Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

But if an item of commerce is such that it cannot be reasonably used in a safe and healthful manner, does not it follow that the regulation of its standard effectively must be a ban?  One can of course argue the case as to whether it could be reasonably used and whether such a decision should be left to a branch other than the legislative, but those are political not constitutional questions, in my opinion.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My reading of Article IV Section 4 makes it reasonably clear that the Senate controls the Census and the Governors control tthe redistricting thereof.  About the only thing the Senate could do to reform the redistricting process by law would be to move the census date a bit earlier so as gve the Governors a bit more time to cogitate if they need it.  They cranked out a plan reasonably fast this time (Too fast some might say.) but we have more leisurely conclaves of the Governors.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

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".  Furthermore, if one were to make that argument, it would render superfluous the language in Article IV Section 4 Clause 2 that give the Senate the power to regulate the conducting of the census.

Even if one were to accept that the Senate could tell the Governors what to do in this limited context, I fail to see how the Senate could enforce that law.  To be homest I see that as a bit of a weakness in our system, but not a critical one.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Do you want to destroy nuclear power by repealing the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act?  Given what trial lawyers have done with other controversial industries such as asbestos in state courts, that's what the so-called Energy Policy Reform Act would do.  If this bill passes as written folks, enjoy the rolling brownouts that will start once all the reactors shut down, because no private  insurance company is going to be crazy enough to risk Atlasian state courts, and no private utility could fiscally manage the risk by itself.  Even if you think Price-Anderson is bad policy, simple repeal is even worse policy.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In response to today's decision, I've prepared a draft law.  I'd like feedback on it before I try to corral a Senator next session to introduce it.
Campaigning Bill

§1. Findings
   (a) In the recent case of True Democrat v. Department of Forum Affairs, the Supreme Court found that due to the lack of any definition of what constituted campaigning, only the narrowest of definitions could be used.
   (b) A narrow definition of campaigning allows for some campaigning activities to escape the sanctions intended to curb them.
   (c) The Senate has not only power under Article V Section 1 Clause 3 to punish campaigning under the limited definition ascribed to the term by the Supreme Court, but a broader power under Article I Section 4 Clause 6 and Article II Section 2 Clause 2 to regulate elections so as to prevent campaigning type activities.

§2. Definitions
   (a) The term "criminal campaigning" shall mean content in an ballot post clearly and obviously designed to persuade other voters. It shall include any direct exhortation to voters in general or particular to vote in a certain manner.  It shall also include any use of an image or a hyperlink containing references to one more candidates (including potential write-in candidates), save one copied from the post containing the official ballot for that election.
   (b) The term "civil campaigning" shall mean any expression of the reasons for casting a particular vote that does not constitute criminal campaigning.  The term does not include any expression of the difficulty of deciding how to vote or any unexplained statement that one or more candidates are fit or unfit to serve in an elected office.

§3. Civil Campaigning
   (a) If an administrator of a voting booth determines that a post contains civil campaigning, he shall invaldate the ballot only for those offices for which civil campaigning occured.
   (b) The voter may within 72 hours of the determiniation of an occurance of civil campaigning make an administrative appeal to the Secretary of Forum Affairs, giving his reasons for why the activity should not be considered civil campaigning.
   (c) If the Secretary determines that civil campaigning has not occurred, the ballot shall be counted for that office.
   (d) If the Secretary determines that civil campaigning has occurred, or if the Secretary fails to inform the voter of his determination within 72 hours of the voter making his appeal, the voter may appeal to the Supreme Court.
   (e) The Supreme Court may choose whether or not to hear the case.
   (f) If the result of an adminstrative or judicial appeal could affect the outcome of an election, any Justice of the Supreme Court may issue an injuction barring the carrying out of the effect of that outcome until either all appeals have been exhausted or the result would no longer affect the outcome.

§4. Criminal Campaigning
   (a) If the administrator of a voting booth determines that a post contains criminal campaigning, he shall invalidate the ballot only for those offices for which criminal campaigning occured and refer the evidence to the Attorney General for prosecution.
   (b) If the Attorney General determines that he will not prosecute for criminal campaigning, then the content shall be treated as if it were civil campaigning.
   (c) If the Attorney General fails to determine whether he will prosecute within 24 hours of receiving a referral under subsection (a), then the voter may begin an administrative appeal as if the offense were civil campaigning. Such an adminstrative appeal shall be immediately suspended if the Attorney General determines to prosecute, but any rulings made as a result of the administrative appeal shall stand until overruled by the trial court.
   (d) If the Attorney General fails to determine whether he will prosecute within 168 hours of receiving a referral under subsection (a), then all criminal charges shall be dropped.
   (e) If the voter is found guilty of criminal campaigning, then the court shall invalidate  the ballot only for those offices for which criminal campaigning occured and may additionally impose a penalty of the suspension of voting rights for a period not to exceed 120 days, or in lieu of such penalty, may impose a probationary period of not to exceed 1 year, during which the court may impose the penalty if the voter violates the terms of probation.
   (f)  If the voter is found not guilty of criminal campaigning, then the court shall also determine if the action constituted civil campaigning and order the official results of the election adjusted accordingly.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I have a few issues that I need cleared up:

Clause 3(a) states that the voting booth administrator shall invalidate the ballot for the concerned offices. When does this occur, or more precisely, when is this allowed to occur?

