Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[DownWithTheLeft]

When will my bill come out?  Will it be in the next senate?  Can I get it to be tabled until then as I do not believe I have the votes to pass it now.

[DownWithTheLeft]

The Death with Dignity Bill is also frivolous to reintroduce until the next senate considering a bill saying almost the same exact thing was just defeated

[DownWithTheLeft]

Attn Senators, Don't post comments in the Legislation Introduction Thread.

I'm removing the Cabinet Member Election Bill for being unconstitutional.

I'm just not good with that stuff, is there a way this idea can be implemented constitutionally?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Would it be possible at a later time to strip illegals of their citizenship?

[DownWithTheLeft]

These bills should be moved along quicker.  For example, Opebo Day, something we are almost all against has clogged us up for 12 days.

[DownWithTheLeft]

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.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I have to say the "Legalization of Prostitution Bill" will most likely pass now as I have changed my mind to be in favor of it.

[DownWithTheLeft]

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.

I know, I agree I'm simply saying it was met with lukewarm response.  And I think I am going to stop introducing legislation for constituents because it hasn't gone well so far.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Oh yeah, my bills are criticized but the next two bills are one that failed already and an unconstitutional one

[DownWithTheLeft]

Repeal of November-December Act

Section 1:
1.) The November-December Act is hereby repealed

The November-December Act was a bit of needed expediency to legally delay an election by a week that was in danger of being derailed by the lack of a districting plan.  It only applies to November 31, 2006 and the calendar will be normal for 2007 and succeeding years.   Basically it created a polite legal fiction that enable the government to continue functioning with causing a full blown constitutional crisis.  It should be kept, if no other reason than to beat the Governors about the head with the next time they fail to get a redistricting plan adopted in a timely fashion.

My apoligizes, consider the bill withdrawn

[DownWithTheLeft]

I'm going to introduce a few bills, feel free to comment on them senators:

DWTL,
I would recommend posting your proposed bills in your office thread and asking for feedback before introducing them.

I think the Alcohol bill is something that should be handled at the regional level.

Good suggestion Brandon and I will do that in future.  The alcohol is an issue that should be handled at the regional level, but I feel it is also important to deal with it at the national level as well.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I cannot wait to vote for Porce's Palestine Bill, finally someone sees things right

[DownWithTheLeft]

David Yates Death Act

1. For Atlasia purposes, the former VP, David Yates, has passed away from brain cancer

Perhaps you should also establish a Ministry of Truth.

I didn't actually introduce this yet

[DownWithTheLeft]

I wonder if the school funding bill is aimed at the Southeast

[DownWithTheLeft]

I wonder if the school funding bill is aimed at the Southeast

I wonder if the sky is blue...

Right now it is, but I heard some clouds might roll in later this afternoon.  Hope your enjoying your sunny day!

[DownWithTheLeft]

Reserach

appropriatley

Is it too difficult to spell-check legislation before proposing it?

Yes

[DownWithTheLeft]

Any thoughts on the Steroids Bill?  I think it is written clearly and fits within the boundaries of the constitution.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Any thoughts on the Steroids Bill?  I think it is written clearly and fits within the boundaries of the constitution.

The 2nd section is clearly unconstitutional - private entities and all.  Even though your ideas almost sound like suggestions, rather than orders.  There is no commerce clause play in this constitution, and the taxing and spending power doesn't reach it either.

The rest of the bill I might support (or I might not), but it needs to be worded better.

I interpreted that you could regulate private buisness for the good of public health.  That's why I thought it was constitutional.  I wanted the private employers in there to try and go after professional sports.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Not only is BRTD's new legislation too many ideas clumped in one, but I don't know if having a bill whose title is filtered by our servers is a good idea

[DownWithTheLeft]

By my count it looks like only 6 (Yates Act, Dean Act, US Act, Friendly Amendments, Copyrights, and Acceptance of Science) bills are out on the floor right now.  Shouldn't we have 7?

[DownWithTheLeft]

I ask for my Repeal of Puerto Rico Statehood Act to be treated as emergency legislation to stop it from being including in the redistricting

[DownWithTheLeft]

It could be considered as forum affairs legislation whic has it own queue.

Even if you tried to put it in there as forum affairs legislation (I don't really see how it is) you still need to pass an amendment before you can remove a state from the Union (which is a stupid thing to do).

