Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[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.

[Emsworth]

Can someone give me a link to the Constitution?

See here

[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.

[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).

[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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Emsworth]

Preston, although Siege is a populist, he seems willing to compromise, especially on economic issues, and I would be unsurprised if he nominated libertarians to the court if he got a chance, as they are the vast majority on the board.

Siege is certainly willing to compromise here - for instance, he chose me as his running mate, although I'm not exactly a populist.

[Emsworth]

1. Pledge of Allegiance Bill of 2005
  - Bah, the resulting pledge sounds dumb. Frankly, 'under God' breaks it up a little.

Let us, then, abolish the pledge itself.

[Emsworth]

1. Pledge of Allegiance Bill of 2005
  - Bah, the resulting pledge sounds dumb. Frankly, 'under God' breaks it up a little.

Let us, then, abolish the pledge itself.

No, let us just leave it the way it is.

That would fly in the face  of the notion of religoius freedom. For the government to presume that a God exists, or that everyone believes or should believe in God, is the height of arrogance. And therefore, the pledge should be abolished, or the phrase "under God" taken out.

[Emsworth]

You're not required to say that part or the whole pledge in general. For all I care (as well as most people) you could say "under Allah" or "under Budda" and nobody would really care.

That is not relevant. The point is that the government is making a categorical statement that God exists, by including such an assertion in the pledge. Moreover, the government is associating allegiance to religion: which is, in my opinion, the very concept which the Framers would have abhorred.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That presumes that everyone worships a deity, which presumption is untrue.

[Emsworth]

Can I motion to bring bills to the front of list?

Only the PPT and VP, acting together, can bring bills to the front of the list.

[Emsworth]

Can I motion to bring bills to the front of list?

Only the PPT and VP, acting together, can bring bills to the front of the list.

Technically, if you wanted to make a motion and have the Senate vote on such a matter, you could bring it forward with the support of a majority of Senators.

Yes, of course, but that would tend to be a rather cumbersome process. It's much simpler just to leave it to us

[Emsworth]

With regard to the Sealand Recognition Bill, I would have to state my unequivocal opposition.

"Sealand" is actually not an island or a territory, but merely a man-made structure: a partially sunken Royal Navy barge in the North Sea. The structure was built by the British government, and lies within the limit of British waters; thus, by any reasonable interpretation of international law, it is the property of the United Kingdom (albeit abandoned).

Recognition of this place with a population of five would be, in my opinion, a very unfortunate idea. So, I would request Sen. King to withdraw the proposal.

[Emsworth]

Recognition of this place with a population of five would be, in my opinion, a very unfortunate idea. So, I would request Sen. King to withdraw the proposal.

Huh?  Did I submit this?

Yes: see here.

[Emsworth]

I hope the Senator does not table it.

With all due respect, could the Governor please explain the justification for the recognition of a sunken ship as a sovereign nation?

[Emsworth]

Forestry (Sustainable Development) Bill

For every tree cut down by a company, co-operative or individual working in the forestry industry, that company, co-operative or individual must plant two or more trees in the same forest or other woodland environment

Good bill, Al.  Though I'd recommend stating that the newly planted trees must be protected for a certain length of time after planting.  Otherwise the same individuals will just cut down the new ones as soon as they've planted them, and so on, and the whole thing becomes a giant mess.

Hmm, this will probably lead to Bono v. Atlasia III.

[Emsworth]

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.