In this past election, you stated an invalidation of TDs vote during the election. Is this when you actually invalidated the vote officially or did this occur at moment of certification. I think this needs to be cleared up because obviously if we impose a 72 hour limitation on appealing the decision, this may be important in the future because an appeal may or may not be untimely according to how we read the statute.

When I made the announcement is when it was invalidated.  I did it during the election so that if the determination was disputed, it could be handled with in as timely a fashion as possible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering that it needs two seperate people to go forward with a criminal campaigning case, I think we can safely assume that it would almost always meet the standard for civil campaigning.  Neither True Democrat's vote in the last election, nor any of the votes mentioned in the case's appendix rise to the standard of criminal camaigning ion the proposed bill, indeed most of the ones in the appendix don't even rise to the standard of civil campaigning.  I could see extending the ability to obtain an injunction for the counting of a vote pending a decision to criminal campaigning, but not a parallel determination of civil and criminal simultaneously.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I worked in liasion with TCash on this Bill, therefore, I, hereby,introduce this

Notification of Federal Election Polling Hours Bill

1. This Act, hereby, instructs the Secretary of Forum Affairs; or, in his absence, the Deputy Secretary of Forum Affairs, to publicy notify registered voters of Federal Election Polling Hours in both the:

a. Fantasy Elections Forum; and
b. the Voting Booth.

2. This Act, hereby, instructs the Secretary of Forum Affairs; or, in his absence, the Deputy Secretary of Forum Affairs to give three days notice of Federal Election Polling Hours.

'Hawk'

I presume this bill is intended to cause the voting booth administrator to specify three days before the start of the election exactly when the election starts under the Flexitime Amendment.  If so, I urge the bill be amended to make explict the intent, and to simplify things down to saying the voting booth adminstrator, since that could be someone other than the SoFA or the DSoFA under current law (Section 10 of the ESRA).  Indeed, this bill might be better done as an amendment to the ESRA.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I have two new bills, and I bet people will like!


South American Free Trade Act


1. No tariffs, customs, or restrictions on movement of goods, except those that have been outlawed by the destination or interim nation, shall exist between the Republic of Atlasia, Columbia, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina and Chile.
2. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this bill.



Caribbean Free Trade Act


1. No tariffs, customs, or restrictions on movement of goods, except those that have been outlawed by the destination or interim nation, shall exist between the Republic of Atlasia, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Barbados, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Guadeloupe, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Martinique, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago.
2. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this bill.

Two problems with these.  The first is that French Guiana, Guadeloupe, and Martinique, are part of the EU, so this would effectively create a funnel for the EU to ship goods into Atlasia tarrif free without their having to lower their tarriffs or subsidies.  The second is that given the current government of Venezuela, so we really want to lower our tariff barriers with Hurricane Hugo?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Return to Normalcy Bill

1. The Metric Converstion Act of 1975 is hereby repealed.

I'm an advocate of metrification, but I have no problems with this.  All the act does is provide for a Atlasia Metric Board which does nothing that actually helps us metrify and add some layers of paper work in federal construction projects that end up with us doing them in traditional units anyway

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Does anyone know Atlasia's procedure for signing international treaties?  I'm talking multinational treaties that have already been signed by other countries, not the free trade stuff we're doing now, if it makes any difference.

I'm not sure but the Senate probably has to pass it.

A treaty is same as any other law under our Atlasian constitution.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That would apply only if a Resolution were to become Law.  I fail to see what "law" the Resolution on the Middle East Conflict seeks to implement.  It neither creates nor destroys any obligation or authority upon any person or entity.  Since  Of course, there is nothing that says a President can't attach his signature to it, but since it ain't a Law, it ain't needed.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I wish to point out to the Senate, my stated opinions on the Amtrak Privatization Bill and the Whaling Bill in my campaign thread.

In addition to my objections to the Whaling Bill, stated there, I have another.  Section 1 of the bill is unconstitutional.  The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission is a private organization, not a government entity, so it can't be abolished by the government.  The AEWC does have authority to manage the taking of whales by Alaska natives has been delegated to by the Department of Commerce in accordance with existing law, so if you want to end that delegation, that would be constitutional, but simply banning the AEWC is not.

