Civil Rights Act of 2014 (Passed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Section 1 -

The history of the world has been one of oppression. The difference between ourselves and past perptrators is that we seek as our objective to improve over time and one cannot seriously argue that such has not occured. Slavery was an institution the world over, and indeed after balooning it to unprecedented levels, The US/Atlasia and the former Colonial powers became the very force that brought it to an end and is still fighting it to this day in the form of human trafficking.

The way we make up for past transgression is to preserve the heritage of improving over time and by working to discourage those trangressions around the world. Dividing up and weakening the one country with the most power to combat sex slaver and other ills that still blot the eath doesn't redeem us of our bad history, on the other hand defaults on our obligation to the world imposed on us by those very transgressions.

Clause 2 is secession by another name and is thus unconstitutional. 

Section 2-4
There is absolutely no way the policing of speech and print could ever be practical. A partisan hack could merely label every opposing force as such and use this to shut them down and I don't see any amendment or wording change or special clause to address this gapping whole, just too much loopholes. It is the alien and sedition acts all over again and I am shocked such a civil libertarian as yourself thinks th gov't can enforce and police speech. The answer is education not the iron boot of a fascist police state.

Section 3-7 is abortion on demand as late as the last trimester. I am pro-life and view all abortion as the extermination of potential life, but when it comes to late term abortion it is my view that such is unequivocally murder and this clause legalizes it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How does the a Senator is so dubious about the ability of the gov't to enforce anything, view it as practical to enforce thought and speech?

I'm withdrawing windjammer's amendment using this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And proposing my own amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For one thing we already have basically legal abortion barring extreme late term so all this would do is legalise them, and for another I'm convinced this is an issue like most social issues that should be left to the regions, for the sake of the game.
[/quote]

What is the downside of leavin them to the regions? The new strong man of the Mideast is Windjammer, not Zuwo.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How does the a Senator is so dubious about the ability of the gov't to enforce anything, view it as practical to enforce thought and speech?

I don't (assuming this refers to me). My point is that the "shouting fire" argument isn't really applicable as someone who was shouting racial slurs in a private business would be kicked out with or without this bill.

I was referring to the sponsor who has led the drive to legalize most every drug immaginable on the grounds that the laws cannot and should not be enforced against them and now thinks speech and thought can be. Sorry for not making that clear.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Also do we still have motions for splitting bills because if so I'd like to do that for Section 1 and spin it off as a constitutional amendment

Since the previous ability to do so was not overtly present in the rules, it merely operated using certainly endorsed functions to achieve that objective if that makes sense. If you are referrign to what I pushed for regarding the Pacific (half bill, half amendment and the vote threshold becames the lowest amount necessary to pass the whole thing -2/3rds and the amendment half goes to the regions whilst the legislation goes to the President), then I would assume so as long as you amend in clear instructions as to which section goes where obviously.

Nix would  no better as to whether this implied ability is still present though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is the current (soon to be text) assuming the latest amendment is adopted?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would recommend inserting the following instructions in some form:

Section 1 of this legislation shall be treated as Constitutional amendment and upon passage by 2/3rds of the Senate shall be sent to the regions for ratification. The subsequent sections shall be treated as legislation and shall upon passage by a majority of the Senate be sent to the President for executive action.

You also split it up with the first half in section one and the rest below section one.

The time I did this kind of split approach before, I gave the bill and Amendment containted within the combined act, its own independent title and instructions. Otherwise the Regions will have a hard time titling the amendment portion in a consistent fashion.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Section 3.1 could be interpretted to ban regulations to ensure the safety of said conteceptives.

I am still not comfortable with the idea of separatism.

I also worry about the language section in terms of encouraging that. Between the process that is going to be legalized in section 1 and the language section, we are setting us on the road to Belgium and thus encouraging the utilization of the section 1 process down the road.

I respect diversity and value the contributions, but as we have learned with our politics in real life, when you don't talk to each other you tend to go self-segregate and focus on what seperates as opposed to what brings together. If people cannot communicate with each other it sets society down a very bad path in my view. English should be the national language of gov't, but it should go further and establish English as the standard language with an expectation that all be able to communicate via it, even as they preserve their own language as a part of their customs.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Section 1 has been amended to be the status of a constitutional amendment. Perhaps if you were active like me back in 2010 you would pay better attention...

fixed.

Now those were the days.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NAY

I don't want to make the language section worse.


Also, I don't have a problem with requiring equal accomodations for LGBT. That said I think 3.1 is already dealt with though I guess that was unclear from the Mideast courtesy of no court case. Also 3.5 and 3.6 are concerning as well. I would vote for the amendment otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is also an unfunded mandate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

Like most of this Bill, a knowledge of English, in a predominately English-speaking country is not something you should or need to require by law.

This doesn't do that, it merely states an aspirational goal motivated by a desire to avoid future tensions between various groups within a diverse Atlasia, by encouraging inter-communication.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

Like most of this Bill, a knowledge of English, in a predominately English-speaking country is not something you should or need to require by law.

This doesn't do that, it merely states an aspirational goal motivated by a desire to avoid future tensions between various groups within a diverse Atlasia, by encouraging inter-communication.

That's exceedingly fluffy to be put in legislation...

Now thats a word I haven't seen used around these parts in quite a few years lol.

Would you like it better if it were cut off after "encouraged".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay

As much as I am recluctant to use tax payer dollars for this purpose, to take it from a strictly money perspective, paying for it here is cheaper then the costs afterwards.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye Guess

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Restitution maybe, but restitution of the present value of lands and resources taken? So anybody want to put a dollar value on the chunk of Cleveland alone that would have to coughed up. We are talking Trillions here overall. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think the best form of reparations would be based specifically on communities that have been damaged by past injustices. So inside of all descendants of slaves, regardless of wealth getting reparations it should be focused on, say, areas of the Mississippi delta and rather than the bushies and Elizabeth Warren's getting reparations it should be aimed at some of the reservations in South Dakota.

Maybe some sort of fund given a certain amount to dole out to various worthwhile projects?

Were it not for the recent tuition reforms I would suggest education for impoverished areas like the Delta or the reservations you mention as well.

Projects can help to be true, but unless they contribute to some form of industry sprouting up or support such that is already existing, the benefits are less long term and more short term. Unless you mean a library or a school for instance, instead of a road or airport then the dynamics are different.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay

I agree with shua and Maxwell. A lot of progress has been made but there still problems with this legislation. I have hope that such can be worked through in a redraft though if such is forthcoming.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Moving then working several days straight without any chance to recover my energy.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If the goals is for the regions to act within this context, then in my view the text is rather vague as to what guidelines can be set. What constitutes vastly dispoportionate and who determines whether the Mideast or Northeast or IDS has or has not an interpretation that comports with the intent of this meeting aside from the Supreme Court?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

From my read of the changes I am pleased with the changes and lean towards supporting the redraft.

I also applaud the PResident for moving back the date effective so as to provide time for these changes to pe prepared for and then implemented properly. Obviously, this is not the best thing to be rushing into action overnight. The changes for jury selection need to be diseminated in an organized fashion so as to not create a complete mess of the judicial system for instance. The guidelines formulated by the regions will take time as well.