Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I would like to bring attention to the fact that Marokai's introduced Protection of Public Health Act, as well as the Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act (Although I like that name) are regional matters that should not be addressed by the federal senate.

As a citizen who cares a great deal about our regions' rights, I see this as a huge wrong on the part of Senator Marokai Blue. I hope that others that care about regional rights will agree with me on this issue. This should be left to the regions.

It doesn't matter in the slightest. The former is a matter of public health and as such is most certainly in the jurisdiction of the federal government, and the latter is simply a matter of coming to terms with the reality of our modern society and growing up.

Unless you have a reason why this is harmful it's all "regional rights" nonsense just for the sake of it.

Don't get me wrong Marokai. I have nothing against the bills themselves. I was a strong advocate for the Mideast's Public Smoking Ban and was an important part of passing that legislation, and when the subject was brought up by Peter in a private conversation, I stated I wouldn't oppose a bill lowering the purchase age of pron to 14, as I do not believe it's the goverments job to regulate that.

However this is still regional matters. If you want to introduce them in the Pacific I will be behind you to 100 %, but it's not the Senate's area to force this on the regions.

I happen to be a member of an Assembly who's job it is to work with this issues. We were elected to handle this, you were elected to handle national problems. I do not believe teens watching porn or not, is one of those national problems.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I would like to bring attention to the fact that Marokai's introduced Protection of Public Health Act, as well as the Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act (Although I like that name) are regional matters that should not be addressed by the federal senate.

As a citizen who cares a great deal about our regions' rights, I see this as a huge wrong on the part of Senator Marokai Blue. I hope that others that care about regional rights will agree with me on this issue. This should be left to the regions.

It doesn't matter in the slightest. The former is a matter of public health and as such is most certainly in the jurisdiction of the federal government, and the latter is simply a matter of coming to terms with the reality of our modern society and growing up.

Unless you have a reason why this is harmful it's all "regional rights" nonsense just for the sake of it.

Don't get me wrong Marokai. I have nothing against the bills themselves. I was a strong advocate for the Mideast's Public Smoking Ban and was an important part of passing that legislation, and when the subject was brought up by Peter in a private conversation, I stated I wouldn't oppose a bill lowering the purchase age of pron to 14, as I do not believe it's the goverments job to regulate that.

However this is still regional matters. If you want to introduce them in the Pacific I will be behind you to 100 %, but it's not the Senate's area to force this on the regions.

Since you seem to be a nice guy I'll try to be nice in my explanation back to you.

I don't think it matters. If the Senate has the authority to do it, and it's the right thing to do, then I have nothing against the Senate doing it. It's quite simple. This Senate has also passed legislation dealing with marriage, civil unions, education, among many other social issues, like drugs (Hi DWTL), and so on. We have the authority to legislate in this area.

Further, there is seemingly no test for what constitutes a regional issue and what doesn't. Is education standards and drugs a national issue, but public health from smoking is not a national issue? Why can we regulation marijuana smoking, yet not tobacco? Is marriage a national issue, but if so, why is porn consumption not?

Since there is seemingly no test for what is a regional vs. national issue, and we've rarely concerned ourselves with it in the past, and there's no stated harm for going ahead with it, I see no reason not to legislate it. If you oppose it, then push for it's repeal should you ever get to the Senate, take it to court, or try to battle it from your Assembly. Otherwise..

[Purple State]

I would like to bring attention to the fact that Marokai's introduced Protection of Public Health Act, as well as the Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act (Although I like that name) are regional matters that should not be addressed by the federal senate.

As a citizen who cares a great deal about our regions' rights, I see this as a huge wrong on the part of Senator Marokai Blue. I hope that others that care about regional rights will agree with me on this issue. This should be left to the regions.

It doesn't matter in the slightest. The former is a matter of public health and as such is most certainly in the jurisdiction of the federal government, and the latter is simply a matter of coming to terms with the reality of our modern society and growing up.

Unless you have a reason why this is harmful it's all "regional rights" nonsense just for the sake of it.

Don't get me wrong Marokai. I have nothing against the bills themselves. I was a strong advocate for the Mideast's Public Smoking Ban and was an important part of passing that legislation, and when the subject was brought up by Peter in a private conversation, I stated I wouldn't oppose a bill lowering the purchase age of pron to 14, as I do not believe it's the goverments job to regulate that.

However this is still regional matters. If you want to introduce them in the Pacific I will be behind you to 100 %, but it's not the Senate's area to force this on the regions.

Since you seem to be a nice guy I'll try to be nice in my explanation back to you.

I don't think it matters. If the Senate has the authority to do it, and it's the right thing to do, then I have nothing against the Senate doing it. It's quite simple. This Senate has also passed legislation dealing with marriage, civil unions, education, among many other social issues, like drugs (Hi DWTL), and so on. We have the authority to legislate in this area.

