Whaling Bill

[Democratic Hawk]

JerusalemCar's amendment is abhorrent.  This amendment allows "Alaska natives" to hunt and kill up to forty whales annually.  When I proposed the original legislation to the Senate I sought to address the fact that we currently allow whaling only if you are an Eskimo.  I do not support race-based exemptions from our law code, and thus, support either allowing persons of any ancestry or ethnicity to hunt whales or allow no one at all (obviously I prefer the latter).  JerusalemCar's amendment, with its vague "Alaska native" descriptor, is entirely opposite to what the original bill stood for.

I have no problem with crafting national security and good samaritan exceptions, nor do I have a problem with changing the abolition of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission to a removal of the delegation of powers that it has to authorize whaling.  But JerusalemCar's amendment does not address the problems involved with our current legality of whaling.  In other words, I cannot see myself signing this legislation should the amendment pass.

Well, once again, I appreciate you advising the Senate of your intentions and you raise reasonable concerns; therefore, I change my vote to Nay on the amendment. I support the Bill in principle because I oppose commercial whaling

I still intend to propose an amendment that would increase the maximum penalty, but have decided to limit it to fines

'Hawk'

[Јas]

Whilest I'm in favour of clause 2, I agree with the President's views on clause 1. Therefore, I vote Nay on the amendment.

[MasterJedi]

This amendment has failed.

[Democratic Hawk]

I, hereby, propose the following amendment (amendments in green ):

3. The intentional killing of a whale for hunting purposes shall be punishable by a maximum fine of $30,000 , a maximum of three years in prison, enviro-centric community service, or any combination of these.

I'd like to think it may be more of a deterrent. I think the other penalties are reasonable enough

'Hawk'

[MasterJedi]

I hereby open up the vote on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

The bill is re-written to read:

1. The practice of commercial whaling shall be hereby decriminalized in Atlasian waters. No penalties shall be levied for violations of any Atlasian law or international law or treaty.

[MasterJedi]

Nay

[Virginian87]

Nay.

[ilikeverin]

Nope

[Јas]

Nay

[Democratic Hawk]

Nay

'Hawk'

[Jake]

Aye

[WMS]

Nay on JCar's amendment, FTR, because of the President's concerns.

Nay on Jake's amendment.

[MasterJedi]

This amendment has failed.

[jerusalemcar5]

I thought I would point out, I copied the phrase "Alaska natives" from the actual law that stands.  If anyone was foolish, I dare say stupid, enough to challenge it, the Court would strike down their claim.

Anyways, of course I vote NAY on Jake's amendment.

[Democratic Hawk]

I thought I would point out, I copied the phrase "Alaska natives" from the actual law that stands.  If anyone was foolish, I dare say stupid, enough to challenge it, the Court would strike down their claim.

It might have been a good idea if you had you pointed that out in the first instance . I must admit the subject of whaling, and the issues which relate to it, are not my forte

'Hawk'

[jerusalemcar5]

I thought I would point out, I copied the phrase "Alaska natives" from the actual law that stands.  If anyone was foolish, I dare say stupid, enough to challenge it, the Court would strike down their claim.

It might have been a good idea if you had you pointed that out in the first instance . I must admit the subject of whaling, and the issues which relate to it, are not my forte

'Hawk'

Sadly this is my first instance of internet access in Boston so I just saw that after.  After Lewis posted the comment about the treaty and ernest posted his ideas I did some research and forumalted my amendment.  Wikipedia was very informational.  I also googled US law and found all those exemeptions in the actual law regarding whaling and saw no legitimate reason to change them.

[Democratic Hawk]

I thought I would point out, I copied the phrase "Alaska natives" from the actual law that stands.  If anyone was foolish, I dare say stupid, enough to challenge it, the Court would strike down their claim.

It might have been a good idea if you had you pointed that out in the first instance . I must admit the subject of whaling, and the issues which relate to it, are not my forte

'Hawk'

Sadly this is my first instance of internet access in Boston so I just saw that after.  After Lewis posted the comment about the treaty and ernest posted his ideas I did some research and forumalted my amendment.  Wikipedia was very informational.  I also googled US law and found all those exemeptions in the actual law regarding whaling and saw no legitimate reason to change them.

Fair enough. I, of course, being none the wiser noted the concerns the President raised with it and his intention to veto the final Bill because of such and changed my vote accordingly. Being a supporter of the original, but sympathetic to your amendment, I'm keen for the Bill to pass and be signed into Law

Should similar kind of circumstances happen again, I'll look further into it myself

'Hawk'

[Jake]

Another amendment:

3. The intentional killing of a whale, with the exception of reasons stated above, shall be punishable by a maximum fine of $1, a maximum of one day in prison, enviro-centric community service, or any combination of these.

[Ebowed]

I thought I would point out, I copied the phrase "Alaska natives" from the actual law that stands.

The problem is that Alaska natives are exempt from anti-whaling laws but no one else is.  While the phrase is vague and stupid, that's not the main problem here, and it doesn't change my concerns with your amendment.

[minionofmidas]

JerusalemCar's amendment is abhorrent.  This amendment allows "Alaska natives" to hunt and kill up to forty whales annually.  When I proposed the original legislation to the Senate I sought to address the fact that we currently allow whaling only if you are an Eskimo.  I do not support race-based exemptions from our law code, and thus, support either allowing persons of any ancestry or ethnicity to hunt whales or allow no one at all (obviously I prefer the latter). 

Why, exactly, is that obvious?

If you do not support a "race-based exemption" (although it's debatable whether that's what this is. Non-Alaskan American Indians are not allowed to whale either.) but want to avoid pointlessly destroying an already endangered way of life that's harming noone, how about a bill that allowed all rural coastal Alaskans to whale, provided that the dead whale parts (not just meat) are only sold and consumed locally?

If you fear that this might lead to too many whales being hunted, you could maybe throw in something about it having to be eaten raw.

[Virginian87]

Another amendment:

3. The intentional killing of a whale for hunting purposes shall be punishable by a maximum fine of $1, a maximum of one day in prison, enviro-centric community service, or any combination of these.

This amendment is ridiculous.  You seem to have no concern for the environment.  I suggest you withdraw this bill because I guarantee it will not pass.  At this point, you're just wasting the Senate's time.

[Jake]

You seem to have no concern for the environment.

Correct. I care very little for the survival of a whale species, especially when it can be cloned if re-population is necessary.

[MasterJedi]

Just so Jake can't try and delay this as well: I motion for a cloture vote after Jake's other amendment vote is done.

[Jake]

Under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 4, I motion to keep debate on Hawk's amendment open for another 48 hours.

[MasterJedi]

I hereby open up the vote on this motion. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 4, I motion to keep debate on Hawk's amendment open for another 48 hours.