Policing the Police Act of 2014 (Redraft passed)

[Talleyrand]

AYE

[DemPGH]

Yes.

[Blair]

Aye

[Cranberry]

Thank you.

NAY

[TNF]

Aye

I'm puzzled as to why TheCranberry is voting against this

[Cranberry]

I'm puzzled as to why TheCranberry is voting against this

My point stays and is that I simply don't believe the Federal government to have the powers to simply just all this stuff the way this is done in this bill - Roe vs ZuWo has clearly shown our powers to be quite limited.
Secondly, Senator Polnut has stated he will offer further amendments, so debate here certainly is not over yet.

[Senator Cris]

Nay

[bore]

I should in principle state first that I support a lot of what Blair's amendment proposes, with a few reservations about some of the wording and the commissions.

That said, I think that everything apart from 1 and 3A is unconstitional, and, upon consultation with the AG, he agrees.

As the court affirmed in Roe vs Zuwo, the senate only has the powers explicitly given to it in the constitution, and no more. Importantly the only power listed in the constituion that can even be slighlty relevant is this one:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, this is vague enough that you could make such an argument, and it does seem to imply the senate has power to legislate certain offences (such as perhaps, a suitably defined entrapment) there is a difference between matters of justice and the police procedure. We can legilate against murder but not the colour of the polices uniform, to take an extreme example.

The other argument the AG makes, which I find convincing, is based on this section of the constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is problematic because police matters in the US, and thus by derivation in atlasia, are state/regional matters. What that means is even if we are allowed by the Justice power to do this, we can not do it to the all important local police forces because we can't force the regions to do something

[Lief 🗽]

This law "preserves the rights of ... the People enumerated under the Constitution."

[windjammer]

Nay.

Sorry, but I don't want to pass a bill that will be struck down by the court.

[Lief 🗽]

I would remind my fellow Senators that we are a co-equal branch of government. The judiciary is not superior to us. Our interpretation of what is constitutional is just as valid as theirs is. We should obviously not strive to draft unambiguously unconstitutional legislation, but Blair's amended version is far from that. Tweaks can be made to make it more in line with constitutional requirements (for instance, tying the requirements in sections 3 and 4 to federal funding). Frankly the idea that some Senators seem to be pushing that there is absolutely no place for federal regulation of the police (unless we shower them with money first and ask nicely that they maybe look at putting together a study to improve) is terrifying to me. Considering the litany of abuses carried out by the police over the past year, and the absolute failure of local and regional governments to put any stop to this, we have a duty and a responsibility to protect the civil rights of Atlasians.

But there's no point in continuing to waste time on this if we're just going to pass some neutered mediocrity of a bill. Polnut's amendment is moderate hero nonsense, that somehow has turned this into a cash prize for police apartments to continue doing whatever the hell they want, with no oversight or reform. If we cannot pass a real reform, then we should not implicitly endorse the current situation, which is what the current bill would do.

[DemPGH]

Pathetic. I guess the Court is dictating to the legislature what it can and cannot do?

[windjammer]

With all respect I have for my colleagues (and believe me, I respect all my  colleagues a lot).

Are you serious?

Of course the Supreme Court can strike down bills that the judges of the Supreme Court believe they are unconstitutional. Laws must respect the constitution. We, members of the senate, don't have absolute power.

I won't support a bill/amendment if I believe they are unconstitutional because I don't see the interest of doing that. What's the point of passing laws if they are going to be struck down?

[Lief 🗽]

I don't think this bill is clearly unconstitutional at all. The federal government provides billions of dollars to regional and local governments to fund their police forces. The idea that we have absolutely no say in how this money is used is ridiculous to me, especially when we are working to protect the civil rights of our citizens.

That said, I (and presumably the other 4 senators who voted for Blair's amendment) are willing to work on that legislation to make it more in line with the Senate's constitutional powers, and so that we can pass a bill that actually achieves something. But Polnut's re-write is a completely toothless non-starter, and I don't see how I could vote for it.

[bore]

This is our current budget, with the relevant section being here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So we can certainly do something about the FBI, but we don't seem to actually fund local police. Unless, of course, that's what criminal justice asistance means, but while I don't actually know what that does mean, I don't think it's that. Even if it is though, that's a tiny sum, my own region spends 25 billion on Public Safety, for example.

[Lief 🗽]

Criminal justice assistance means grants to local and regional governments yes. See the US equivalent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Justice_Assistance

And $4.22 billion is still significant. It's double what the United States spends on criminal justice assistance (see page 12). Without this money, police departments would have to make serious spending cuts.

Presumably there is money (or equipment) coming from homeland security and department of defense funding as well.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nevertheless it is clear that non-federal police forces - however funded - are not part of the federal government. I'm afraid that I must point out that withholding funds unless and until a given regional government agrees to implement a programme drawn up by the Senate would not be looked on kindly by the Court. Alternative avenues to pursue this particular policy agenda do exist, incidentally.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I would remind my fellow Senators that we are a co-equal branch of government. The judiciary is not superior to us. Our interpretation of what is constitutional is just as valid as theirs is. We should obviously not strive to draft unambiguously unconstitutional legislation, but Blair's amended version is far from that. Tweaks can be made to make it more in line with constitutional requirements (for instance, tying the requirements in sections 3 and 4 to federal funding). Frankly the idea that some Senators seem to be pushing that there is absolutely no place for federal regulation of the police (unless we shower them with money first and ask nicely that they maybe look at putting together a study to improve) is terrifying to me. Considering the litany of abuses carried out by the police over the past year, and the absolute failure of local and regional governments to put any stop to this, we have a duty and a responsibility to protect the civil rights of Atlasians.