Further, there is seemingly no test for what constitutes a regional issue and what doesn't. Is education standards and drugs a national issue, but public health from smoking is not a national issue? Why can we regulation marijuana smoking, yet not tobacco? Is marriage a national issue, but if so, why is porn consumption not?

Since there is seemingly no test for what is a regional vs. national issue, and we've rarely concerned ourselves with it in the past, and there's no stated harm for going ahead with it, I see no reason not to legislate it. If you oppose it, then push for it's repeal should you ever get to the Senate, take it to court, or try to battle it from your Assembly. Otherwise..

I think Marokai has a fair point. There has never been a case before the Court that has dealt with what, exactly, constitutes regional jurisdiction. Because the Constitution is pretty broad in its interpretation of what the Senate may do and pretty narrow on what the regions may not do, you more often see regional legislation taken to court (the SE's currency law) than federal legislation taken to court for overstepping regional jurisdiction.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I'm glad Marokai brought up my drug bills as each one did nothing but make it not a crime to possess these drugs and allowed regions to set their own laws regarding possession, sale, and consumption

[Marokai Backbeat]

Point still stands.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Point still stands.

And I, like SC I presume, is completely on board with the idea of the bills, just not with shoving the will of the federal gov't upon different regions with different needs

[Marokai Backbeat]

Point still stands.

And I, like SC I presume, is completely on board with the idea of the bills, just not with shoving the will of the federal gov't upon different regions with different needs

I'd be willing to entertain your concerns if you explained to me how any of this was harmful, what constituted a regional issue and what didn't, what makes these different from past bills, and where we don't have the authority.

Regional rights serve only to interfere, at every opportunity, with good governing.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh C'mon Marokai. That's bulb hockey. That isn't true in real life, nor is it in Atlasia.

In real life if it weren't for State rights, there'd currently be zero states with legalized same-sex marriage, there'd be no gun control what so ever in states like New York, and a lot of other things that you like would not be exsisting in America if it weren't for state rights.

Same with Atlasia. If the conservatives ever outgrow the liberals here, and they start to introduce conservative proposals for the entire country that you disagree with, I am sure you won't think Regional rights serve only to interfere with good governing.

The main reason I am so strongly opposed to this is that I am as I stated a member of an Asembly who works with these questions. Therefore I'd be very sorry to see them taken away from us and the citizens in the Mideast, to be decided by you. You often say you do not oppose regions as some of the JCP does, but if all issues are federal issues and there are no regional issues, why do we bother having Governors, Assemblies, and regional initiatives at all?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Actually, I do favor abolishing regions now. I didn't used to, but I've come to that conclusions after having been here for almost a year now.

In any case, if we constantly catered to "states rights" we'd have never got rid of slavery, we would have legal abortions, gay sex would still be illegal, blacks couldn't vote, women would've fought longer for voting rights, prayer would still be institutionalized in schools..

[Vepres]

Actually, I do favor abolishing regions now. I didn't used to, but I've come to that conclusions after having been here for almost a year now.

In any case, if we constantly catered to "states rights" we'd have never got rid of slavery, we would have legal abortions, gay sex would still be illegal, blacks couldn't vote, women would've fought longer for voting rights, prayer would still be institutionalized in schools..

The Mideast and now the Midwest (hopefully) are very good examples of good regions. The other three just need a vigorous leader to push for new policies. Regions can explore creative things the federal government ignores.

That said, the regional Senate elections need reform so they're not so boring, though regions would need to still have some form of representation.

[DownWithTheLeft]

The Dirty South is still the premiere region, we are just being held up by a few stubborn citizens blocking the legislature.  I mean sure we had to crash a little bit after last year, but Duke remains the greatest governor in the history of Atlasia (sorry Inks )

[Filuwaúrdjan]

People are kicked out of political parties all the time outside America.

[Purple State]

This is, of course, why regional and federal rights are a balancing act, not a choice between two extremes. Swedish Cheese pointed out why regional rights can be a great thing. Marokai pointed out why federal governance can be a great thing. So rather than totally remove the power of either, it is best to have each one balance with the other.

I also must say, I suspect that for all the rhetoric Marokai, you do in ways appreciate the regions when they aren't impeding your own initiatives. You recognize the value of the regional assemblies and of having a place for new members to start off.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well I don't necessarily love regions, but if they do what I want then, hey, who's to complain?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Also I meant "wouldn't" with my last post, can't believe I missed that..

[Purple State]

NC Yank, you make the market very happy today. Financial indicators up later.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NC Yank, you make the market very happy today. Financial indicators up later.

If I recall the DOW went up 400 points when the first Tarp plan was unveiled and then it tanked 700 points when it failed in the House vote. Off course back then the DOW was still hoovering around 11,000 even when all that raucous ended in early October.

