Constitutional Amendment on Poverty

[Peter]

The equal protection clause should only apply to race, anyway. That was an activist ruling.

Go back to the United States, this is Atlasia.

[Sam Spade]

My fellow Senators, the reason that we present legislation before this body is so that it might be discussed and improved upon.  This ammendment is not perfect, I realize that.  It should be obvious to anyone that any bill presented before this body, esspecially one of this magnitude, is not perfect.  I would, therefore, appreciate it if my fellow Senators would offer suggestions, rather than mock it, because I do believe that this is important legislation for us to consider and it is, in spirit, worthy of passage.  I will take any serious suggestion you might have into consideration.

I'm not really sure.  I'd like to introduce one, but it seems to me that specifically enumerating all of the ways in which one might combat poverty would create one heck of a gigantic bill, and I don't see any other way that section 1 could be made less dangerous.

This is entirely the reason why I think it would be best if we just added Poverty to the list of things the Senate can legislate on and let the Court interpret that, if we want to do that (which quite frankly I am not sure on)

Secondly, I supported the Unwed Mothers Bill.  

That does not still mean that it's not unconstitutional.  

The clause in the bill that's still not dealt with in this legislation is the one that interferes with the Civil Liberties amendment.  Clause 2 in this bill tries to take care of that and opens up more loopholes, a number of which Peter has pointed out.  Frankly, I don't see any way of creating separate guidelines for poverty without endangering the effectiveness of the equal protection clause.

Look, I'm going to be gone until Sunday.  I'll try and think of something when I get back, and maybe someone else will then too.  I'm not big into writing other people's legislation, but I'll try.

But right now, my own personal opinion is that this amendment creates more problems than it alleviates, and that's precisely through its expansive nature (much like the qualities of the 14th Amendment in the US).

[12th Doctor]

Or is this amendment dead?

That's up to Supersoulty, really.

I'm sorry.  Even though I was checking in on this thread, I honestly missed this.

[12th Doctor]

The Unwed Mothers Bill is not the only reason I am doing this.  I think that the fact that we cannot specific legislation to target specific problems is a deficency of the current system.

[12th Doctor]

My fellow Senators, the reason that we present legislation before this body is so that it might be discussed and improved upon.  This ammendment is not perfect, I realize that.  It should be obvious to anyone that any bill presented before this body, esspecially one of this magnitude, is not perfect.  I would, therefore, appreciate it if my fellow Senators would offer suggestions, rather than mock it, because I do believe that this is important legislation for us to consider and it is, in spirit, worthy of passage.  I will take any serious suggestion you might have into consideration.

I'm not really sure.  I'd like to introduce one, but it seems to me that specifically enumerating all of the ways in which one might combat poverty would create one heck of a gigantic bill, and I don't see any other way that section 1 could be made less dangerous.

This is entirely the reason why I think it would be best if we just added Poverty to the list of things the Senate can legislate on and let the Court interpret that, if we want to do that (which quite frankly I am not sure on)

Secondly, I supported the Unwed Mothers Bill.  

That does not still mean that it's not unconstitutional.  

The clause in the bill that's still not dealt with in this legislation is the one that interferes with the Civil Liberties amendment.  Clause 2 in this bill tries to take care of that and opens up more loopholes, a number of which Peter has pointed out.  Frankly, I don't see any way of creating separate guidelines for poverty without endangering the effectiveness of the equal protection clause.

Look, I'm going to be gone until Sunday.  I'll try and think of something when I get back, and maybe someone else will then too.  I'm not big into writing other people's legislation, but I'll try.

But right now, my own personal opinion is that this amendment creates more problems than it alleviates, and that's precisely through its expansive nature (much like the qualities of the 14th Amendment in the US).

I appriciate your concerns, but I don't see how acknowledging the obvious, which is the for example, that Unwed mothers have different concerns than family farmers, is a violation of the equal protection clause.

[Sam Spade]

The Unwed Mothers Bill is not the only reason I am doing this.  I think that the fact that we cannot specific legislation to target specific problems is a deficency of the current system.

That's because we have a restrictive court, as opposed to an expansive court.  

If we had an expansive court, all of these specific problems would be covered and much more.

It would therefore be easier simply to elect judges who take an expansive view of the present Constitution.  

Going about it through Constitutional Amendments is probably the hardest way.  

The easiest way would be to simply deal with these things at the Regional level, but that wouldn't deal with the whole of Atlasia, which I imagine is what you have in mind.  It is personally the system I support and was the system that has developed post-Fritz v. Ernest.  At the Regional level the NRA, for example, showed the capability of this system through the various Concealed Carry laws enacted in April.

Nonetheless, in general I applaud your trying to work through the legislative system, rather than the court system, though I fundamentally disagree with your ideal.

My view of things is that the place of government is to deal with large overarching problems that concern Atlasia as a whole concerning with its security and infastructure, rather than to place government in the little problems that people deal with on a daily basis.

[12th Doctor]

The Unwed Mothers Bill is not the only reason I am doing this.  I think that the fact that we cannot specific legislation to target specific problems is a deficency of the current system.

That's because we have a restrictive court, as opposed to an expansive court.  

If we had an expansive court, all of these specific problems would be covered and much more.