[Emsworth]

Most of the states in District 1 may enjoy higher than average state per capita personal incomes, most of mine don't. All of the states you represent bar Maine (34) is in the national top 25. In District 4, only Virginia makes the top 10 and Florida just scrapes in the top 25 (at 24), while Alabama, South Carolina and Mississippi are in the bottom 10

The defense and its related industries are major employers in my neck of the woods- and I 'd say it's pretty important in parts of yours too. Connecticut, Maryland and Massachusetts just might be able to cushion the negative impact of defense cuts, but I don't think most of the states I represent could

I'm thinking of the little guy who works hard to support his family, here

'Hawk'

The sole purpose of the military is to defend the country. In my opinion, it is inappropriate to suggest that there is any legitimate reason for training men to kill, and for building weapons that can destroy lives and property, aside from the defense of the republic. The slippery slope begins with the argument that the military should be funded not for reasons of national defense, but for economic causes. Once this argument is accepted, it is not difficult to take the next step, and conclude that we should not only build up a military, but also go to war, for economic reasons.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against this line of reasoning in 1961. Days before leaving office, he said:

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society."

Forty-five years later, we should continue to pay heed to Eisenhower's warning. Once we start down the road of military buildup for reasons entirely unrelated to defense, it is difficult to stop.

[Emsworth]

Parts of District 4 lag behind many parts of Atlasia, economically. It's gone on for far too long. Defense cuts would exacerbate what is far from the optimum situation as it is.

With all due respect, I would have to disagree with this line of reasoning. The federal government should not legislate in the interests of one district or another; no part of the country is entitled to special treatment. I do not mean to suggest that you should ignore the interests of your constituents. I am only saying that the fact that District 4 might suffer should be weighed against the benefits that the whole nation will receive.

If we need weapons, then, by all means, we should build them. However, I do not think that it makes sense to acquire arms that we do not need, merely to keep someone employed. The military is not a source of employment; it exists only to defend the country.

This line of reasoning could be used whenever any budget cut is proposed. It must be admitted, of course, that all budget cuts will somehow affect the jobs of some individuals, perhaps the jobs of many individuals. But that alone cannot, in my opinion, be an argument against making the cut. Unless we make difficult choices now, we will have to make even more difficult choices later, when the budget deficit is even higher.

For these reasons, I would fully support Senator TexasGurl's plan to reduce defense funding. A great bulk of defense spending is pork; I fear that the suggested reduction of 10% may not go far enough.

[Emsworth]

My reading of Article IV Section 4 makes it reasonably clear that the Senate controls the Census and the Governors control tthe redistricting thereof. 

I would have to agree that the ability of the Governors to make the ultimate decision cannot be regulated by the Senate. However, it can be argued the necessary and proper clause empowers the Senate to regulate the manner in which that decision is reached. For example, the Senate would be able to set a deadline for the submission of proposed maps, limit the number of maps each Governor may submit, or determine what voting system shall be used.

[Emsworth]

I'd have to disagree with that.  For better or worse redistricting is located in Article IV which is dealing with the Regional governments and not " the government of the Republic of Atlasia, or ... any department or officer thereof".

It could be argued that the Governors are acting on behalf of the Republic of Atlasia when redistricting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A lot of explicit powers are superfluous, as they would be covered by the necessary and proper clause. For instance, the necessary and proper clause together with the power to "provide for the common defense of the Republic of Atlasia" would render a lot of the military-related powers superfluous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like the Constitution, all fantasy laws, and all fantasy judicial decisions, it would depend upon the good faith of the officers in question. None of our laws can really be "enforced."

[Emsworth]

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

[Emsworth]

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.

[Emsworth]

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.

[Emsworth]

Perhaps all of the above bills, as well as the South American Free Trade Bill and Caribbean Free Trade Bill, could be combined into a single piece of legislation. I don't think that there is any point to having the same debate six separate times.

[Emsworth]

Perhaps all of the above bills, as well as the South American Free Trade Bill and Caribbean Free Trade Bill, could be combined into a single piece of legislation. I don't think that there is any point to having the same debate six separate times.

The areas are different, people might want free trade somewhere but not somewhere else. This seperates it in case.

Well, if that's the case, then the Senate could just amend the bill by removing the section that it disapproves. At the very least, even if the Senate is going to vote on the six separately, it makes sense to consider and debate them together.

Another possibility is to introduce a general free trade bill, which would apply not to a specific group of countries, but to the whole world.