Enumerated Powers Resolution (Tabled)

[MasterJedi]

Enumerated Powers Resolution

Article III, Section 2, Clause 6 shall be inserted into the OSPR to read: Any Senator introducing legislation into the Senate floor shall cite the section in the Constitution that allows this legislation in the legislation.
Spon: Sen. NC Yankee

[Marokai Backbeat]

Unnecessary paranoid junk. It's not like this Senate routinely passes unconstitutional legislation unless you're a conspiracy nut. If someone questions the constitutionality of legislation they can sue.

[afleitch]

Putting my 'game hat' on for this one

I have reservations about this bill and indeed any change which would impact upon gameplay in general. I feel that it would be unhelpful to have the Senate spend its time on debating whether or not a bill is constitutional; that is the job of the Courts should a case be made to them. I also feel that this could put people 'off' proposing legislation for fear of it being 'without basis' and then having to argue in favour or against it.

Not all of us have a grounding in law or constitutional law for that matter This game is a government and election sim with a legal side represented in our court system which has been, relatively and thankfully busy of late.

I don't feel there is a benefit in putting off potential Senators or candidates who don't feel 'qualified' enough to argue on constitutional law. It changes the game and I don't think for the better.

[Purple State]

I agree with all that's been said thus far.

Motion to table.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I agree with all that's been said thus far.

Motion to table.

Seconded.

[Fritz]

I also concur with all that has been said.

[afleitch]

I would like to add that I still think the bill warrants discussion and would especially like to hear from inside or outside the Senate on the benefits of this bill.

[Purple State]

I would like to add that I still think the bill warrants discussion and would especially like to hear from inside or outside the Senate on the benefits of this bill.

This matter has been discussed at length in the other board. We can have it again here, but it would just be regurgitating those points and opening old wounds.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am leaning towards opposing this. My main reasons for introducing it was cause I promised that I would introduce any sensible legislation brought to my attention, whether I opposed or supported it, by a citizen of the Dirty South.

[Vepres]

We have courts for a reason. Pointless bill that will make the Senate inefficient.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This is just an example of the delightful bills we can expect if we elect SPC to the Senate

[SPC]

I just think that this is a simple method to ensure the Constitutionality of the legislation. The resolution doesn't require the justification to withstand legal challenge, it just have to be a plausible justification for the bill. I would say that if you can't give a simple justification for the bill that doesn't even have to be debated in the Senate, it's clearly unconstitutional and you shouldn't be proposing it.

[tmthforu94]

I agree with this...

Unnecessary paranoid junk. It's not like this Senate routinely passes unconstitutional legislation unless you're a conspiracy nut. If someone questions the constitutionality of legislation they can sue.

[Purple State]

I just think that this is a simple method to ensure the Constitutionality of the legislation. The resolution doesn't require the justification to withstand legal challenge, it just have to be a plausible justification for the bill. I would say that if you can't give a simple justification for the bill that doesn't even have to be debated in the Senate, it's clearly unconstitutional and you shouldn't be proposing it.

Aside from the obvious issues, a bigger question is, what enforcement mechanism would ensure that this was actually abided by?

I think this sort of requirement adds unnecessary burdens and complexity to the legislative process. I have no interest in passing provisions that discourage members from running for the Senate.

[SPC]

I just think that this is a simple method to ensure the Constitutionality of the legislation. The resolution doesn't require the justification to withstand legal challenge, it just have to be a plausible justification for the bill. I would say that if you can't give a simple justification for the bill that doesn't even have to be debated in the Senate, it's clearly unconstitutional and you shouldn't be proposing it.

Aside from the obvious issues, a bigger question is, what enforcement mechanism would ensure that this was actually abided by?

I think this sort of requirement adds unnecessary burdens and complexity to the legislative process. I have no interest in passing provisions that discourage members from running for the Senate.

The same enforcement mechanism that enforces the rest of the Senate rules.

[Purple State]

I just think that this is a simple method to ensure the Constitutionality of the legislation. The resolution doesn't require the justification to withstand legal challenge, it just have to be a plausible justification for the bill. I would say that if you can't give a simple justification for the bill that doesn't even have to be debated in the Senate, it's clearly unconstitutional and you shouldn't be proposing it.

Aside from the obvious issues, a bigger question is, what enforcement mechanism would ensure that this was actually abided by?

I think this sort of requirement adds unnecessary burdens and complexity to the legislative process. I have no interest in passing provisions that discourage members from running for the Senate.

The same enforcement mechanism that enforces the rest of the Senate rules.

I don't believe we have any such rules on the books, so this would be creating restrictions beyond anything the Senate currently has.

[SPC]

I just think that this is a simple method to ensure the Constitutionality of the legislation. The resolution doesn't require the justification to withstand legal challenge, it just have to be a plausible justification for the bill. I would say that if you can't give a simple justification for the bill that doesn't even have to be debated in the Senate, it's clearly unconstitutional and you shouldn't be proposing it.

