Mideast Assembly Thread

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Hello!
I'm going to try and get active on here. What can I do?

Hello, Bayh

Welcome to the Mideast Assembly Thread. If you have any ideas on a bill that you would like the Assembly to work on with you are debate, just post it. I believe we have one bill in the queue(I think I spelled that right). But we will be glad to work with you on any bill or idea you have.

Is there a list of bills that are currently in the queue?
And how serious are the bills? Can you introduce major things (such as a ban on abortion), or is it silly things (banning llama's from restraunts).
And can anyone vote, or only, assembleymen?

Only assemblymen, obviously.

Anyway, they actually passed an abortion ban recently (which is actually more lenient than I would prefer but still).

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I introduce some amendments to the smoking bill.

The Public Smoking Act
1. It shall be illegal for any citizen of the Mideast to smoke in a public area.
2. If a person is found guilty of smoking in public areas, then that person shall be fined no less than a hundred dollars and no more than five hundred dollars.
3. Smoking in private areas shall not be affected by the passage of this Act.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're right it does. *facepalm* I'll change it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A resturant is open to the public as anyone can walk in to a resturant sit down and order a meal. Businesses, well shops and stores would be subject to this law, but an office were only the workers are allowed in would not since not anyone can just walk in there.

I know it's a bit poorly worded in the bill, I'll change it as well. 

I'd like to amend the bill to read:

1. It shall be illegal in the Mideast, for a person to smoke inside buildings and establishments open to the public, such as bars, restaurants, public transporting, cinemas, and libraries.
2. If a person is found guilty of smoking in public areas, then that person shall be fined no less than a hundred dollars and no more than five hundred dollars.
3. Smoking inside buildings that are not open to the public, shall not be affected by the passage of this Act.

Is it better?

The following bill is placed in the queue.

Xth Constitutional Amendment

Article IV, Section 1, Clause 7 is amended to read:

In order to be a candidate on the ballot, a candidate must declare their candidacy at least two days before the election.

I support this amendment.

I agree with everything said by JOHN91043353 here.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

There is a problem with the bill; as it stands now, it is possible that a person is not in a building or establishment open to the public, yet he is smoking in public.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Well if we were to do that then smokers could simply get out of the building and go smoke outside, thereby simply moving public smoking from one place to another instead of really eliminating it. I think that we should amend the bill as follows:

Section 1 is amended to read "It shall be illegal in the Mideast for a person to smoke inside any area, building or establishment open to the public, including but not limited to parks, bars, restaurants, public transportation, cinemas, and libraries."

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Aye.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Abstain.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Aye.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I support this.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Aye.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I urge the Governor to veto the bill if passed.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Why are meters used, anyway? They're not familiar to most residents.

^^^^

The customary system ought to be used instead.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I don't think we have a Gypsy problem in the Mideast.

Clearly you've never met Al.

You mean "Al Widdershins", aka Realpolitik?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I oppose the bill that Peter proposed, and urge the Governor to veto it in the event that it passes.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I oppose the bill that Peter proposed, and urge the Governor to veto it in the event that it passes.

I'm very intrested to hear your argument as to why this is so horrible?

I will most likely support this bill. As I see it, the most effective way we can bring down unwanted pregnacies and sexual diseases are to make people use condoms and other barrier contraception. If we can bring down the number of unwanted pregnancies, we will also bring down the number of abortions, which I think is vital as I do not think highly of abortion. One of the biggest part to make people, especially teens and young adults, to use protection is to make it more available. Therefore I'm very positive to this legislations. I'd very much like to hear the opposition's point of view before I completely make up my mind though.

I oppose this because I don't want to pay for somebody else's birth control--let's face it, nothing is really "free". If someone wants to get birth control, they ought to PAY for it, and not expect to get it for "free" at the taxpayer's expense. Not to mention that, as Franzl said, it does encourage immoral behavior.

By the way, what does Peter consider a "reasonable" amount of contraception?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Hey guys, decided to move here.

Pacific region is mostly none moving and the Mideast here seems pretty fast and up to date.

Welcome to the region!

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I urge Governor Inks to veto the bill.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I object to the vote currently taking place.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I object to the vote currently taking place.

On what grounds?

Constitutional grounds. The governor is allowed a week to sign or veto, and the bill has already passed on September the eighth.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

If so, I stand corrected. I did not realize that that was the bill being discussed.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I thank Inks.LWC for making the right decision.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

That is too bad. Not that you intend to step down--but that you intend to leave Atlasia and the forum completely.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Five years is too long in my opinion.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Of course, we need to do something.

My problem is that only one judge isn't much and that it's better to have 3 of them to get more balanced judgements.
But I know there may be not enough active Mideasterners.

It may be hard to have non-Mideasterners as judges (not more than 2 out of 3 though). I'm not saying I'm in favour of this, but I'd like to debate on this because it's worth it and collective intelligence is better...
To begin with, it may be argued that it would be better to have 1 or 2 outsiders to get impartial judgements.

That isn't the only problem. It also doesn't make sense, if you consider that the Supreme Court itself has only three members.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Further I think that having people from other regions as Mideast judges, although well intentioned, wouldn't be a good idea. It's somewhat like the Supreme Court having someone who is not an Atlasian citizen.