The amendment is in the queue and I ask the new PPT upon taking office to put this into the Constitutional Amendments slot, then the removal of Puerto Rico bill after this amendment passes.  I know you may take this personally as the person who wanted Puerto Rico, but you shouldn't, it isn't personal it is simply the current (not former) senators seem to think should be done (or at least a few of us)

[DownWithTheLeft]

It could be considered as forum affairs legislation whic has it own queue.

Even if you tried to put it in there as forum affairs legislation (I don't really see how it is) you still need to pass an amendment before you can remove a state from the Union (which is a stupid thing to do).

The amendment is in the queue and I ask the new PPT upon taking office to put this into the Constitutional Amendments slot, then the removal of Puerto Rico bill after this amendment passes.  I know you may take this personally as the person who wanted Puerto Rico, but you shouldn't, it isn't personal it is simply the current (not former) senators seem to think should be done (or at least a few of us)

How can you not take it personal when there is absolutly no reason to remove it? If you can't have it in a map put text beneath the map saying "Puerto Rico is in District #" and redistricting isn't a problem since of the way the original legislation is made up. There is no reason for it to happen except you wanting to remove it for no reason.

I want to remove it because I think Puerto Rico should not be a state.  This is a subject perfectly reasonable people can disagree on.  You seem to think I want to eliminate Puerto Rico as a state because you made it a state.  As someone who's vote I valued in the last election (remember that your vote put me in office so I am grateful), that is not the case.

[DownWithTheLeft]

It could be considered as forum affairs legislation whic has it own queue.

Even if you tried to put it in there as forum affairs legislation (I don't really see how it is) you still need to pass an amendment before you can remove a state from the Union (which is a stupid thing to do).

The amendment is in the queue and I ask the new PPT upon taking office to put this into the Constitutional Amendments slot, then the removal of Puerto Rico bill after this amendment passes.  I know you may take this personally as the person who wanted Puerto Rico, but you shouldn't, it isn't personal it is simply the current (not former) senators seem to think should be done (or at least a few of us)

How can you not take it personal when there is absolutly no reason to remove it? If you can't have it in a map put text beneath the map saying "Puerto Rico is in District #" and redistricting isn't a problem since of the way the original legislation is made up. There is no reason for it to happen except you wanting to remove it for no reason.

I want to remove it because I think Puerto Rico should not be a state.  This is a subject perfectly reasonable people can disagree on.  You seem to think I want to eliminate Puerto Rico as a state because you made it a state.  As someone who's vote I valued in the last election (remember that your vote put me in office so I am grateful), that is not the case.

It's the same as saying I don't think New Jersey should be a state. That's not a reason to remove it from statehood because you don't want it there.

Not only is New Jersey contiguous to the United States, it also was an original 13 colony, not a state added on a whim.

[DownWithTheLeft]

It could be considered as forum affairs legislation whic has it own queue.

Even if you tried to put it in there as forum affairs legislation (I don't really see how it is) you still need to pass an amendment before you can remove a state from the Union (which is a stupid thing to do).

The amendment is in the queue and I ask the new PPT upon taking office to put this into the Constitutional Amendments slot, then the removal of Puerto Rico bill after this amendment passes.  I know you may take this personally as the person who wanted Puerto Rico, but you shouldn't, it isn't personal it is simply the current (not former) senators seem to think should be done (or at least a few of us)

How can you not take it personal when there is absolutly no reason to remove it? If you can't have it in a map put text beneath the map saying "Puerto Rico is in District #" and redistricting isn't a problem since of the way the original legislation is made up. There is no reason for it to happen except you wanting to remove it for no reason.

I want to remove it because I think Puerto Rico should not be a state.  This is a subject perfectly reasonable people can disagree on.  You seem to think I want to eliminate Puerto Rico as a state because you made it a state.  As someone who's vote I valued in the last election (remember that your vote put me in office so I am grateful), that is not the case.

It's the same as saying I don't think New Jersey should be a state. That's not a reason to remove it from statehood because you don't want it there.

Not only is New Jersey contiguous to the United States, it also was an original 13 colony, not a state added on a whim.

Still the same thing as you are saying. You don't think Puerto Rico should be a state so you think it should be gone. I don't think New Jersey should be a state so I think it should be gone.

However, under the amendment I introduced removing New Jersey as a state would not be an option.  Also, it makes no sense that Puerto Rico would have voted for statehood after turning it down multiple times.