Pacific Legislature Official Thread

[Fuzzybigfoot]

First of all, fuzzybigfoot is unanimously confirmed as Pacific Justice.

Secondly, please all vote on the ratification of the Constitutional Convention in the voting booth.

Thank you Oakvale, and the Pacific Legislation, for giving me the honor of upholding our constitution in the Pacific! 

[Fuzzybigfoot]

As Pacific Justice, I declare "Aaron Burr Day" bill unconstitutional, on the grounds that it doesn't explain how it's primary contents can"promote the general welfare"-(Preamble to the Pacific Constitution).  It cannot be passed.

I hereby declare that the  "Education Initiatives" bill is constitutional.  The bill lays out it's in detail; benefits it offers to those in Atlasia. It violates no legal boundaries set by the Pacific Constitution.  It may be passed by the Pacific Legislature.  





No offense, Jbrase, Oakvale or Archangel.  

[Fuzzybigfoot]

As Pacific Justice, I declare "Aaron Burr Day" bill unconstitutional, on the grounds that it doesn't explain how it's primary contents can"promote the general welfare"-(Preamble to the Pacific Constitution).  It cannot be passed.

In the light of this event, I'd like to challenge the constitutionality of the "Accuracy in balloting Act". Hopefully we can get rid of that useles trash :

It is an act designed to rename Xahar whenever he runs for office in the Pacific on our ballots. It renames him "Chode" on ballots for regional positions.

It's funny you bring that up, I was feeling vaguely mean for voting for it and was considering trying for a repeal just yesterday.

People have the right to choose a name  (Freedom of Speech, Article 3, Clause 2, Pacific Constitution) and use it as representation in the eye of the law, thus they cannot be renamed otherwise on a legal document.  A ballot is a legal document (it's printed by the government, the overseers of the law), thus having Xahar's name changed on such is illegal, hereby making the "Accuracy in Balloting Act" void from hereon out.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

No offense, Jbrase, Oakvale or Archangel.

You passed the test.

Oh good  

That would've been bad if you guys were serious  XD

[Fuzzybigfoot]

I must say I'm pretty chuffed to see the position of Pacific Justice working as intended. Stellar job, fuzzy.

Also, I'd like to clarify something about what Jbrase said - in our system, as Archangel pointed out, the Justice automatically reviews all new legislation passed. In real life, this would be an unworkable and impractical concept, but it creates a healthy  amount of activity in Atlasia.

However, your post does apply to legislation passed before the position was established. In other words, old legislation is reviewed only when specifically challenged by a citizen, as in the case of the, uh, chode bill.

Of course, which is why I wouldn't have ordered the repeal of the chode bill without the challenge from Antonio. 

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Should I delete unconstitutional items from the statute and the article altogether or should I just state that it was deemed unconstitutional in the Wiki?

Maybe just say that it was deemed unconstitutional, but put in the archives for future reference if need be.  

[Fuzzybigfoot]

I appreciate it if you guys could message me the Bills, that would make sure I didn't miss anything.  I will still be on this board, of course.  

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Fine then.

Amendment to The Religious Institution Classification Act  

The Religious Institution Classification Act is hereby amended to read:

1. Any church or religious institution that requires its members to pay fees shall henceforth be recognized as businesses by the Pacific Region.

2. Every other church or religious institution shall be tax exempt. These groups shall lose their tax exempt status should they:
a. Donate money to a political campaign.
b. Endorse anyone running for public office.
c. Begin requiring members to pay fee's for any reason other than paying for damaged property.  
d. Their school programs do not follow the required curriculum set forth by The Pacific.  


X Jbrase

X Antonio V

I officially approve this bill as constitutionally fit.  It may be passed by the Pacific Legislature.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

I would support Jbrase's proposal.

TOO LATE!!!

[Fuzzybigfoot]

I would support Jbrase's proposal.

TOO LATE!!!

Sorry, but it's true.   You had that other bill, though.   

[Fuzzybigfoot]

I am confused.

About what?

[Fuzzybigfoot]

People of the Pacific, I submit today a bill of primary importance :


We'll miss you Act

1. November 2th shall hereby be a mourning day known as the Russ, we'll miss you Day, in the honor of former Senator Russ Feingold.
2. During his day, any household that asks for shall be gratuitously supplied in yard signs, posters, T-shirts or pins displaying the words "Russ, we'll miss you", or a picture of Russ Feingold.
3. A household shall be entitled under section 2) to a maximum of two previously cited items.
4. No household that has already received two previously cited items from the Pacific government under section 2) in the previous 10 years shall be entitled to the provision of section 2).


I'd like to attract the attention of Mr Pacific Justice on the fact that, as fmr Senator Feingold has been restlessly working for general welfare for the last 18 years, the We'll miss you Act can be considered as promoting the general welfare.

You're right.  Yes, this will bring closure to all those who will miss Russ, and help them deal with this loss.  I resoundingly approve this bill as constitutional.  It may be passed.



