Sublimation Act [LAW'D]

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm going to continue my tradition of complaining about laws concerning party organization because I don't view it as a proper place to butt in, and by questioning the constitutionality of this Act.

We define a party as a group of five members with the same title. Even if individuals wanted to remain a member of this party, they would be prevented to for no reason. It shouldn't matter if a majority of members or the leadership wants to dissolve the party if there are enough people who want to continue the party name.

If a party is dissolved, and a member specifically registers again with the exact same name, would that mean that individual is prohibited from remaining in the party? If not, what is the point of this law to begin with? Someone's desire to be in a party called the "Democratic Alliance" would be overruled by some silly party vote on dissolving itself and people would be forced to go independent? Why? How can you justify that?

If someone wishes to keep the label or doesn't consider it important enough to re-register, there is no justification as to why their desires to take a party label of their choice should be completely disregarded just for some teensy little convenience.

I don't like this at all. I don't like overriding individual's own desires in party matters nor do I like granting parties certain Senate-sanctioned power to restrict the free will of the citizens. Of course, this will surely pass, regardless of what I think, because everyone loves the idea of giving parties more and more power at the expense of others.

[Marokai Backbeat]

How about if people wanted to stay in that party, they could just re-join it after becoming Independent?

That makes it more reasonable I suppose but also makes the bill a bit pointless if people could just immediately re-register in the old party name.

[Marokai Backbeat]

All reasonable posts here.

But I at least think it should be pointed out in the Act that individuals will be free to reregister in the old party's name is they want to after it's been dissolved. Just a simple one-line-clause will be fine and will clear it up.

[Marokai Backbeat]

All reasonable posts here.

But I at least think it should be pointed out in the Act that individuals will be free to reregister in the old party's name is they want to after it's been dissolved. Just a simple one-line-clause will be fine and will clear it up.

That was the intent, but I would accept an amendment specifying that.

I'm a bit wet behind the ears still on official procedure - may I offer an amendment to my own bill or does another Senator have to do that?

If you offer an amendment to your own bill it's interpreted as a friendly amendment, meaning that it's automatically the case after 24 hours unless someone objects.

I suggest the following: "4. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing individuals from re-registering under their previously dissolved party name should they choose to do so."

[Marokai Backbeat]

Oh, bizarre. I looked at this thread last night and I thought I read BK had officially presented it to PS already, but that clearly was not the case. I need to read more closely

This bill has officially passed and I now present to to the President for his "supreme executive judgment."