Civil Rights Act of 2014 (Passed)

[bore]

Senators this has enough votes to fail, senators have 24 hours to change their votes

Aye
I actually agree with the president's redraft on everything but the clothing one, which I think we can work with, and since this redraft has already failed I'm voting Aye to highlight a desire to make a few more, pretty minor changes.

[bore]

By a vote of 5-4-1 this redraft has failed and the original bill is sent back to the senate for further discussion:

Aye: Bore, Yankee, Cris, Windjammer

Abstain: Polnut

Nay: Bacon King, SWE, Cranberry, TNF, Lief

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I continue to be concerned about the issue of a report on reparations. Yes, a report does  not tie anyone to do anything, but the unseen (and I'm sure, to some, seen) consequences could be significant. I think there's a more realistic way to deal with this.

[Cranberry]

I would be okay with this version, as long as the implentation date is postponed until let's say July 2015.

[Lief 🗽]

Yes, I agree that the implementation date needs to be postponed.

[TNF]

I have modified my proposal to include a July 1 implementation date.

[windjammer]

Lumine, will you be able to do a second redraft???

EDIT: I just checked, you won't be able. Well, I hope the senate and the president will be able to agree on a version.

[Lumine]

Lumine, will you be able to do a second redraft???

EDIT: I just checked, you won't be able. Well, I hope the senate and the president will be able to agree on a version.

Yes, the Constitution is rather clear on that issue. The amendment Senator TNF proposed is a step on the right direction and it does address many of my concerns. If the amendment passes, I would reccomend an amendment (or I could offer it myself) for Section 2.10, as I remain convinced that said party is poorly worded.

The real problem is that I am not supportive of the affirmative action parts of the CRA, which seem to be supported by most of the Senate. Either way, I'll have to think about the issue and my response.

[windjammer]

Lumine, will you be able to do a second redraft???

EDIT: I just checked, you won't be able. Well, I hope the senate and the president will be able to agree on a version.

Yes, the Constitution is rather clear on that issue. The amendment Senator TNF proposed is a step on the right direction and it does address many of my concerns. If the amendment passes, I would reccomend an amendment (or I could offer it myself) for Section 2.10, as I remain convinced that said party is poorly worded.

The real problem is that I am not supportive of the affirmative action parts of the CRA, which seem to be supported by most of the Senate. Either way, I'll have to think about the issue and my response.

Which part exactly do you strongly oppose?

[Lumine]

Lumine, will you be able to do a second redraft???

EDIT: I just checked, you won't be able. Well, I hope the senate and the president will be able to agree on a version.

Yes, the Constitution is rather clear on that issue. The amendment Senator TNF proposed is a step on the right direction and it does address many of my concerns. If the amendment passes, I would reccomend an amendment (or I could offer it myself) for Section 2.10, as I remain convinced that said party is poorly worded.

The real problem is that I am not supportive of the affirmative action parts of the CRA, which seem to be supported by most of the Senate. Either way, I'll have to think about the issue and my response.

Which part exactly do you strongly oppose?

More of a principle issue, but I've always remained unconvinced that forcing the federal government to hire based on race or gender quotas is the best solution when it comes to this issue. It's very simplistic argument, I know, but I would rather have the best individuals hired regardless of their race/gender than have them hired because of those two conditions.

[bore]

Senators have 36 hours to object to TNF's amendment

[TNF]

Lumine, will you be able to do a second redraft???

EDIT: I just checked, you won't be able. Well, I hope the senate and the president will be able to agree on a version.

Yes, the Constitution is rather clear on that issue. The amendment Senator TNF proposed is a step on the right direction and it does address many of my concerns. If the amendment passes, I would reccomend an amendment (or I could offer it myself) for Section 2.10, as I remain convinced that said party is poorly worded.

The real problem is that I am not supportive of the affirmative action parts of the CRA, which seem to be supported by most of the Senate. Either way, I'll have to think about the issue and my response.

Which part exactly do you strongly oppose?

More of a principle issue, but I've always remained unconvinced that forcing the federal government to hire based on race or gender quotas is the best solution when it comes to this issue. It's very simplistic argument, I know, but I would rather have the best individuals hired regardless of their race/gender than have them hired because of those two conditions.

