General Senate Discussion

[Leinad]

Since I'm not a Senator but have something to say on the Resolution for Peaceful Co-Existence, I'll say it here.

For reference (yours and mine), here's the bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Kalwejt

Now, this is a bit vague, and I strongly encourage the Senate to make it less vague. What, exactly, is included in "subvert[ing] or in any other way disrupt[ing] the Mock Parliament?" If, as Senator Truman stated, the punishments would include citizenship being taken away, this needs to be more specific.

By the way, to ease the minds of people who think I hate the Mock Parliament, I'm in favor of this bill (heck, I'm even in favor of diplomatic relations, in theory, just that we'd be lying to ourselves to say that the Mock Parliament doesn't have strong anti-Atlasian sentiment, or that it would be easy to have relations with someone who thinks we're a socialist wasteland without an impartial GM as "Reality Judge"). My only concern with this bill is the subjectivity it brings into the equation--subjectivity in the law is NEVER a good thing, people. Before this is passed, it needs to be clearer what this means, and how to punish violators.

[Leinad]

Not Senate discussion, but government discussion: Talleyrand's tantrum lawsuit against the Registrar General is pathetic.

Adam's been a great RG, this is nothing but Talleyrand being sore over the controversy regarding his re-registry--which Adam resolved and then, going a step further, corrected the dates of other people to get it right.

Nothing but [male bovine waste] as high as en elephant's eye on this.

[Leinad]

I don't see a "General Court Discussion" thread anywhere (maybe I missed it?) and I'd rather not clutter up the case thread that is already cluttered by a silly argument you and Windjammer had.

Also, how was that a hysterical rant? 3 sentences is hardly a rant (I mean, of anyone, I think I'd know what constitutes a rant...), and it was far from hysterical.

[Leinad]

I don't see a "General Court Discussion" thread anywhere (maybe I missed it?) and I'd rather not clutter up the case thread that is already cluttered by a silly argument you and Windjammer had.

Also, how was that a hysterical rant? 3 sentences is hardly a rant (I mean, of anyone, I think I'd know what constitutes a rant...), and it was far from hysterical.

I created one in 2009, but it is not stickied and only gets bumped, usually by me, when a case has started, which means that most discussion has already run its course in other places, even the case threads the discussion thread was meant to keep clear.

Well, someone should sticky it then.

[Leinad]

Will there be a confirmation thread for DKrol?

I was under the impression that was the VP's job--I shot rpryor a PM and the thread will be up as soon as we can figure out what's going on.

[Leinad]

Reading a suggestion made in Amending the federal electoral Act in the Senate

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would this deny the right to vote for persons not residing in a region for 168 hours, in the new region, the old region and federal election 168 hours after a move between region ? It's probably not the intent.

The intent is so we can make laws to keep people from moving a bunch of people into a new region the day before an election. Of course you can move regions and still vote in a federal election. The actual restrictions are in the statute (see I'm amending that as well in the legislation), the Constitution is simply being changed to allow for that statute to exist in the context of the recent court ruling.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll repeat: the actual restrictions are in the statute, the Constitution is simply being changed to allow for that statute to exist in the context of the recent court ruling.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well the court disagrees. Are you really suggesting we go against the court's ruling?