(A single tear glistens in the Justice's eye)

[Fuzzybigfoot]

People of the Pacific, I submit today a bill of primary importance :


We'll miss you Act

1. November 2th shall hereby be a mourning day known as the Russ, we'll miss you Day, in the honor of former Senator Russ Feingold.
2. During his day, any household that asks for shall be gratuitously supplied in yard signs, posters, T-shirts or pins displaying the words "Russ, we'll miss you", or a picture of Russ Feingold.
3. A household shall be entitled under section 2) to a maximum of two previously cited items.
4. No household that has already received two previously cited items from the Pacific government under section 2) in the previous 10 years shall be entitled to the provision of section 2).


I'd like to attract the attention of Mr Pacific Justice on the fact that, as fmr Senator Feingold has been restlessly working for general welfare for the last 18 years, the We'll miss you Act can be considered as promoting the general welfare.

You're right.  Yes, this will bring closure to all those who will miss Russ, and help them deal with this loss.  I resoundingly approve this bill as constitutional.  It may be passed.



(A single tear glistens in the Justice's eye)

I don't think that explanation justifies this being constitutional. This bill does not promote the general welfare as Feingold does not exist as far as Atlasia is concerned. Thus, to the people of the Pacific he has done nothing to promote general welfare, so this bill does not promote the general welfare.

I think Feingold was one of the better Dem senators, but when you consider he does not exist in Atlasia this bill seems in no way constitutional.   

I think it is, it does provide people with certain objects as well as an open day for mourning, which could be seen as welfare.  And it helps people come to terms with their loses. 

You can provide a bill which institutes a holiday, just not one that say "This day will be seen as this person's name day."  It should have some reason for why the bill is created. 

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Who is this Russ Feingold? A Senator from some alternate universe?

Maybe he was a senator of another civilization a few years before Atlasia was founded, and he disappeared recently. 

[Fuzzybigfoot]

I'm introducing this bill. I honestly can't believe this crap is on the books.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

X realisticidealist

Approved as constitutional if passed.  


Although I personally disapprove of it. 

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Pacific Freedom of Association Bill

1. No person shall be denied the right to discriminate against another person in employment or in the provision of public services, including accommodations, whether on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, or any other status outlined in statute or otherwise.
2. This law explicitly may not be interpreted to allow 'affirmative action' programs, which will remain illegal.

Pacific Protection of the Public Safety Bill

1. All statute limiting the power of the government and law enforcement to apprehend those who have consumed or are in possession of cannabis, whether for recreational, medical, or any other purpose, shall be repealed.
2. Any person found to be in possession of any amount of cannabis shall be required to serve a minimum of six months in prison, with a sentence not to exceed one-hundred years.
3. Any person found to be selling, distributing, or cultivating cannabis shall be required to serve a minimum of five years in prison, with a sentence not to exceed death.

We should also look at banning abortion, as a way of addressing the disparity between incarcerated men and women.

The Pacific Freedom of Association Bill has been ruled as unconstitutional, for it violates the government's right to "insure domestic tranquility"-(Constitution, Preamble).  Allowing verbal abuse (discrimination) in a persons legal place of employment diminishes domestic tranquility, thus the bill cannot be passed.  



The Pacific Protection of Public Safety Bill has also been ruled unconstitutional, for the bill allows for a person to be jailed to up to 100 years because of marijuana possession.  As Pacific Justice,  I officially define this sentence as a form of "cruel and unusual punishments"-(Pacific Constitution, Aricle 3, Clause 8 ).  The bill cannot be passed.    

lol

[Fuzzybigfoot]

I'd like to draw your attention to the voting on the Intra-Regional Mobility amendment. Please vote!

Personally, I'll be opposing this - it may be well-intentioned, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions - it'll clutter the registration thread, and the objections of two RGs past and present show my worries have some credibility, I think.

Constitutional.  It may be passed.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Do we have any budgetary reports on hand?  Just wondering. 

[Fuzzybigfoot]

As I searched though the archives of stature passed I found nothing concerning the ownership of weapons, which is why I wrote this bill to propose to the Legislate.  

Sorry if it sounds a bit choppy, but it's better than nothing. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Nay

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It doesn't say what kind of firearms though.

This is only banning automatic firearms, not handguns and hunting rifles. 

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Ban of Automatic Weapons Act

*signature*

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Ban of Automatic Weapons Act: Nay

Alright, well I'm of to get my gat and roll on some raggedy ass bustas.  See you homies later.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Nay

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It doesn't say what kind of firearms though.

This is only banning automatic firearms, not handguns and hunting rifles. 

Exactly, it just says fire arms. it does not not say "The right to keep and bear hand guns, air-rifles, and hunting rifles shall not be infringed, everything else is fair game to ban", it says fire-arms. Automatic weapons are by definition fire-arms, and this bill is with out doubt infringing on the right to keep and bear them, thus this bill is violating constitutional law. Sorry, but I will sue the region should it pass.

I personally dislike fire-arms myself, but people have a right to have them.

It doesn't say we can't regulate what kinds of firearms people are permitted to either.  Plus, I don't think the founding fathers had Uzi's in mind when they wrote this. 

No disrespect.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Aye

[Fuzzybigfoot]

As I searched though the archives of stature passed I found nothing concerning the ownership of weapons, which is why I wrote this bill to propose to the Legislate.  

Sorry if it sounds a bit choppy, but it's better than nothing. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Constitutional, it may be passed.