Except that some of the best candidates are never hired precisely because of their race/gender.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Lumine, will you be able to do a second redraft???

EDIT: I just checked, you won't be able. Well, I hope the senate and the president will be able to agree on a version.

Yes, the Constitution is rather clear on that issue. The amendment Senator TNF proposed is a step on the right direction and it does address many of my concerns. If the amendment passes, I would reccomend an amendment (or I could offer it myself) for Section 2.10, as I remain convinced that said party is poorly worded.

The real problem is that I am not supportive of the affirmative action parts of the CRA, which seem to be supported by most of the Senate. Either way, I'll have to think about the issue and my response.

Which part exactly do you strongly oppose?

More of a principle issue, but I've always remained unconvinced that forcing the federal government to hire based on race or gender quotas is the best solution when it comes to this issue. It's very simplistic argument, I know, but I would rather have the best individuals hired regardless of their race/gender than have them hired because of those two conditions.

Except that some of the best candidates are never hired precisely because of their race/gender.

But isn't that kind of making policy based on trying to prove a negative?

[Poirot]

I posted on the Senate protest and analysis thread about the jury selection.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=19934.msg4480504#msg4480504

I would like to know if the jury selection in the Civil Rights acts is just well intentioned theory or will it affect how the jury is selected in Atlasia in a practical way.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That is a good question since some of the juries here are actually playable. We don't even know the racial statistics with any clarity since the population is influx and some people are inactive, you would never get an accurate read.

You can guess overwhelmingly white, male and 18-26 (Call it a hunch), but that is rather thin basis and considering the population limits, it could make bgwah and the boy's job a real bitch getting a jury together for anything.

[Lief 🗽]

Atlasia is 99% white men. Why would our jury selection be affected?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A jury of five white men is reasonably proportionate to a national population of 99% white men.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What if one of the jury member is not a white man then?

[Lief 🗽]

What if one of the jury member is not a white man then?

Well the language is "equal representation for all racial minorities", so I don't think that would matter.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What if one of the jury member is not a white man then?

Well the language is "equal representation for all racial minorities", so I don't think that would matter.

But would it count as "reasonably proportional"?

[bore]

As I said in the budget thread, we need to divide the government simulation side of things with the game mechanics side of things. Basically a bill which is government simulation should not interfere with the game mechanics side, and vice versa. So I don't see the problem here.

[windjammer]

Lumine, will you be able to do a second redraft???

EDIT: I just checked, you won't be able. Well, I hope the senate and the president will be able to agree on a version.

Yes, the Constitution is rather clear on that issue. The amendment Senator TNF proposed is a step on the right direction and it does address many of my concerns. If the amendment passes, I would reccomend an amendment (or I could offer it myself) for Section 2.10, as I remain convinced that said party is poorly worded.

The real problem is that I am not supportive of the affirmative action parts of the CRA, which seem to be supported by most of the Senate. Either way, I'll have to think about the issue and my response.

Which part exactly do you strongly oppose?

More of a principle issue, but I've always remained unconvinced that forcing the federal government to hire based on race or gender quotas is the best solution when it comes to this issue. It's very simplistic argument, I know, but I would rather have the best individuals hired regardless of their race/gender than have them hired because of those two conditions.

I see,
Well, I will understand if you veto if it keeps this part. I hope you will understand too if I vote Aye on the veto override too .

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As I said in the budget thread, we need to divide the government simulation side of things with the game mechanics side of things. Basically a bill which is government simulation should not interfere with the game mechanics side, and vice versa. So I don't see the problem here.

Your wording implies that we aren't currently though. Doesn't that mean that unless stated so in this text, it could be a problem?

[bore]

TNF's amendment has passed

Sorry, I badly phrased that, what I meant is when we are talking about issues like this we need to keep in mind the distinction.

That said, I am aware that there is no strict constitutional reason to separate the two, but surely we can all agree this makes sense?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes, you and I agree, but as we have seen taking the common sense approach for granted because it is the present "consensus" can lead to trouble. Your leaving now, I am leaving either now or in July. The next group of people may not be so common sense oriented, or seek to utilize the seeming contradiction to cause problems in a future case.