It would therefore be easier simply to elect judges who take an expansive view of the present Constitution.  

Going about it through Constitutional Amendments is probably the hardest way.  

The easiest way would be to simply deal with these things at the Regional level, but that wouldn't deal with the whole of Atlasia, which I imagine is what you have in mind.  It is personally the system I support and was the system that has developed post-Fritz v. Ernest.  At the Regional level the NRA, for example, showed the capability of this system through the various Concealed Carry laws enacted in April.

Nonetheless, in general I applaud your trying to work through the legislative system, rather than the court system, though I fundamentally disagree with your ideal.

My view of things is that the place of government is to deal with large overarching problems that concern Atlasia as a whole concerning with its security and infastructure, rather than to place government in the little problems that people deal with on a daily basis.

Thank you for your kind and well reasoned comments.

[King]

It has been 72 damn hours and I demand a vote on this damn amendment!

[Sam Spade]

Since their hasn't been debate for 24 hours, that is clearly well within your right.

[Gabu]

Well, I've thought about this for a while, and I cannot think of any way to amend this that won't take a day to write, and I really don't have that kind of time, so I guess I'll just call a vote on this amendment, as nobody else seems to have any ideas.

All senators in favor, vote "aye"; all against, vote "nay".

Supersoulty, if you want to make changes to this at a later date and resubmit it, that would be perfectly fine.

[DanielX]

Nay.

[MasterJedi]

Nay

[MAS117]

Nay

[Sam Spade]

Nay.

[jokerman]

Aye

[Colin]

Nay

[King]

Nay.

[12th Doctor]

Aye


I don't understand why we could not have discussed this more.  Are we really so interested in expidience now that we just don't care?  I guess I have no choice but to go back to the drawing board on this and resubmit it.  Of course, it won't pop up again until the end of the session, and no one will want to discuss it then either, but hey....

[Peter]

I don't understand why we could not have discussed this more.  Are we really so interested in expidience now that we just don't care?  I guess I have no choice but to go back to the drawing board on this and resubmit it.  Of course, it won't pop up again until the end of the session, and no one will want to discuss it then either, but hey....

You are proposing repealing the equal protection clause - there's just no suggestion that I can think of, except not doing that that could ever see me in support of this amendment.

[DanielX]

The amendment is presently failing 2-6.

[Peter]

The amendment is presently failing 2-6.

Indeed, this has sufficient votes to fail. You have 24 hours to come to your senses gentlemen.

[Sam Spade]

You are proposing repealing the equal protection clause - there's just no suggestion that I can think of, except not doing that that could ever see me in support of this amendment.

Couldn't say it any better myself. 

And I couldn't think of any way to get around it this weekend either.

[12th Doctor]

Forgive me if I don't understand the logig behind this whole thing.  Do you honestly mean to tell me that it is against the laws of Atlasia to give moeny to subgroups of people who are in obvious special needs situations?

What about Medicare?  Medicaid?  Social Security?

That money is only given to certain people.

One has to be sick and poor to get Medicare.  By your logic, that is a form of discrimination.  The program isn't open to everyone.  Only in theory.  In theory, every women could become pregnant out of wedlock.  In theory, we could all be wheelchairs.  In theory, we could all be anything.  Just as, in theory, we can all collect on Medicare.

[12th Doctor]

Oh, BTW, I also apprieciate how quicky this was hustled into a vote.  Now, I'm not one to accuse, but isn't Peter Bell usually very stringent about the rules?  This bill was not given the same standard procedure that most other bills are.  Now... seems strange to me that this bill, which would be a major personal achivement for myself, is not being given a proper review, and in light of the most recent poll numbers... oh, there goes my over active immagination again.

[Peter]

Oh, BTW, I also apprieciate how quicky this was hustled into a vote.  Now, I'm not one to accuse, but isn't Peter Bell usually very stringent about the rules?  This bill was not given the same standard procedure that most other bills are.

All the standard procedural rules were followed:

There were no amendments introduced by any Senators, so there was no need to have a debate or vote on them.
Debate had ceased for 24 hours, a Senator made a call for a vote, which Gabu responded to as he is required to. Nothing improper has taken place here. Northing has been done that in any way violates our established procedures, and I would not have let such a situation occur regardless of my opinions on a particular piece of legislation.

Forgive me if I don't understand the logig behind this whole thing. Do you honestly mean to tell me that it is against the laws of Atlasia to give moeny to subgroups of people who are in obvious special needs situations?

No, I don't, and more importantly never have. It is always within the powers of a legislative body to discriminate where there is a rational basis for discrimination - e.g. only the sick get money from Medicaid, etc.

What you are proposing is nothing short of a constitutional mandate for apartheid: Your amendment reads in part: "...it shall be the right of the Senate to create legislation that specifically targets certain groups or subpopulations of Atlasia."

The Senate is therefore able to restrict the receiving of social security to just white people because it is a certain group within Atlasia - it is clearly constitutional, but it should never be allowed to be.

I, along with others, opposed the patently wrong constitutional argument made by the Court in the case on your bill that said it violated equal protection, though I agreed with its other conclusions. I think the Court has learnt from its mistake, not to mention the fact that its composition has changed since then.

Put simply, your effective repeal of the equal protection clause, threw the baby out with the bathwater.