasonble amendment to the OSPR that would cut down on voting for minor changes within bills.

[Colin]

I would like to say that the views of Jas reflect the views of the entire administration and such an amendment would have the full and complete backing of the executive.

[Colin]

I would like to thank Lewis for re-introducing the End to Districts Amendment. The last thing I would have wanted to do was prod an unwilling Senator into introducing it again.

[Colin]

I'm a little concerned that no effort was made to make it more acceptable to the Regions. Yes, I'd love to see it passed, but reintroducing it in essentially the same form won't make it more likely that the Regions will approve.

I can't see how one could make it any more acceptable to the regions. Unless we increase the size of the Senate, which is impossible, either the regional Senators or the district Senators will have to go. Overall it is actually because of regional rights issues that the district Senators were chosen as those to get rid of, since they represent completely non-regional entities and their only link with the districts is through redistricting. If you have any suggestions I am completely open to them.

[Colin]

The Death with Dignity Act is probably unconstitutional unless someone can find me a constitutional power of the Senate that allows for that to be regulated by this body. Unless we are now just assuming that all laws like that are only to apply to DC and the federal territories.

[Colin]

The Death with Dignity Act is probably unconstitutional unless someone can find me a constitutional power of the Senate that allows for that to be regulated by this body. Unless we are now just assuming that all laws like that are only to apply to DC and the federal territories.

hmmm... I will admit that I definately do not know all the ins and outs of the constitution as well as some others around here, but I'll try to make a connection (please feel free to say if my logic is flawed):

Article VI, clause 2 states:
No agency of government shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I see disalowing phsician assisted suicide as an infringment on a person's liberty and as such Article 1, Section 5, Clause 30 gives the senate the right to make laws to carry out the rights guarenteed to the people.

You're looking at the wrong section. What the Senate can do is stated here. If its not stated in there its a regional matter, end of story. I wish the Senate could do more but those are the rules you have to work with.

Take the advice of a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, I may know what I'm talking about.

[Colin]

The Death with Dignity Act is probably unconstitutional unless someone can find me a constitutional power of the Senate that allows for that to be regulated by this body. Unless we are now just assuming that all laws like that are only to apply to DC and the federal territories.

hmmm... I will admit that I definately do not know all the ins and outs of the constitution as well as some others around here, but I'll try to make a connection (please feel free to say if my logic is flawed):

Article VI, clause 2 states:
No agency of government shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I see disalowing phsician assisted suicide as an infringment on a person's liberty and as such Article 1, Section 5, Clause 30 gives the senate the right to make laws to carry out the rights guarenteed to the people.

You're looking at the wrong section. What the Senate can do is stated here. If its not stated in there its a regional matter, end of story. I wish the Senate could do more but those are the rules you have to work with.

Take the advice of a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, I may know what I'm talking about.

Yes, I see that but it does say in the powers of the senate:
"30. And to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers enumerated in this section, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the Republic of Atlasia, or in any department or officer thereof."

Very weak case, incredibly weak. Issues such as euthanasia are regional issues, whether you want them to be or not. If this does get passed I'd bet Sam would probably take you to court. He likes doing that.