Usually I make everyone depressed, usually thats my number one goal also.

[Purple State]

NC Yank, you make the market very happy today. Financial indicators up later.

If I recall the DOW went up 400 points when the first Tarp plan was unveiled and then it tanked 700 points when it failed in the House vote. Off course back then the DOW was still hoovering around 11,000 even when all that raucous ended in early October.

Usually I make everyone depressed, usually thats my number one goal also.

I kinda lied. Up tomorrow. Your bill came out after the markets closed. But overnight futures say good things.

[Bacon King]

A Senator should probably introduce this.

Senate Rules Correction Resolution

1. Article VIII, Section 1, Clause 2 is amended to the following:

"2. Any Senator shall have seventy-two (72) hours from such a public statement by the PPT and the President of the Senate to call for a resolution in the Senate to overrule the PPT and the President of the Senate in the use of powers designated by Clause 1 of this Article, if any Senator considers their decision to be on infringement of the intention of this resolution."

2. Article VIII, Section 1, Clause 3 is amended to the following:

"3. If this resolution passes by a two-thirds (2/3) vote in the affirmative (excluding the PPT), this joint action by the PPT and the President of the Senate shall be overruled."

3. Article IX, Section 1, Clause 2 is amended to the following:

"2. Following the swearing in of the new Senate at the beginning of each Session, the President of the Senate shall open a thread in the Fantasy Government board for Senators to announce their candidacy for the position of PPT. This thread shall be further known in this document as the PPT Candidacy Declaration Thread and shall be open for forty-eight (48) hours for Senators to declare their candidacy for the position."

4. Article IX, Section 1, Clause 3 is amended to the following:

"3. After forty-eight (48) hours, the PPT Candidacy Declaration Thread shall be closed and a vote on the election of the new PPT shall be opened in a new thread by the President of the Senate. This vote shall last for a maximum of five (5) days during which time the Senators must vote. Any and all Senators who do not vote will be considered to have abstained."

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A Senator should probably introduce this.

Senate Rules Correction Resolution

1. Article VIII, Section 1, Clause 2 is amended to the following:

"2. Any Senator shall have seventy-two (72) hours from such a public statement by the PPT and the President of the Senate to call for a resolution in the Senate to overrule the PPT and the President of the Senate in the use of powers designated by Clause 1 of this Article, if any Senator considers their decision to be on infringement of the intention of this resolution."

2. Article VIII, Section 1, Clause 3 is amended to the following:

"3. If this resolution passes by a two-thirds (2/3) vote in the affirmative (excluding the PPT), this joint action by the PPT and the President of the Senate shall be overruled."

3. Article IX, Section 1, Clause 2 is amended to the following:

"2. Following the swearing in of the new Senate at the beginning of each Session, the President of the Senate shall open a thread in the Fantasy Government board for Senators to announce their candidacy for the position of PPT. This thread shall be further known in this document as the PPT Candidacy Declaration Thread and shall be open for forty-eight (48) hours for Senators to declare their candidacy for the position."

4. Article IX, Section 1, Clause 3 is amended to the following:

"3. After forty-eight (48) hours, the PPT Candidacy Declaration Thread shall be closed and a vote on the election of the new PPT shall be opened in a new thread by the President of the Senate. This vote shall last for a maximum of five (5) days during which time the Senators must vote. Any and all Senators who do not vote will be considered to have abstained."

Its taken care of.

[Bacon King]

Much thanks!

[afleitch]

Senator Marokai's Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act;

1. All individuals 14 years of age or older shall have the right to buy, possess, and view pornography depicting only persons of 18 years of age or older

May be, for good or bad, unecessary due to the Liberalisation of Sex Laws Act

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Liberalization_of_Sex_Laws_Act

[MaxQue]

Senator Marokai's Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act;

1. All individuals 14 years of age or older shall have the right to buy, possess, and view pornography depicting only persons of 18 years of age or older

May be, for good or bad, unecessary due to the Liberalisation of Sex Laws Act

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Liberalization_of_Sex_Laws_Act

Obviously, unecessary bill. Marokai, please withdraw that bill to no lose our time, thanks.

[Franzl]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senator Marokai's Bow Chicka Bow Wow Act;

1. All individuals 14 years of age or older shall have the right to buy, possess, and view pornography depicting only persons of 18 years of age or older

May be, for good or bad, unecessary due to the Liberalisation of Sex Laws Act

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Liberalization_of_Sex_Laws_Act

Obviously, unecessary bill. Marokai, please withdraw that bill to no lose our time, thanks.

When I was digging through the statutes on the wiki a few days ago I noticed that disgusting piece of trash. Time to repeal or amend it if you ask me.