But there's no point in continuing to waste time on this if we're just going to pass some neutered mediocrity of a bill. Polnut's amendment is moderate hero nonsense, that somehow has turned this into a cash prize for police apartments to continue doing whatever the hell they want, with no oversight or reform. If we cannot pass a real reform, then we should not implicitly endorse the current situation, which is what the current bill would do.

Let me make this very, very, very clear. This is how the Federal Government gets regional or state governments to undertake activities when the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to do it. This isn't about co-equal status with the judiciary. They have a role and we have a role, our role is based on what we have the legal authority to do, and theirs is to tell us when we have.

You can spout "moderate hero" and  "cash prize" all you want, but you are yet to provide a SINGLE piece of evidence, including against additional input from the President and the Attorney General that argues what you and the minority of the Senate wish to do would be valid under Constitutional arrangements. Also, because these screeds show little understanding how how intergovernmental funding agreements actually operate, it interferes with grandstanding, I get that. But, every agreement comes with a clear set of milestones and deliverables. If they are not met, funding does not happen and there are severe financial penalties for payments already made. There are also full audits and acquittal processes that take place, to ensure that public funds are being handed over and managed in exactly the way they are supposed to. So this, 'no accountability' sounds exciting, but is not based in reality.

As I said, the re-write was designed to address at the highest level what we can actually do. It was never meant to be the final version. I have said here and privately, that I am open to additional elements and will outline them shortly. We can create something with some teeth, but we cannot put forward something which massively oversteps our bounds, will be rightly ignored by the regions and local authorities and do nothing in the end. Many here talking about the Senate not listening? We carry on down this path and that's exactly what we're doing.

There are paths forward here, but we actually need good-faith negotiations.

[TNF]

This bill is not unconstitutional in the least, for reasons brilliantly equivocated by Comrade Lief.

The fact of the matter is that this argument isn't about constitutionality, it's ideological. Part of the Senate is a coalition of badgelicking cowards who want to fellate an institution that murders working class men and women every day of the week while turning a blind eye to big time criminals.

[DemPGH]

Okay, two things.

1. This is not unconstitutional. First, in the USA there are federal civil and criminal statutes that lay out police criteria and standards of behavior all the way down to the municipal level. Down to Barney Fife cops as well as thug cops who go around harassing people of color or whoever they decide they don't like (protesters, young people they decide to harass and strip search, etc.). That's ultimately who we're trying to protect our people from - thug cops and bully cops, and that people don't see that or want to call this unconstitutional leaves me almost speechless. What we also want to do is set minimal standards for who can become a cop. If you think that is unconstitutional, I really don't know what to say. It's just wrong, and you're defending thug cops.

2. We have a job to do, and we should not sit here afraid that the judiciary might do this or might do that. That means our hands are tied; let them do whatever they want to do. We have a job to do. So where we are is, if we can't get something that actually accomplishes something, then I say we bring up the polnut version and vote the thing down.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The federal government can attach strings to funding as long as their strings are not coercive. I haven't read the current bill prior to Blair's amendment, but so long as the demands by  the senate are not coercive or too intrusive, then it's constitutional. From Blair's amendment, I already am suspicious of federal oversight of a state agency. I'm not sure whether that would be constitutional. I understand those saying "well we can't let a state agency keep this up," but unless there is some sort of federal amendment passed, each state has control over their policing powers so long as they don't break any federal amendments.

But to correct others in this thread, yes, the Courts do have a say in the bills passed by this body. It's called Judicial Review. Surely some of you have heard of it, no?

Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.

[windjammer]

The result of the vote on Blair's amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aye (5): DemPGH, TNF, Talleyrand, Blair, Lief
Nay (5): Hagrid, Cris, Cranberry, Polnut, Windjammer

There is a tie and it needs to be broken. The Vice-President will be contacted.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Senators, Senators, please. Our concerns about this bill are not political, but practical. President Bore is not opposed in principle to greater oversight of the police and I am but his humble vessel. Atlasian constitutional law is, like it or not, highly conservative on the matter of powers. This has been the case for longer than any of you have been citizens of the Republic. Even the late Justice Opebo was, in terms of powers, an archconservative despite his personal politics. Honourable Senators are, of course, entitled to pass any legislation that they feel like, but the Court is equally entitled to strike down anything that it believes to be in breach of the Constitution. To deny this is not only futile but also counterproductive. Given the politically sensitive nature of this particular bill I do not wish to intrude overmuch in proceedings, but I would like to repeat a small suggestion I made earlier: there are alternative paths to getting this policy agenda passed that no Court could block.

[Blair]

I'm more than happy to make this a civil right matter, and give the Attorney General or who ever is required the power to make changes-this is a civil rights matter. Especially if incidents continue to happen where police officers are abusing their powers, only then to be let off.

I'm extremely upset that the senate has blocked this, only because I fear we're going to pass a bill that simply gives the police more funding without any form of regulation 

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I commend the Vice President for making a sensible decision on this matter.