Also, as it stands now, the self-defense and Good-Samaritan exemptions for killing a whale that is attacking someone would be lost.  If you must pass a bill that ends the exeption for coastal subsistence whaling by Alaskan natives, a narrower bill that addresses that by repealing subsection (b) of section 103 of Pub. L. 92-522 [16 U.S.C. 1371(b)] would do so in a much more acceptable manner.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Atlasian-China Free Trade Bill

1. No tariffs, customs, or restrictions on movement of goods, except those that have been outlawed by the destination or interim nation, shall exist between the Republic of Atlasia and China.
2. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this bill.

LOL!!  I love it.  There is nothing you could put on this to make it remotely acceptable.  I say this fails 1-9.

I can think of one, amend "China" to "Republic of China".

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Leaving aside the question of whether the Senate should override the decisions of the territorial governments on the issues of alcohol and minimum wage, I'd like to point out that in the case of American Samoa, you'll be almost tripling the minimum wage there.  In relative terms, it would be like raising the minimum wage in Wisconsin from the current real life state minimum of $6.50 to $17.33.  That's higher than even what opebo calls for!

The insular territories have very fragile economies that because of their location and size will never be fully integrated into the mainland economy.  They also have higher unemployment than the mainland.  Trying to apply mainland minimum wage rates will only force even more people to leave the insular territories for the mainland to find jobs than are already being forced by economic pressures already.  At least this foolishness won't apply to the Northern Marianas.  The Compact of Free Association we have with them leaves labor law up to the NMI.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My views on the Copyright Reform Bill.

First, while I agree that copyrights currently last too long, I think 25 years is probably too short.  30 to 50 years seems an appropriate term.

Second, while reducing the terms of existing copyrights as clause 2 of the bill provides is within the Senate's power (tho not their extension) it could prove expensive given clause 9 of our Bill of Rights.  If this isn't an example of takings, I don't know what ain't.  Cheaper to simply reduce the term of new copyrights, and simply let the old ones expire on their own.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

More likely to die because of the start of the new Senate this Friday.  Unless someone reproposes it for the new Senate.  Only a little under 43 hours left before the current Senate closes up and the new one begns.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In response to Senator's Hawk requestfor postal information, I have the following.

I am unaware of any countries that have totally provatized ther postal system.  However, several countries have done away with the monopoly status of their government owned postal system, allowing for competion for all classes of domestic mail service, and in the case of New Zealand, international mail service (altho no company has yet gotten into that, probably because of hassles from the UPU).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And what empowers the Senate to create and maintain (the National Zoo)? Seriously, I'm curious.

Article I Section 5 Clauses 12 and 15 would apply to any zoo in Atlasia and Article I Section 5 Clause 25 applies to the National Zoo in particular.  Clauses 12 and 15 have no counterpart in the U.S. Constitution, but they provide an explict grant of power for research and education activities in the Atlasian Constitution.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I am going to have to object to section 1 of the Military Modernization and Readiness Bill.  The reason the first four Ohios were converted from SSBN's to SSGN's was because the arms controls treaties we've signed limit us to 14 SSBN's, so we had the choice of either retiring the vessels or modifying them to the SSGN configuration.  The next four Ohios (SSBN-730 to SSBN-733) have just recently completed an upgrade that included replacing the C-4 Trident I missiles with the same D-5 Trident II missiles that were in the remaining 10 Ohio-class subs (SSBN-734 to SSBN-743).  Altering any further SSBN-726's to the SSGN-726 configuration only makes sense if we are going to further reduce the size of our submarine launched ballistic missile force, and absent a new arms control treaty with the Russians, that is not something I could support.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How many days are left in the session?

14 days, 14 hours, and 14 minutes until noon Friday January 4.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Speak of the Devil.  He's back.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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

Can't say I care for it at all in its current form.

Section 1 just doesn't make much sense.  Government employees by and large are not in position where the use of performance enhancing drugs would affect their work performance or their job security so all this would do wound penalize people for using steroids.  I'm not a fan at all of the idea that the way to stop drug abuse is to penalize people who use drugs so that they have additional reasons to conceal their use and since they are already considered criminals, have less reason to not engage in other criminal behaviors.

Section 2 would, if anything, serve to limit the ability of private employers to use tests for steroids since it would limit them to only 2 tests a year.  If you're running a professional sport, anything less than monthly testing for steroids is a joke.

Section 3 only makes sense in conjunction with sections 1 or 2.

Section 4 creates a special class of drug law just for anabolic steroids.  If you want to increase the penalties for anabolic steroids, have them bumped up from Schedule III to Schedule II instead.  If you want to bump up penalties for selling drugs to minors make some modifications to section 859 of title 21 (currently penalties are doubled for selling to a minor on a first offense and trebled on a second or later offense). Maximum penalty now for selling steroids to a minor is now 10 years (5 years for being schedule III, doubled fro selling to someone under age 21).  Bumping steroids up to schedule II would make the maximum 20 years (40 years if sold to a minor).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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