Aside from the obvious issues, a bigger question is, what enforcement mechanism would ensure that this was actually abided by?

I think this sort of requirement adds unnecessary burdens and complexity to the legislative process. I have no interest in passing provisions that discourage members from running for the Senate.

The same enforcement mechanism that enforces the rest of the Senate rules.

I don't believe we have any such rules on the books, so this would be creating restrictions beyond anything the Senate currently has.

What do you think the OSPR is if not rules for the Senate?

[SPC]

I think this sort of requirement adds unnecessary burdens and complexity to the legislative process. I have no interest in passing provisions that discourage members from running for the Senate.

It's not like the Constitution was written in heiroglyphics. It's easily accessible right here. How hard could it possibly be to give a reasonable constitutional justification for legislation before proposing it?

[Purple State]

I just think that this is a simple method to ensure the Constitutionality of the legislation. The resolution doesn't require the justification to withstand legal challenge, it just have to be a plausible justification for the bill. I would say that if you can't give a simple justification for the bill that doesn't even have to be debated in the Senate, it's clearly unconstitutional and you shouldn't be proposing it.

Aside from the obvious issues, a bigger question is, what enforcement mechanism would ensure that this was actually abided by?

I think this sort of requirement adds unnecessary burdens and complexity to the legislative process. I have no interest in passing provisions that discourage members from running for the Senate.

The same enforcement mechanism that enforces the rest of the Senate rules.

I don't believe we have any such rules on the books, so this would be creating restrictions beyond anything the Senate currently has.

What do you think the OSPR is if not rules for the Senate?

Operating procedures of the Senate are there for clarity and to provide an easily repeated formula to allow for bills to be easily introduced, amended and voted on.

This amendment to the OSPR is unprecedented and burdensome. It will dissuade rising stars, perhaps more familiar with regional constitutional restrictions than national, from running for Senate and being forced to become instant constitutional scholars. This is far too restrictive and would discourage more complex legislation. We have a Supreme Court for a reason.

[SPC]

Operating procedures of the Senate are there for clarity and to provide an easily repeated formula to allow for bills to be easily introduced, amended and voted on.

This amendment to the OSPR is unprecedented and burdensome. It will dissuade rising stars, perhaps more familiar with regional constitutional restrictions than national, from running for Senate and being forced to become instant constitutional scholars. This is far too restrictive and would discourage more complex legislation. We have a Supreme Court for a reason.

Nothing's preventing them from becoming more familiar with our Constitution. It's only a click away and not long. This legislation doesn't reuire them to become "instant constitutional scholars", only to provide a decent justification for their bills. Isn't the point of the Constitution to set restrictions on what the Senate can and cannot pass? The Supreme Court is supposed to be the final judge on constitutional matters, not the first and only. The existance of the Supreme Court does not absolved the Senate of all responsiblity for making sure their bills are consistant with the Constitution. What is the point of swearing an oath to protect the Cosntitution every two months if you don't take it serious enough to so much as looking at the Constitution?

[SPC]

Since many seem to be complaining about this reducing activity, how about amending it like this:

Enumerated Powers Resolution

Article III, Section 2, Clause 6 shall be inserted into the OSPR to read: Any Senator introducing legislation into the Senate floor shall cite the section in the Constitution that allows this legislation in the legislation. If the Senator sponsoring the legislation does not do this, another Senator may do so for him or her.

[Хahar 🤔]

SPC, why don't you just ask? I'm sure Senators would be happy to give it. If they don't, sue: the judiciary could use some work.

[Purple State]

Since many seem to be complaining about this reducing activity, how about amending it like this:

Enumerated Powers Resolution

Article III, Section 2, Clause 6 shall be inserted into the OSPR to read: Any Senator introducing legislation into the Senate floor shall cite the section in the Constitution that allows this legislation in the legislation. If the Senator sponsoring the legislation does not do this, another Senator may do so for him or her.

Honestly, it just seems like an attempt to grand stand. This sort of amendment to the OSPR is unnecessary and I can't think of a single added benefit to adding this in. Will it reduce the (already low) number of court cases brought against legislation viewed as unconstitutional? Surely not. It will just be something for senators to BS, an added burden to passing necessary legislation, while not having any productive impact.

I agree with Xahar here. If you or any other citizen has a problem with legislation the Senate passes, feel free to publicly or privately question the constitutionality of the bill and challenge laws in court. Nothing is stopping you.

[Fritz]

We do debate the constitutionality of legislation introduced in the Senate.  Case in point, the LGB Dignity bill was challenged for its constitutionality, and therefore amended (basically re-written).  This resolution is not necessary.

[Vepres]

We do debate the constitutionality of legislation introduced in the Senate.  Case in point, the LGB Dignity bill was challenged for its constitutionality, and therefore amended (basically re-written).  This resolution is not necessary.

Yeah, blatantly unconstitutional bills will be amended or killed during debate, while ones that aren't so obvious will probably be brought to court at some point.