Pacific Referendum Rights Bill (Failed)

[Senator Cris]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Citizen Potus

[Potus]

Mr. Speaker,

No matter where one stands on issues of consolidation, regional rights, or even secession, our nation was founded on the consent of the governed. The federal government has grown in such tremendous power that it has robbed the regions, and by extension their people, of the powers they were intended to have. While I'm not an angry firebreather on the issue of the regions, the facts support allowing the Pacific an opportunity to provide a direct referendum on Nyman's governance.

Efforts have been made by powers on high to "save the Pacific" while all we really need is the power to govern our land, people, and society.

This legislation would provide the people of the Pacific opportunities to give or deny consent to federal governance. No matter where you are on th issue, we can all agree the people have a right to self determination. If you are confident that the Republic continues to serve the interests of the people, then you have nothing to fear by allowing referenda on federal power.

[Classic Conservative]

I do not support this at all.

[Classic Conservative]

Mr. Potus I believe secession is illegal.

[Potus]

Mr. Potus I believe secession is illegal.

Not if you pass a law changing it's legality.

[Classic Conservative]

Mr. Potus I believe secession is illegal.

Not if you pass a law changing it's legality.

This senate more than likely won't given that many of them opposed the Northeast Independence Movement.

[Potus]

Mr. Potus I believe secession is illegal.

Not if you pass a law changing it's legality.

This senate more than likely won't given that many of them opposed the Northeast Independence Movement.

The Pacific Freedom Party is operating firmly within the confines of the law and existin political system. This bill isn't  secession. This bill provides an avenue for a referendum on federal power over the Pacific region. Do you believe people have a right to hold these votes?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Obvious sabotage attempt is obvious. I will not support this bill.

Lest there be any doubts that the argument in favor of this bill is completely irrational, let us examine the case made by the South American Prime Minister:

CLAIM: The Pacific is inactive because the federal government has stripped the Regions of their Constitutional responsibilities.
FACT: While the second clause of this statement is arguably grounded in some fact (hence my support for devolution efforts at the ConCon), the first clause is patently false. Other Regions, such as the Northeast and my native Mideast, have managed to remain active in spite of the same constraints on their authority experienced by the Pacific. If Regional inactivity was attributable to the increased influence of the federal government, then every Region would be like the Pacific today; this is simply not the case. Rather, the Pacific is struggling today as a result of poor historical leadership and a shrinking population - problems that will be remedied through consolidation, not secession.

CLAIM: If the Pacific were granted independence, it would soon become a paradise of activity.
FACT: This is irrational: one might as well argue that the best way to end world hunger is to eliminate soup kitchens. There is no logical reason to believe that independence would lead to increased activity in the Pacific; to the contrary, it would likely lead to decreased activity, as no doubt many pro-Union Pacificans would leave the Region rather than be exiled from Atlasia.

[Clyde1998]

Mr. Potus I believe secession is illegal.

There is nothing in the current constitution to block the succession of a region - as I discovered ahead of the Northeast Independence Referendum.
Potus - I would advise a constitutional amendment stating that independence will occur on a specific date, with a roadmap to implement independence. As a referendum of this type would be non-binding - should it ever occur.

[Blair]

Even a constitutional amendment would be of questionable means, because the Federal Government would have to agree to a release of some sort-it's similar to how a state amendment barring gay marriage/civil rights is largely ignored.

It's pretty sad to again see a rush towards independence, let by the usual suspects

[Clyde1998]

Even a constitutional amendment would be of questionable means, because the Federal Government would have to agree to a release of some sort-it's similar to how a state amendment barring gay marriage/civil rights is largely ignored.

It's pretty sad to again see a rush towards independence, let by the usual suspects

The current constitution doesn't foresee independence, although it would be an action of folly for the Federal Government to prevent independence for a region that has voted for it.

In the case of the Northeast referendum, we would've opened negotiations with the Federal Government - to resolve certain issues - with the Northeast becoming independent two months after the referendum.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I typically favor self-determination for regions, but I suspect this bill to be unconstitutional. As such, I can't support it.

[Oakvale]

I of course fully and enthusiastically support this bill. As a long-time advocate of human rights, I of course back the freedom of the Pacific people, as should any democrat. And as a former Supreme Court Justice and an expert on our poor, battered old Constitution, I do not see anything that prohibits self-determination for the regions.

It's typical of the low energy Atlasian nationalists that they cling to legalism as they sweat and shake at the prospect of the people of their country determining their own destiny.

[Talleyrand]

There is NO reason to oppose this bil. It has my full support.

[Senator Cris]

I quote what Truman said. I'll not support this.

[Lumine]

No, no, and no.

I may be very close to resigning, but as long as I remain Pacific Senator I will not support allowing a stunt like this to be enacted.

[Oakvale]

Low Energy Lumine, who blatantly stole a Senate seat from Senator Nagas in a rigged election, continues to betray his region. Shame!

[Classic Conservative]

Low Energy Lumine, who blatantly stole a Senate seat from Senator Nagas in a rigged election, continues to betray his region. Shame!

He betrayed one citizen and the citizen who he betrayed vote for him.

[pikachu]

If the Senate were to pass this bill (and I highly advise that it does not), I would recommend having a firm date and campaign period in it so you don't see voters starting to rush into the region just before the referendum so they can on it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

2013: Clique locks region out of itself, Feds step in and restore self-determination and the group then retaliates against the institution that did so (Supreme Court). 

2015. Same Group: Self-determination rah rah rah!!! We demand independence.


These trolls are liars and they are cheaters. The Pacific is a small region and would be instantly overran with all the usual suspects. Some of which have already moved there, rather conviently.

The IRC thugs must be real stupid to think we would be dumb enough to fall for this trick again. Go find something else to troll!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Low Energy Lumine, who blatantly stole a Senate seat from Senator Nagas in a rigged election, continues to betray his region. Shame!

While we are on the subject of low energy betrayal. I recall a certain someone who got reelected as Pacific Senator and after a month of inactivity resigned. Then came back to run a troll campaign for President, all the while plotting to lock the region's voters out of its own elections "in the name of saving it".

I think his name was Oakfail. I recall working with his successor to formulate the Senate's response to the aforementioned events and the perpetrators referred to him as traitor for doing so as well.

My the deja vu. I just love it! And the hyprocrisy, loving me some of that delicious irony as well.

[Türkisblau]

Um I would just like to comment that I have no involvement in this initiative and doubt  any "IRC thugs" do either - Yankee and others are coming to conclusions rather quickly.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I would recommend that we refrain from casting aspersions here. I do not oppose this bill per se; rather I do not believe that this is a proper avenue to push it forward.

[Prince of Salem]

What PiT said.

[Clark Kent]

If I may speak, we in the Northeast only narrowly defeated a secessionist attempt rather recently. Coupled with the ongoing Constitutional Convention, I do not believe that the Senate should take any action that could jeopardize the stability of our great nation, especially at this time.